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

[_harmony]

You called me a nominal non-believing member.

No I didn't.

You're going to make me go get the quote, aren't you? *sigh*

I regard you as a nominal member of the Church, and as, in a certain sense, still affiliated with the Restoration generally, but not as a believing Latter-day Saint.

It's from page 3.

You questioned my bishop's integrity and inspiration.

No I didn't.

That's from page 3 too:

I'm not your bishop, and I don't judge him. Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances that he's taking into account. But if I were your bishop, and if you answered those questions along the lines of the opinions you've expressed here, I would find it extremely difficult to endorse a recommend for you.

You said you don't judge him... and then you proceeded to judge him.

And then you gave another example of doing the same thing to someone else's bishop.

No I didn't

Your friend? Remember now?

I never called you a name.

Right.

Good, I'm glad we agree "sugar plum" doesn't count as calling you a name.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Calm down, harmony.

I'm tired of trying to explain what I said to you.

Trust me, you're not getting it.

Don't worry, though. Scratch will explain it all.

[_harmony]

I get it all too well, Daniel.

You think, from my posts on these boards, that you know me well enough to deny me a temple recommend, but you deny that I know you well enough, from your posts on these boards, to call you a self-righteous prick who doesn't live his religion.

Got it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I get it all too well, Daniel.

You think, from my posts on these boards, that you know me well enough to deny me a temple recommend, but you deny that I know you well enough, from your posts on these boards, to call you a self-righteous prick who doesn't live his religion.

Got it.

Yes, in that regard, you've got it.

[_Yoda]

Daniel, I'm curious.

Don't you think, as a bishop, it would be better to grant someone a temple recommend, even if they had a rather unconventional type of testimony, as long as they were living the Word of Wisdom, Tithing, and Chastity standards worthily?

I would think that the type of individual (such as Harmony), who is attending meetings, fulfilling callings, and paying a full tithe, would be the kind of person who should be encouraged to go to the temple.

If someone is struggling with a testimony in any way, going to the temple can help strengthen it.

Am I off track here?

[_harmony]

Yes, in that regard, you've got it.

And obviously... you don't.

[_Ray A]

Don't you think, as a bishop, it would be better to grant someone a temple recommend, even if they had a rather unconventional type of testimony, as long as they were living the Word of Wisdom, Tithing, and Chastity standards worthily?

Not Dan, but I'd like to give my opinion. I think the only one qualified to judge a person is that person's bishop. I had this discussion with Harmony long ago, and voiced the same opinion then.

Perhaps I'm different, and maybe was too liberal, I never asked explicit questions about sexual behaviour, learned that lesson quick, nor tried to "tease" anything out of people. Would never ask about bedroom behaviour, learned that super-quick (more so after the 1982 First Presidency oral sex fiasco). I simply asked the TR questions, and let members volunteer whatever information they wanted. If they replied "yes I obey the law of chastity", that's where it ended for me. I'm sure other bishops had other approaches. Even with young boys I'd never ask "do you masturbate?". I'd ask "do you obey the law of chastity?" (If I had doubts they understood what it was I'd explain)

Sometimes I knew or believed a member wasn't paying a full tithe (from the records), but if they answered "yes" I gave them the recommend. As far as I was concerned, they had given an answer
which they felt comfortable with, and if they were lying, then "you can square that one out with the man upstairs someday". Not my business. Perhaps unorthodox.

The same with participating online. Online behaviour is still a subject of study by psychologists. People often dehave differently online than they do in real life, or, sometimes "out of character". It can be a fantasyland, and frankly 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.

Hypothetically, if I was harmony's bishop, and she was living all the in real life requirements - Yes I'd give her a recommend.

[_Mister Scratch]

The exact phrase you used was coitus interruptus. "Messed up"? Again I ask: why on earth would this appear during the course of a bishop's interview? Did the interviewee "accidentally" confess to coitus interruptus? Or was that something you were just curious about?

It's come up several times -- and no, not because I was "curious" about it.

