They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

[_Daniel Peterson]

I give you permission to post whatever information you think you have to defend yourself, if it will make you feel better.

It wouldn't, and I won't.

I don't believe that it's any of the board's business, and I don't think more than a few would be even slightly interested. (Scartch might be, but I doubt that even Mini-Scartch would.)

You should give it a rest.

It's not just "mini-Scartch" who thinks you are a wholly uncaring person, by the way.

Well, I'm content to be judged on that score, as far as this life goes, by people who actually know me.

It's pretty obvious you don't care much about what actually happened, and just how it makes you and subsequently the LDS church look.

You're wrong.

And you should give this a rest.

[_GoodK]

It wouldn't, and I won't.

I don't believe that it's any of the board's business, and I don't think more than a few would be even slightly interested. (Scartch might be, but I doubt that even Mini-Scartch would.)

But hinting that "you know better" is fine. I see.

And you should give this a rest.

After you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Dan, maybe you forgot what you wrote back on the Z:

He was calling to ask me and a BYU colleague to spend some time with a certain individual in the Salt Lake area who was having testimony problems, to see if we could help. The situation was, he said, tearing the man's family apart. The wife was contemplating divorce, and the local priesthood leaders felt that they were out of their depth. He also asked that we not identify ourselves as having been asked to help by the committee.[/

Bold mine.

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/81 ... ml?page=10

That's consistent with what I wrote above. If there's a contradiction, I don't see it.

You seem to think that because the man didn't specifically ask if you were meeting with him at the bequest of the SCMC there wasn't a problem.

I find it misleading and quite inappropriate.

I don't think there was a problem.

More times than I can count in my life I've been told, or heard somebody else told, to "go talk with X/give this to Y/ask Z about x but don't tell him I sent you," or something to that effect.

It's harmless. It's not sinister.

I KNOW you don't see the problem but others do.

A handful of people here claim to see a problem, and some are even rather inflamed about it.

I rather doubt, though, that a representative sample of the larger population, LDS or general, would find it problematic at all, let alone seriously so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But hinting that "you know better" is fine. I see.

It's not fine. I don't like this at all.

I would much prefer it if you would give the situation a rest. Stop blaming me for the state of your relationship with your parents.

And you should give this a rest.

After you.

You made the accusation, and you continue to make it.

You want to make it one last time, without fear of contradiction?

I'm not asking you for a retraction. I'm not asking that you give more details.

I'm simply suggesting that you drop the subject.

I would be more than happy to do so. I had done so.

[_truth dancer]

Dan,

I think this thread demonstrates part of the problem many have with the church.

While you do not seem to understand why others have a problem with this sort of behavior, they do. It might be helpful as apologists and leaders interact with non-believers or questioning members to at the very least acknowledge that people generally do not like being misled, or manipulated.

Those who are not believers in the LDS church look upon your example, and others of which we have heard as very inappropriate.

While you disagree, perhaps you could at the very least accept the fact that others find this sort of behavior, while not an outright lie, dishonest and misleading.

Even without knowing this man, my guess is he would not have been quite so happy to meet with you if he knew you were meeting with him at the request of the SCMC. In fact I doubt he would have even met based on previous conversations.

You clearly gave the impression, by not disclosing the full truth, that you were not involved with the SCMC (let's not play word games here...).

I understand you would have disclosed the truth if you were clearly and directly asked but in my opinion, knowing this man would not want the SMCS involved, and not telling him you were asked by the SCMC, he was misled.

OK... sorry to derail the thread for a sec.

:-)

~td~

[_Mister Scratch]

He was calling to ask me and a BYU colleague to spend some time with a certain individual in the Salt Lake area who was having testimony problems, to see if we could help. The situation was, he said, tearing the man's family apart. The wife was contemplating divorce, and the local priesthood leaders felt that they were out of their depth. He also asked that we not identify ourselves as having been asked to help by the committee.[/quote] Bold mine.

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/81 ... ml?page=10

You seem to think that because the man didn't specifically ask if you were meeting with him at the bequest of the SCMC there wasn't a problem.

