Why I lost my virginity

[_The Nehor]

So says the guy who found it "appropriate" to ask one of his parishioners about "coitus interruptus."

You are seriously trying to compare your muck-raking "scream it from the housetops" style of gossipy misinformation collection and distribution (demonstrated in the quoted sentence) to a confidential question asked under "clergy-penitent" privilege?

Do your fictional informants tell you they are the same? A warning. Do not follow their advice.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Actually, [name deleted], I agree with you---it's not all that comparable. DCP's inquiry would have been conducted in the sort of situation where the other person would have been in a position of intimidation. You make mention of ""clergy-penitent" privilege", but in the LDS Church this is seriously problematic given the fact that the "clergy" is totally untrained.

Re: your comment that my remark was in some way "scream it from the housetops," I would point out simply that I would have no knowledge whatsoever about this supposedly "private," "clergy-penitent" incident if Dr. Peterson himself had not been blabbing about it here on MDB. That alone is yet another argument in favor of the notion that the Church should offer training to local ecclesiastical leaders.

[_The Nehor]

Saying I was sorry to God and working to never do it again. Standard fare really.

"Sorry" for what?

Pushing old ladies down the stairs.

The punishment for fornication entails a larger repentance than that, does it not?

Read the post below the one you quoted. Now read it again. See now? When you read what people say you don't look like an incompetent when you try to make them say something they didn't say. Especially when they flatly deny it. Live and learn.

If it doesn't, then I want to hear about how this plays out, in your view.

Of course you do. That dossier ain't gonna write itself.

as far as I know, instances of sexual sin like this are demanding of very harsh punishment.

Like what?

That's how things work in the LDS Church.

Indeed, the faction-ridden, secret committee-filled bastion of evil has to have some reason to let their hair down and break out the iron maidens and hot pokers.

If you've had a different experience, and it would reflect positively on the Church, then by all means, lay your cards on the table.

I've got the boat; Aces over Jacks. Pay up.

It seems to me that the OP was quite frank, honest, and open, and I think that vague TBM dismissals in response are problematic.

What vague dismissal? I accepted the story at face value. I then made the value judgment that the protagonist in the story was a moron. I dismissed nothing. You then jumped in with vague unsubstantiated conclusions. The pig dives into the pond after rolling in the mud and then complains the water is dirty. Same old Scratchian song and dance.

[_Doctor Scratch]

[name deleted]

If you don't want to talk about it, fine. My problem with your posts on this thread lies in the fact that you're crapping on people at the same time that you're trying to engage in Mopologetics. If you had sex, were forgiven and treated decently by your bishop, then okay---feel free to share. It might reflect better on the Church. What you've done instead is dump on a lot of people who've been rather open with their experiences and emotions, and I don't think that's right.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You're free to answer Scratch's inappropriate question or not, of course, but you're under absolutely no obligation to do so.

So says the guy who found it "appropriate" to ask one of his parishioners about "coitus interruptus."

Ah, a blast from the past. One of your golden oldies.

You haven't made a really serious effort to portray me as a leering pervert and a voyeur for quite a few months now. I guess a reprise was overdue.

Anybody who wants to understand, in context, what Scratch is dredging up from the past, in his gossipy, ever-personal, scandal-rag-like way -- though why anybody would be particularly interested in this escapes me -- is free to do a search on this board for "coitus interruptus" and my name "Daniel Peterson." Doing so will turn up the relevant posts.

Scratch pretends to think that his endless anonymous quest for dirt about LDS posters, which he uses for his endless anonymous public smears of those LDS posters, is equivalent to a confidential interview between an ordained bishop and somebody who has voluntarily come to that bishop with a confession of sexual transgression or in order to assert sexual purity as part of the process to obtain a temple recommend.

When, in answer to the question "Do you live the law of chastity?" the person being interviewed hesitates and says, "Well, I think so, sort of; it depends" the bishop has to know what, precisely, that means. When someone comes to the bishop and says "My boyfriend and I messed up," the bishop, in order to know how to respond, needs to understand more exactly what "messing up" signifies in this case. When an engaged coupled comes to the bishop and says "We don't think we had sex," the bishop needs to know a little more accurately what they're talking about before he can reply appropriately. Not because the bishop is a voyeur -- as Scratch would like to portray him -- but because the bishop is trying to do his assigned job. I can testify from personal experience that at least one bishop definitely did not get a charge out of such confessions.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dan:

Under what conditions did you need to ask about "coitus interruptus"? I cannot for the life of me imagine any instance in which a bishop would need to ask about that. Of course, LDS bishops ask about all sorts of inappropriate things, so your asking about this really wouldn't be out of the ordinary. But by all means---please enlighten us.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, [Name deleted] I agree with you---it's not all that comparable. DCP's inquiry would have been conducted in the sort of situation where the other person would have been in a position of intimidation.

Hardly.

Feel free to order any of your possibly mythical "informants" to track down people with whom I counseled as a bishop and ask them whether I "intimidated" them.

You make mention of ""clergy-penitent" privilege", but in the LDS Church this is seriously problematic given the fact that the "clergy" is totally untrained.

What has training got to do with clergy-penitent confidentiality?

Re: your comment that my remark was in some way "scream it from the housetops," I would point out simply that I would have no knowledge whatsoever about this supposedly "private," "clergy-penitent" incident if Dr. Peterson himself had not been blabbing about it here on MDB.

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

I violated nobody's confidentiality.

That alone is yet another argument in favor of the notion that the Church should offer training to local ecclesiastical leaders.

How has anybody been injured or compromised by my intentionally and appropriately vague allusion to an incident or two in which I was involved as a bishop?

How was any principle of confidentiality breached?

Under what conditions did you need to ask about "coitus interruptus"? I cannot for the life of me imagine any instance in which a bishop would need to ask about that. Of course, LDS bishops ask about all sorts of inappropriate things, so your asking about this really wouldn't be out of the ordinary. But by all means---please enlighten us.

I don't feel any need to tell you any more than I already have. Suffice it to say that the question came up quite naturally from what I was told.

You'll have to gratify your lusts in some other fashion, I'm afraid. Anyway, if I told you more, you'd just use it to fault me for "blabbing" and to imply, quite falsely, that I had violated someone's right to confidentiality.

I've watched your constant attempts to ambush believing Latter-day Saints for five years now, and I've seen how you spin what they say with your never-sleeping trademark malevolence.

You're an odious and repellent skunk.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Dr. Peterson:

You've accused me on multiple occasions of having a "fertile" imagination, and yet, for the life of me, I cannot conceive of any instance whatsoever in which a bishop might feel the need to inquire into "coitus interruptus." You can either explain what happened, or you can shrug your shoulders and let it go. The choice is yours.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I choose to shrug my shoulders and let it go.

Anybody -- you, for example -- who really wants to believe that I'm a pervert and a voyeur is likely to believe it no matter what I say.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yes, but why in the world would you be asking about the details of someone's sexual interactions? It's odd.