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

[_marg]

Based on my personal experience that does not describe the confessional experience in the LDS Church. When you have actually observed it then you will realize how silly it is to relate the above to it. As you have no experience with it we will let you plead ignorance.

DCP described his techniques:

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.

First Scratch doesn't need to portray him as a Peeping Tom, he portrays himself as such.

Second he doesn't need to know any person's private sex practices.

You have no idea how disgusting his description of his interview sounds. If I had teens I would never have allowed them to be subjected to something like this. As an example, I had a son who was bullied in school. In elementary school I wouldn't allow the psychologist at the time to counsel my son because after questioning her I appreciated how inept she was and that she blamed the victim more than the perpetrators so I asked for outside professional counseling. The same in high school when a vice principal indicated to me he lacked the ability to deal with bullying situations, I wouldn't allow him to address my son on that. Later Columbine occurred and the way schools dealt with bullying was very different, not only did they take it more seriously, but so did the police. Before Columbine there was a tendancy to deal with it, with the least amount of work possible and little done to stop perpetrators.

Just because someone claims authority does not mean they have the expertise, nor the best interests of those they question and counsel. In DCP's case his interest is not the individuals but perpetuation of a cult mentality. And to some extent he sounds like a peeping tom, as I'm sure many men are in the position of Bishop.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In DCP's case his interest is not the individuals but perpetuation of a cult mentality.

Once again, I suggest, based on my argument in Offenders for a Word, that marg cannot supply a coherent, useful, and substantive definition for the term cult that would justify her use of it here. Which means that her use of it here is, quite literally, meaningless.

And, once again, I point out that she does not have, because she cannot have, the evidence that would demonstrate that my real interest is in "perpetuation of a cult mentality" rather than in serving the individuals I've been called to serve.

And to some extent he sounds like a peeping tom, as I'm sure many men are in the position of Bishop.

That's why I sought the position so shamelessly! And they're going to have to pry me from my office when the time is up.

Twenty-plus hours of uncompensated service each week is a small price to pay for the privilege!

[_marg]

I think the issue is not so much on what exactly is a definition of a cult, but whether or not an organization uses thought reform tactics common to cults as a means to manipulate and control members. And any organization which can get its members to wear ugly uncomfortable underwear to the point that members actually fear not obeying, and when there is no benefit or necessity to so so, and much better alternatives available..has got to be a cult. There is little other possible explanation, that can account for people doing the most ridiculous things and yet fear not doing them as well. That "underwear" issue speaks volumes about Mormonism. It speaks volumes about the human animal and how stupid it can be sometimes.

[_harmony]

There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be manipulated and controlled mentally to fear not wearing sanctioned underwear.

The level of your misunderstanding is just astounding, marg.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think the issue is not so much on what exactly is a definition of a cult, but whether or not an organization uses thought reform tactics common to cults as a means to manipulate and control members. And any organization which can get its members to wear ugly uncomfortable underwear to the point that members actually fear not obeying and doing so, and when there is no benefit or necessity to so so, and much better alternatives available..has got to be a cult. There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be manipulated and controlled mentally to fear not wearing sanctioned underwear.

Unless and until you can define cult in a coherent way, none of the above means anything at all.

Consider this:

"I think the issue is not so much on what exactly is a definition of a fillogrobzuweerd, but whether or not an organization uses tactics common to fillogrobzuweerds as a means to accomplish its goals. And any organization which can get its members to do something of which I disapprove has got to be a fillogrobzuweerd. There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be persuaded to do something of which I disapprove."

[_harmony]

4. Daniel... bless his heart...

I know you've said he must love you, but it appears to be the other way around.

Uhhh.. of course he loves me; I return the favor. We're commanded to love all of God's children. Sometimes he doesn't like me very much, but that's based on the full moon.




ad

[_marg]

And any organization which can get its members to do something of which I disapprove has got to be a fillogrobzuweerd. There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be persuaded to do something of which I disapprove."

It's not a matter of disapproval. I don't care what underwear people wear. It's a a matter of compliance indicating followers are being mentally controlled via a process of thought reform as Lifton described. Anyone who wasn't mentally controlled would not wear Mormon garments 24/7. That's pretty obvious to objective observers.

[_Jason Bourne]

DCP described his techniques:

Actually that was my example. I

First Scratch doesn't need to portray him as a Peeping Tom, he portrays himself as such.

Hardly.

Second he doesn't need to know any person's private sex practices.

That is simply your opinion. In the LDS Church as in other Christian traditions there is this idea that certain sexual activity is sinful and should be confesses to a priest, bishop or minister. The idea is it helps the person shed themselves of guilt associated with the sin and to seek counsel from someone they trust to help in changing some behavior.

I know in your humanistic view of the world you think the sex is quite fine and not a sin and you are entitled to view it that way. You may be right and you may be wrong. But it does not make this abusive at all.

You have no idea how disgusting his description of his interview sounds.

To you perhaps. To others it can be the start of the repentance process that they view important and even essential.

If I had teens I would never have allowed them to be subjected to something like this.

I am happy to allow you the ability to make that decision. Many persons of faith feel very differently than you do and can use the process as a healing and even therapeutic process.

Just because someone claims authority does not mean they have the expertise, nor the best interests of those they question and counsel.

And because someone thinks some process like this is foolish and even cultic based on little or no experience or faith in their life does not make their conclusion accurate.

In DCP's case his interest is not the individuals but perpetuation of a cult mentality.

Or horse crap. How can you conclude that? You don't know the man. I have it on good authority-real life experience marg-that DCP and other bishops mean only good in helping people through a difficult but what they and the church member believes is an important part of repentance. I know such a concept is foreign to you and you scorn people and things of faith. But for millions and millions over the years this process has helped them.

And to some extent he sounds like a peeping tom, as I'm sure many men are in the position of Bishop.

And I am sure you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The more you write the more convinced I am of that.

[_Jason Bourne]

An interesting side note.

I notes that Marg has no reference by which to judge or condemn the process of the LDS Church selection of bishops. I will note that Marg has really ignore that and deflected answering this plain and simple fact which if she did would destroy her condescension and ridiculous comments. Instead as seems typical of her tactics, she has tossed out another line to argue, that of cult like behaviors and so on.

Simple and pure deflection.

[_harmony]

Anyone who wasn't mentally controlled would not wear Mormon garments 24/7. That's pretty obvious to objective observers.

You realize, of course, that it's possible to buy underthings that look a great deal like garments in any department store, right? Panties with boy-style legs, camisoles, etc... right? White? Lacy? Silkie?

Good grief, marg. There are lots of better examples of control in the church than garments. Lots. I'm sure if you study us enough, you'll discover them... eventually.