That's not really what you said. Not "curious"? Well, okay. But you did say that, if you "suspected" that a member was guilty of some sexual sin, that you would "probe" for the details. Here, let me refresh your memory:

I can probe to find out whether the candidate for a recommend is answering the questions in the sense they were asked.

You go on to elaborate:

An applicant might respond "Yes" when asked whether he or she lives the law of chastity, but it may turn out that the person is using a narrowly technical definition of chastity that permits oral sex, coitus interruptus, and the like. If a bishop suspects that the term may be being used in an equivocal or evasive sense, he has not only the right but the obligation to inquire further.

I've encountered one or two cases much like this.

You see what I mean? When I later note that I find this troublesome, and kind of sickening, you throw in this red herring:

When somebody comes in to me and says "Bishop, my boyfriend and I messed up," I have to ask "What does that mean?" I always apologize for seeking rather clinical details, and I back off as soon as I know what I need to know, but "messing up" is rather vague. Having sexual intercourse is a different thing than merely spending too much time making out, or, as one person confessed, having unclean thoughts pass through his mind when his hand inadvertently touched his date's rear end. In order to make a determination of how or whether to respond, I need to know a bit more than merely "we messed up."

Now, you're a smart guy. The sort of smart guy who is very, very careful about the words he chooses. That said, I think people can see that, in the two quoted passages, you are referring to two separate types of encounters:

1) Times when you, as bishop, "suspect" that an interviewee isn't being entirely forthright in answering questions about the Law of Chastity;
2) Times when you are approached by parishioners who are seeking your council.

You are obviously describing two very different scenarios. If someone approached you, saying they'd "messed up," then there would be no reason for you to suspect them of "evasion" or "equivocation." (Right?) Scenario 1) is, I think you'll admit, rather creepy and Gestapo-like. It suggests that you have/had been listening to rumors about your parishioners' sex lives, and that you then proceeded to pressure them into confessing whether or not they'd engaged in "oral sex, coitus interruptus, or the like."

This just seems wrong on so many levels. I would be interested in hearing you explain why you think such behavior (i.e., prying and conducting investigative "interrogations") is appropriate or justifiable. Certainly, your revelations here cast a wholly new light on your old claims that your SCMC-ordered interrogation of a wavering member was little more than a "friendly chat."

[_harmony]

Hypothetically, if I was harmony's bishop, and she was living all the in real life requirements - Yes I'd give her a recommend.

And hypothetically, I'd have loved you... as my bishop. I'd probably even talk to you about things that troubled me.

A bishop like Daniel portrays himself here on this thread I would avoid as much as possible, even to the extent of not renewing a temple recommend unless absolutely necessary, unti after he was released.

[Guest]

A bishop like Daniel portrays himself here on this thread I would avoid as much as possible, even to the extent of not renewing a temple recommend unless absolutely necessary, unti after he was released.

I doubt that a single person in my ward sees me as an ecclesiastical tyrant or hardliner. I try to be as supportive and positive as I can be.

That said, though, I do take my role as a gatekeeper to the temple very, very seriously. In fact, I regard it as sacred -- hesitant though I am to use such a term on this message board.

Perhaps I'm different, and maybe was too liberal, I never asked explicit questions about sexual behaviour,

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.

1) Times when you, as bishop, "suspect" that an interviewee isn't being entirely forthright in answering questions about the Law of Chastity;

I've had a few of those. It's been pretty obvious when people weren't being forthright. At that point, I've asked something along the lines of "What do you understand chastity to mean?" That has led to some useful conversations.

2) Times when you are approached by parishioners who are seeking your council.

Those are more common. I spend most of Sunday and typically from 6:30 to about 11:30 PM on Wednesday counseling with ward members. They mostly come to me; I rarely send for them.

I would be interested in hearing you explain why you think such behavior (i.e., prying and conducting investigative "interrogations") is appropriate or justifiable.

I've conducted no "investigative 'interrogations.'"

Certainly, your revelations here cast a wholly new light on your old claims that your SCMC-ordered interrogation of a wavering member was little more than a "friendly chat."

There was no such "interrogation." This has never been anything more than a figment of your fevered and malicious imagination.