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

[_moksha]

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

I believe in ballet parlance this would only be considered negative if you were a Nutcracker and had added "faerie" after the endearing sugar plum.

[_marg]

Harmony, what does the church give you that you would miss if you didn't belong?

[_Jason Bourne]

In all truthfulness, I found it rather unfortunate that people picked on DCP after he announced that he would be a bishop. Yes, yes---I know. I do like to rib him fairly often and to give him a hard time. But still, I thought he deserved a fair shake this time around. Thus, I found it unfortunate when certain critics immediately began to attack him, saying that he'd be the type of bishop who would pry into his parishioners' private sex lives. Personally, I had figured that he'd be just fine as a bishop. Presumably, he'd treat people fairly (hopefully more fairly than he treats people online), and that he'd be fun and charming in his jovial, Falstaffian way. Thus, again, I thought it was a bit unfair that people assumed that he would be the kind of creepy, sickly avuncular bishop who would ask about masturbation, oral sex, and---good grief---coitus interruptus. (Under what circumstances would questions about coitus interruptus ever need to be asked??? Perhaps DCP will enlighten us.)

In an interview a bishop is supposed to ask questions that they believe are appropriate if there is reason to believe the TR candidate my not understand what the definition of say chastity means, or if the bishop has reason to believe a person is being less than honest. For example, I know of a bishop who was bishop of a ward of single persons. He found most of his members defined breaking the law of chastity as only sexual intercourse. So what he did was before he asked the question about the law of chastity he would say "Before I ask this question let me define for you what keeping the law of chastity means." He would then give the more broad definition of what it means and then ask the question.

I agree that generally leaders should stick to the questions and not go outside them. But there are cases where they can and indeed should. There is nothing wrong with this at all.

Well, now we can see that, in fact, he views it as his obligation to pry into such matters! He has long tried to claim that he is not some vindictive, "digging through the dirt" kind of a person, but it seems to me that this remark runs contrary--remarkably so!--to his prior claims. "If a bishop suspects"? And just how, pray tell, might a "bishop suspect"? Via gossip? But then, DCP never engages in gossip! Just ask Mike Quinn.

Wow. No. It really seems that in some few cased when he deems it appropriate he carefully asks questions that if he did not ask he would be shirking his obligations and a judge in Israel.

In any case, I thought I would note how startled I was by this admission on his part. I think it reveals a great deal about his character.

Of of course you are. Another simply rather innocent item that Scratch can take, twist and distort in his continued quest to smear Dr Peterson's character.

[_Yoda]

Dan, when you say that it was obvious the person wasn't being forthright, was it obvious based on confirmation of the spirit, or were you basing your assumptions on what someone else in the ward had told you about the person?

I have never, not once, pressed anybody for details based on gossip.

Scratchite demonology notwithstanding, I despise gossip.

Thanks for clarifying that, Dr. P.

I really didn't think that you would do that, but the wording of your above answer concerned me.

[_Yoda]

Harmony, what does the church give you that you would miss if you didn't belong?

Her entire family dynamic would change.

It shouldn't, but it would.

[_Jason Bourne]

Baloney! You called me a nominal non-believing member.

You questioned my bishop's integrity and inspiration. And then you gave another example of doing the same thing to someone else's bishop

Honestly your reaction to this is irrational and even over the top. Dan said nothing at all like this. You are over reacting. What he said is given what he knows from his discussions with you he might want to discuss the issues further. He also said your bish may have additional fact, understanding and so on that causes him to reach a different conclusion. Honestly you are rather ranting here.

As for the other fellow again, he said only based on what he knew from a personal conversation. He did not say this persons bishop was wrong, foolish, misled and should not have given a recommend. He simply said based on what he knew that he personally would have taken a second thought about it.

But in both cases he said that he may not have information or knowledge that the leaders in question had.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, Jason Bourne. You're right on target.

Thanks, Gadianton, for the best laugh I've had all week! So very, very true.

Dr. Peterson, surely you found Gadianton's post at least a little bit humorous, didn't you?

A little bit.

It would have been much more effective, though, if it had really been, in your words "very, very true." Or even just slightly true.

Try as I might, I simply can't buy into the Scratchite dogma about "apologetic skullduggery." Not even as an exercise in the willful suspension of disbelief. It strikes me as hostile nonsense, nothing more.




.

[_harmony]

But in both cases he said that he may not have information or knowledge that the leaders in question had.

He would deny me what should not be denied, based on incomplete information. You can tell me I'm ranting and over the top, and I'll probably agree... I am ranting, right along with my prayers of thanksgiving that I will never enter a bishop's office and see Daniel on the other side of the desk.

What you can't change is the fact that he called me a nominal member, an unbeliever in the LDS church... neither of which is correct. I am full fledged, tithe paying, calling holding member, and a believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ. If that's not good enough to be given a temple recommend in Daniel's ward, then it will be he who answers for that, not me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You've got it wrong, harmony.

I was hoping that a night's rest would help you to calm down.

It's Valentine's Day. Why don't you think about something else?

[_Mister Scratch]

Dan, when you say that it was obvious the person wasn't being forthright, was it obvious based on confirmation of the spirit, or were you basing your assumptions on what someone else in the ward had told you about the person?

I have never, not once, pressed anybody for details based on gossip.

Scratchite demonology notwithstanding, I despise gossip.

What, your blind hunches are supposed to be better? You simply "guess" whether someone has had "oral sex, coitus interruptus, and the like," and then proceed to grill them? That is, in essence, what you're suggesting, isn't it?