marg wrote: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."
The same thing could be said about the way that Mopologists use the term "anti-Mormon."
marg wrote: First Scratch doesn't need to portray him as a Peeping Tom, he portrays himself as such.
.
Thank you, marg. Although I have frequently disagreed with your points and your method(s), I appreciate your straightforwardness here. I in no way meant to "portray" DCP as a "Peeping Tom." I simply reacted, on a gut level, to what he'd said about prying into the sexual lives of his parishioners. Frankly, I found it creepy and disquieting.
Thank you, marg. Although I have frequently disagreed with your points and your method(s), I appreciate your straightforwardness here. I in no way meant to "portray" DCP as a "Peeping Tom." I simply reacted, on a gut level, to what he'd said about prying into the sexual lives of his parishioners. Frankly, I found it creepy and disquieting.
Scratch are you LDS? Even marginally so? Active, not active or Ex? You do not need to answer of course. But if you are you are as familiar with the confessional process in the LDS Church as I am. You know as well as I that most bishops are decent and kind in their approach and do not pry nor take glee is listening to confessions. Indeed it is one of their most difficult jobs as a bishop. Nothing Dan wrote is much different than what any other decent bishop does in humbly attempting to bless the lives of their flock. Nothing.
So do you find every bishop who listens to confessions as part of their call creepy and disquieting or is this just another chance to smear Dan Peterson?
marg wrote: 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?
There is a major difference between people choosing to do something versus people being mentally manipulated via thought reform processses to the point that they fear or have extreme guilt for not doing what they are told. Especially when the thought reform is about having to wear particular underwear. How ridiculous can it get?
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.
No Harmony this is a very good example. It is because it's so ridiculous that it is very telling. That that you complain about wearing garments yet continue to wear them indicates how manipulated and controlled you are.
You are absolutely right, it's a small thing, it's friggin underwear.
marg wrote: First Scratch doesn't need to portray him as a Peeping Tom, he portrays himself as such.
.
Thank you, marg. Although I have frequently disagreed with your points and your method(s), I appreciate your straightforwardness here. I in no way meant to "portray" DCP as a "Peeping Tom." I simply reacted, on a gut level, to what he'd said about prying into the sexual lives of his parishioners. Frankly, I found it creepy and disquieting.
Thanks for the clarification Scratch, I was addressing his words. I also found his dialogue very creepy and if he's willing to divulge that much it would seem to me he prys much than that short dialogue indicated.
Scratch has demonstrated via years of posting that smearing me is a defining commitment for him.
By contrast, I'm aware of literally nothing, not one thing, that he has ever said in any post, anywhere, that would suggest that he's a believing and communicant Latter-day Saint.
So smearing me for attempting to do my job as a bishop -- a job that I did not seek, and for which I receive no compensation -- is merely par for his course.
I suspect, whatever he may say, that his level of loyalty to the Church is roughly comparable to marg's. No wonder they see eye to eye on this matter.
marg wrote:There is a major difference between people choosing to do something versus people being mentally manipulated via thought reform processses to the point that they fear or have extreme guilt for not doing what they are told. Especially when the thought reform is about having to wear particular underwear. How ridiculous can it get?
Only those who go through the temple wear garments. Not everyone chooses to go through the temple (males have to hold the higher priesthood), though most eventually do at some stage. If a ward has 300 members but only 100 active, likely none of the 200 inactive will bother to wear garments, even though many of them will have gone through the temple.
If they choose to reactivate, no bishop will force them to go to the temple, nor wear their garments. It's not Relativity Theory.
Daniel Peterson wrote:So smearing me for attempting to do my job as a bishop -- a job that I did not seek, and for which I receive no compensation -- is merely par for his course.
Then don't do it, you aren't doing anyone any favors by prying into their sex lives.