Eric.

[_Paul Osborne]

Being a "good bishop" to Bishop Dan is finding out in a TRI whether you masturbate and what sexual position you prefer.

The church is full of Bishop Dan's. I have met many that are as prideful and boasting as Dan.

I'm going to have to agree with this statement. It seems that bishops are very concerned with young men touching their private parts. But do they share the same concern with the young women? I doubt that very much! Just let the press and the news hear about that!

Church leaders need to stop harrasing the young men about masturbation. It's a form of hazing and it's wrong. One of these days someone is going to take legal action against a bishop for screwing some young mans life up by making him feel guilty and committing suicide. It's going to happen and the church is going to get sued. That't fine by me. Church leaders have done it to themselves through the power of unrighteous dominion. Jesus will set his house in order before he comes again, starting with the top, and they need it.

The next bishop who ever asks me if I masturbate is going to get more than a mouthful (no pun intended) but I will rebuke him. It will be a sorry day for that bishop. His power will dwindle in that moment of unrighteous dominion.

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

I do. But my patience often surprises even me.

This is very telling; thanks for your confession. I didn't think you were that honest.

Now, I need to revert to reading posts written by people who aren't trying to play wicked mind games.

Paul O

[_harmony]

Hey Harmony,

I can think of many instances when it may be helpful to send a child away from home for a time.

I am talking about children "like Eric," and an institution like the one in which he was raised, and being taken away from family for years on end to be raised in an institution far from home.

As I have stated on other threads, there are times when a child is a danger to him/herself and or others and needs some serious help for a time; a child may need intense help with a mental illness during a crisis, or a child may need to leave a particular family or environment for a time. I'm not talking about these sorts of situations. Nor am I talking about being temporarily in a group home, a foster home, or even a facility for a short time.

I'm specifically referring to a child like Eric (based on the website describing children who are brought into the custody/guardianship of the particular institution in which he was raised), and the need to take children out of state away from family to be raised in an institution for years on end.

I see absolutely no reason this is justified, ever.

I can't think of any "other side" information that would convince me otherwise.

I think we do have a sense of what sorts of issues were going on. The website is extremely clear about the types of children it accepts into their institution, so we have an idea of what types of issue Eric's stepfather and mother claim they were dealing with. Clearly he was not a sex offender, had no history of physical violence, anti-social or conduct disorder. They take, "soft to moderate" emotional and behavioral problems.

Again, kidnapping a child and keeping them away from their family for years on end is completely inappropriate for "soft to moderate" behavioral issues.

I'm repeating myself so will bow out of this conversation.


~td~

My point, TD, is that the only side we know about in this story is what Eric tells us. And we have no way of knowing that what Eric says is an accurate reading of the situation. Having spent some years as a parole officer and then some more years as a high school counselor and even more years as a parent of teenagers, I can tell you that the vast majority of my clients/students/children's version of their circumstances wasn't an accurate reading of their situation. We have no way of knowing if Eric's reading of the situation is accurate or not, since we're missing half of the story.

That said, I am personally aware of many things that I did wrong when I was raising my kids. I know of no parent who does everything exactly right. Eric's parents may have been wrong about how they handled him and the situation they were all in... or they may have been right. For us to second guess them, based only on Eric's teenaged point of view, just seems manifestly unfair to me.

And think the parents are the "other side" that Daniel's referring to.

[_moksha]

My guess is that the members in Bishop Peterson's congregation would tell us that he is a wonderful person and a great Bishop. That would be from their in-person contact with him.

[_Ray A]

For us to second guess them, based only on Eric's teenaged point of view, just seems manifestly unfair to me.

It's not a "teenaged" point of view. He's in his mid-20s. While I haven't heard directly from his parents (I would listen if they wanted to spend an hour with me on Skype), I see no reason whatsoever not to listen to Eric and make assessments/ judgements from what he says. Not final judgements. Remember, it was you who called DCP a "self-righteous prick" for what you felt were gross misjudgements of you. You got on to him like a rotweiler gone mad, and almost couldn't contain your anger. Because you felt misunderstood. And you felt DCP was rash, and wrong to make such judgements of you, such as whether you should hold a temple recommend, because he really doesn't know you.

Maybe your stake president should hear DCP's opinion of your posts, so he doesn't make one-sided judgements about whether you should have a recommend?

Or would you consider that unfair?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am SO SICK of Daniel Peterson.

No offense intended, Daniel.

No offense taken.

I'm sick of Daniel Peterson, too.

Although I'm told that I've struggled mightily to make this and every other thread about me, this thread isn't about me.

I think the "other side" Daniel's referring to is the parents' side. So all this discussion about Daniel, as if he was referring to himself when he says the "other side" is misplaced.

And none of us knows enough about any of this to make a judgment about the situation

Thank you, harmony.

My opinion, which is worth nothing, is that we have situation where a father, actually a step-father, is unwilling to take the time and effort to raise a child. It somehow became easier to pay out money and farm the work of parenting out, put the situation out of sight and out of mind, put it "on ice" so to speak.

I concur, Pokatator, with your estimation of the value of your opinion on this matter. It's rare that you and I agree, so I think this is an occasion for celebration.

My point, TD, is that the only side we know about in this story is what Eric tells us. And we have no way of knowing that what Eric says is an accurate reading of the situation. Having spent some years as a parole officer and then some more years as a high school counselor and even more years as a parent of teenagers, I can tell you that the vast majority of my clients/students/children's version of their circumstances wasn't an accurate reading of their situation. We have no way of knowing if Eric's reading of the situation is accurate or not, since we're missing half of the story.

That said, I am personally aware of many things that I did wrong when I was raising my kids. I know of no parent who does everything exactly right. Eric's parents may have been wrong about how they handled him and the situation they were all in... or they may have been right. For us to second guess them, based only on Eric's teenaged point of view, just seems manifestly unfair to me.

And think the parents are the "other side" that Daniel's referring to.

Again, Harmony, a sincere "thank you."

I can't see why my simple point is even remotely controversial.

[_Some Schmo]

I can't see why my simple point is even remotely controversial.

*sigh*

Your stated point isn't controversial. It was so not controversial, it's a wonder you even brought it up... oh wait; no it isn't.

[_Pokatator]

]
I concur, Pokatator, with your estimation of the value of your opinion on this matter. It's rare that you and I agree, so I think this is an occasion for celebration.

Yep, your opinion has the same value as mine.

[_harmony]

For us to second guess them, based only on Eric's teenaged point of view, just seems manifestly unfair to me.

It's not a "teenaged" point of view. He's in his mid-20s. While I haven't heard directly from his parents (I would listen if they wanted to spend an hour with me on Skype), I see no reason whatsoever not to listen to Eric and make assessments/ judgements from what he says.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I'm also entitled to mine. Eric isn't a teenager now, but he was a teenager when this whole thing went down. So he sees things through that lense. I think it's unfair to make a judgment about something that is seen from only one point of view. You don't agree. I'm so surprised.

[_Ray A]

I think it's unfair to make a judgment about something that is seen from only one point of view. You don't agree. I'm so surprised.

You didn't read my last reply properly. The difference between your approach and mine is that I actually listen to Eric even if I don't have most of the other side. From that listening I can glean some intuitive truth (from my own experiences with life and others) about many things he says, and given the nature of too many Church members much of what he says has a total ring of truth to me. After leaving I experienced some of what he related, and I also know how different the relationships with my own children would have been had I stayed in the Church. Like I said, it's not everyone's cup of Milo. Some people would be happy to be brought up by the likes of Bruce R. Mc Conkie. Others would revolt at the thought.