Why I lost my virginity

[_LDSToronto]

So what was your punishment? Disfellowshipped?

The Nehor:

You're free to answer Scratch's inappropriate question or not, of course, but you're under absolutely no obligation to do so. It's precisely none of his business. He seems to live his life pretty much on the level of a gossip rag (albeit with less charm).

I don't even necessarily think, anyhow, that you're talking about the kind of sin that would involve Church discipline. If you are, though, you have no duty whatsoever to cater to Scratch's perverse and seemingly insatiable craving for personal dirt about believing Latter-day Saints.

The Nehor opened the door. If he wants to keep his sex sins confidential, The Nehor should have never kissed and told on an internet chat board.

H.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The Nehor opened the door. If he wants to keep his sex sins confidential, The Nehor should have never kissed and told on an internet chat board.

]
Neither of us actually knows that The Nehor has any particular "sex sins" to confess.

I want to understand your position, though: You think that The Nehor has now taken upon himself some sort of obligation to satisfy the prurient curiosity of Scratch, and of any other participants or lurkers on this board who may be interested, regarding his personal history with respect to confidential Church disciplinary procedures?

I confess that I don't understand where or how this supposed obligation originated.

[_Inconceivable]

Name the person involved in the incident. Can you even identify the person's gender? The year?

I violated nobody's confidentiality.

wow

Perhaps it's too bad a fiance', father or church authority hadn't caught what you had posted and later deleted here a few years past. But it would have meant that someone would have been humiliated and embarrassed more than they had already had to bear. Like I said before, if I were a fiance', brother, father, father in law, I would have hunted you down and kicked your ass while at the same time informing your leadership of your inexcusable revealing information about one of your current ward members.

Shame on you, bishop Peterson.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Shame on you, bishop Peterson.

Coming from a sympathetic and unbiased judge such as you, that condemnation carries real weight.

I wonder whether Scratch will show up now, to huff and puff about your very revealing fantasies of violence.

[_Buffalo]

Name the person involved in the incident. Can you even identify the person's gender? The year?

I violated nobody's confidentiality.

wow

Perhaps it's too bad a fiance', father or church authority hadn't caught what you had posted and later deleted here a few years past. But it would have meant that someone would have been humiliated and embarrassed more than they had already had to bear. Like I said before, if I were a fiance', brother, father, father in law, I would have hunted you down and kicked your ass while at the same time informing your leadership of your inexcusable revealing information about one of your current ward members.

Shame on you, bishop Peterson.

Disagree. If the person's identity wasn't made known (directly or indirectly) I don't see the problem.

[_Morley]

Disagree. If the person's identity wasn't made known (directly or indirectly) I don't see the problem.

Neither do I. I can't help but wonder "what the hell?" about this discussion.

[_LDSToronto]

The Nehor opened the door. If he wants to keep his sex sins confidential, The Nehor should have never kissed and told on an internet chat board.

]
Neither of us actually knows that The Nehor has any particular "sex sins" to confess.

I want to understand your position, though: You think that The Nehor has now taken upon himself some sort of obligation to satisfy the prurient curiosity of Scratch, and of any other participants or lurkers on this board who may be interested, regarding his personal history with respect to confidential Church disciplinary procedures?

I confess that I don't understand where or how this supposed obligation originated.

The Nehor has kept the nature of his sins to himself, but the topic of this discussion and his comments about his excuses vs. those of (so-called) apostates draw him into the context and attach him to the subject matter. It's within the realm of the sensible to assume The Nehor has participated in similar sins, and it's within the realm of the sensible to imagine that he has not. Neither possibility is stronger than the other.

I'm not suggesting that The Nehor has any obligation to answer any question, any more than any of us have any obligation to answer any question. What I am saying is that The Nehor opened the door for such questioning. Scratch isn't alone in his wondering; two questions entered my mind based on The Nehor's comment - What did he do, and what was the consequence? Neither were driven by a curiosity of The Nehor's intimate practices, they were driven by the general context of this thread.

As for prurient interests, I've got to be honest and say that I didn't think Scratch's initial question was asked to satisfy some base desire; it just didn't seem sexually-driven. By the same token, I sincerely believe when you served as bishop and counseled young people, your motives were pure and driven by love and faith and not by a vicarious interest in the sex lives of your congregation.

H.

[_Inconceivable]

Shame on you, bishop Peterson.

Coming from a sympathetic and unbiased judge such as you, that condemnation carries real weight.

I wonder whether Scratch will show up now, to huff and puff about your very revealing fantasies of violence.

Perhaps I would have considered a civil suit if I were them, but it would have been better to make your come up'ns descrete out of respect for the one who had already suffered embarrassment enough.

You're really hoping that myself and the moderator that participated in deleting the information will remain quiet on this.

If it weren't for the affect upon the woman that you had made referrence to, I would share the story.

Please don't PM me. You're opinion has little value to me whether it's about this incident or your history with/fear of Daheshism.

[_LDSToronto]

Name the person involved in the incident. Can you even identify the person's gender? The year?

I violated nobody's confidentiality.

wow

Perhaps it's too bad a fiance', father or church authority hadn't caught what you had posted and later deleted here a few years past. But it would have meant that someone would have been humiliated and embarrassed more than they had already had to bear. Like I said before, if I were a fiance', brother, father, father in law, I would have hunted you down and kicked your ass while at the same time informing your leadership of your inexcusable revealing information about one of your current ward members.

Shame on you, bishop Peterson.

Whoa, horsey! First, let's not threaten violence, theoretical or real.

Second, I don't think Dan shared enough information to break any confidences. Hell, I've shared my experiences of disciplinary councils and the inner workings of a stake presidency and know enough to change details so that the message is shared, but the confidence is kept. And I'm a borderline apostate! No matter what I ever feel about the church, the people in it are real and the things they experience can be heartwrenching.

Dan, as well as anyone, knows this and I doubt he'd place confidentiality below his participation on a message board.

H.

[_Daniel Peterson]

LOL. The thought of PMing you never crossed my mind, O charitable one. Don't flatter yourself.

As for prurient interests, I've got to be honest and say that I didn't think Scratch's initial question was asked to satisfy some base desire; it just didn't seem sexually-driven.

I don't think it was, either.

On line, at least, Scratch is driven by an insatiable urge to gather dirt on believing Latter-day Saints and particularly on me -- or, at least, to gather material that, by means of his malicious alchemy, he can transmute into dirt -- so that he can defame his targets.

I've observed this for five years now. I don't believe that it's sexual, at least not in a direct way. (Prurient generally refers to exaggerated interest in sexual matters, by the way, but not quite always. Etymologically, it has to do with itching.)

By the same token, I sincerely believe when you served as bishop and counseled young people, your motives were pure and driven by love and faith and not by a vicarious interest in the sex lives of your congregation.

As a matter of fact, that was the aspect of my calling that I most dreaded when I began. I was surprised, though, how soon I was able to hear even the most astonishing things while maintaining a perfect poker face, and to speak dispassionately and without embarrassment about matters that I would never otherwise publicly mention. It was a relief.