Daniel Peterson wrote:
Are you referring to the "self-righteous arrogant prick"?
That's the one.
That hurt, huh. Well, I'm sorry for calling you a self-righteous arrogant prick, and I promise to not do it again... until you behave that way again.
But please keep in mind: I'm the one, kicking against the prick. The prick... that would be you (when you behave such that you deserve that label). This part would be you again: persecuting the Saints (the Saint... that would be me), fighting against God... (that would be you).
I suppose that means my remark is doctrinal. That's enough to stop me right there!
And the simple fact remains that I've never used language even remotely like that to characterize you -- neither in terms of sheer offensiveness nor in terms of commenting on your character, which I haven't done.
I see. You don't think calling a card carrying, calling holding, tithe paying, active Latter day Saint a "nominal member" is at all offensive? You don't think characterizing me as "an unbeliever" is at all characterizing me as something I am not? (it's on page 3 of this thread, in case you forgot)
And that's just on this thread! I don't keep a dossier of all your offensive comments and snide remarks to me, Daniel. You make them often enough, I can just use the fresh ones.
Or is it just offensive when someone for whom you have literally no
respect calls you on your behaviors? What is it about that remark that causes you to bring it up, 10 years... yes... 10 years! after I first made it?
The "letter of the law" guy would deny members like me temple recommends. The "spirit of the law" guy would give them out every time, hoping that the member would use them often.
On what? the dichotomy itself? Or my application of it to you and Jason?
Your mission, according to what you said earlier, is keeping the temple from being tainted by members like me.
I've said absolutely nothing like that.
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.
You're the gatekeeper; I'm the defiant member who refuses to bow down and worship the Brethren properly. And issuing me or members like me would taint the temple. Nevermind that I worship Christ... that's not good enough, because I don't worship the Brethren. So you, in your appointed role as gatekeeper, have to keep the members like me out.
Or did you forget you said that?
You don't want me to. And you wouldn't acknowledge it if I did. You can't.
I have little or no idea what the last three sentences mean.
If you intend to suggest that I'm somehow threatened
by you . . . Well, I'll leave it there.
I don't know where you get this stuff from? Threatening you? Me? Not hardly.
You said I don't know you; I said you don't want me to. And even if I am right about everything I've ever said about you, showing I do indeed know you, you wouldn't acknowledge it... you can't. You can assert that you can know me from my words on this bulletin board, but you can't acknowledge that if you can know me, I can know you.
No threat at all. I don't know where that came from. Geez, Daniel!