I find it misleading and quite inappropriate.

I KNOW you don't see the problem but others do.

~td~

You are 100% right, TD. In a separate discussion of this series of events, DCP went on to note that the man being "interrogated" had ripped into the SCMC. The Good Professor chuckled about how "ironic" it was that, in fact, he [i.e., DCP] was there under the auspices of the very same SCMC.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I like pudding. Vanilla is my favorite, but I like chocolate too.

Call me weird, but I never liked pudding as a kid.

You're weird.

I also didn't like pudding, and I don't like it now, either.

Did you do anything on the "Shades board" to warrant someone's feeling insulted or belittled or hurt?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I've been tearing the legs off of little kittens all morning, just to get in the mood!

Normally, I just ignore the feuds here, but this just didn't sit well today. I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the graphic stuff. My cat who'd been with me for the last 9 years was killed yesterday by a pack of dogs. So could you lay off the graphic stuff for a while?

*sigh*

I'm sorry to hear about your cat. I never really knew (and I am being serious) how much people can love animals until I bought my little dog.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think this thread demonstrates part of the problem many have with the church.

While you do not seem to understand why others have a problem with this sort of behavior, they do.

I question whether the population here -- extravagantly disposed to see problems in virtually everything the Church teaches or does -- is significantly representative of very many people beyond. My sense is that it is not.

It might be helpful as apologists and leaders interact with non-believers or questioning members to at the very least acknowledge that people generally do not like being misled, or manipulated.

The man with whom I spoke was neither misled nor manipulated.

Those who are not believers in the LDS church look upon your example, and others of which we have heard as very inappropriate.

All of them? Most of them? Many of them? Three of them?

In any sizeable population, a certain number will believe that the government is controlled by the Masons or the Jesuits, that the moon landing was faked on a NASA soundstage in Houston, that George W. Bush ordered the attacks on 9/11, and that Jim Carrey can be endured for more than five minutes at a stretch.

While you disagree, perhaps you could at the very least accept the fact that others find this sort of behavior, while not an outright lie, dishonest and misleading.

I don't deny that some others do. Several here do.

I've tried to reason with you. If I hadn't recognized that you find "this sort of behavior . . . dishonest," I wouldn't have bothered.

I simply doubt that many in the general population of Latter-day Saints or non-Latter-day Saints would take this very seriously.

Even without knowing this man, my guess is he would not have been quite so happy to meet with you if he knew you were meeting with him at the request of the SCMC. In fact I doubt he would have even met based on previous conversations.

I was there, and I think you're wrong. But actual knowledge of the actual situation, like actually reading books before commenting on them, doesn't seem to be very highly valued here.

You clearly gave the impression, by not disclosing the full truth, that you were not involved with the SCMC (let's not play word games here...).

Let's not.

"Involved" with the SCMC? I'd never heard from them before and have never heard from them since. The secretary of the SCMC called and asked me to visit with this fellow. That was it. As "involvement" goes, that's pretty weak stuff.

I understand you would have disclosed the truth if you were clearly and directly asked but in my opinion, knowing this man would not want the SMCS involved, and not telling him you were asked by the SCMC, he was misled.

This is every bit as serious as sending a boy across the school gym to ask a lonely girl to dance, but suggesting that he not tell her that he was asked to do it. Are there some potential problems in such a situation? Yes, but they're not insuperable. Is it a crime and an outrage? Come on.

[_GoodK]

I'm simply suggesting that you drop the subject.

Gladly. I don't like it either. Although I would rather you used your friendship with my step-dad to contribute to a solution, rather than using it to imply to a internet discussion board that you know better.

Stop blaming me for the state of your relationship with your parents.

No one is talking about my mom right now. My step-dad is also to blame, and I probably am too.

I'm not mad - as my lunch invite should have indicated - but I certainly don't believe for a second that you didn't have anything to do with the change in my step-dad's attitude immediately following him being made aware of this discussion board.

I'm content leaving things at that, if you wish.