Uhhh.. of course he loves me; I return the favor. We're commanded to love all of God's children. Sometimes he doesn't like me very much, but that's based on the full moon.




ad

It's not a matter of disapproval. I don't care what underwear people wear. It's a a matter of compliance indicating followers are being mentally controlled via a process of thought reform as Lifton described. Anyone who wasn't mentally controlled would not wear Mormon garments 24/7. That's pretty obvious to objective observers.

Actually that was my example. I



Hardly.



That is simply your opinion. In the LDS Church as in other Christian traditions there is this idea that certain sexual activity is sinful and should be confesses to a priest, bishop or minister. The idea is it helps the person shed themselves of guilt associated with the sin and to seek counsel from someone they trust to help in changing some behavior.

I know in your humanistic view of the world you think the sex is quite fine and not a sin and you are entitled to view it that way. You may be right and you may be wrong. But it does not make this abusive at all.


To you perhaps. To others it can be the start of the repentance process that they view important and even essential.



I am happy to allow you the ability to make that decision. Many persons of faith feel very differently than you do and can use the process as a healing and even therapeutic process.





And because someone thinks some process like this is foolish and even cultic based on little or no experience or faith in their life does not make their conclusion accurate.



Or horse crap. How can you conclude that? You don't know the man. I have it on good authority-real life experience marg-that DCP and other bishops mean only good in helping people through a difficult but what they and the church member believes is an important part of repentance. I know such a concept is foreign to you and you scorn people and things of faith. But for millions and millions over the years this process has helped them.



And I am sure you don't know what the hell you are talking about. The more you write the more convinced I am of that.

An interesting side note.

I notes that Marg has no reference by which to judge or condemn the process of the LDS Church selection of bishops. I will note that Marg has really ignore that and deflected answering this plain and simple fact which if she did would destroy her condescension and ridiculous comments. Instead as seems typical of her tactics, she has tossed out another line to argue, that of cult like behaviors and so on.

Simple and pure deflection.

You realize, of course, that it's possible to buy underthings that look a great deal like garments in any department store, right? Panties with boy-style legs, camisoles, etc... right? White? Lacy? Silkie?

Good grief, marg. There are lots of better examples of control in the church than garments. Lots. I'm sure if you study us enough, you'll discover them... eventually.

Anybody who was right thinking wouldn't hold your opinion.

(This game is very easily played.)


And precisely what experience have you had with "objective observers"?

The same thing could be said about the way that Mopologists use the term "anti-Mormon."

Thank you, marg. Although I have frequently disagreed with your points and your method(s), I appreciate your straightforwardness here. I in no way meant to "portray" DCP as a "Peeping Tom." I simply reacted, on a gut level, to what he'd said about prying into the sexual lives of his parishioners. Frankly, I found it creepy and disquieting.

Scratch are you LDS? Even marginally so? Active, not active or Ex? You do not need to answer of course. But if you are you are as familiar with the confessional process in the LDS Church as I am. You know as well as I that most bishops are decent and kind in their approach and do not pry nor take glee is listening to confessions. Indeed it is one of their most difficult jobs as a bishop. Nothing Dan wrote is much different than what any other decent bishop does in humbly attempting to bless the lives of their flock. Nothing.

So do you find every bishop who listens to confessions as part of their call creepy and disquieting or is this just another chance to smear Dan Peterson?

There is a major difference between people choosing to do something versus people being mentally manipulated via thought reform processses to the point that they fear or have extreme guilt for not doing what they are told. Especially when the thought reform is about having to wear particular underwear. How ridiculous can it get?





No Harmony this is a very good example. It is because it's so ridiculous that it is very telling. That that you complain about wearing garments yet continue to wear them indicates how manipulated and controlled you are.

You are absolutely right, it's a small thing, it's friggin underwear.

Thanks for the clarification Scratch, I was addressing his words. I also found his dialogue very creepy and if he's willing to divulge that much it would seem to me he prys much than that short dialogue indicated.

Scratch has demonstrated via years of posting that smearing me is a defining commitment for him.

By contrast, I'm aware of literally nothing, not one thing, that he has ever said in any post, anywhere, that would suggest that he's a believing and communicant Latter-day Saint.

So smearing me for attempting to do my job as a bishop -- a job that I did not seek, and for which I receive no compensation -- is merely par for his course.

I suspect, whatever he may say, that his level of loyalty to the Church is roughly comparable to marg's. No wonder they see eye to eye on this matter.

Only those who go through the temple wear garments. Not everyone chooses to go through the temple (males have to hold the higher priesthood), though most eventually do at some stage. If a ward has 300 members but only 100 active, likely none of the 200 inactive will bother to wear garments, even though many of them will have gone through the temple.

If they choose to reactivate, no bishop will force them to go to the temple, nor wear their garments. It's not Relativity Theory.

Then don't do it, you aren't doing anyone any favors by prying into their sex lives.

You don't "need" to ask those questions.

I know that.

Okay, I'm opening my big "never" mouth.

I have spent more Sunday's than I can count, sitting on wooden church pews wearing a dress in the humid heat of Jersey summers long before the church had air conditioning. I have gotten myself up early to rally the Jersey Girl troops in order to get everyone out the door and "presentable" for church. (Dresses and the whole nine yards). I have rushed to teach a class when going from one activity to another even when I would have rather gone home and taught class every single Sunday for years when I would have liked to take a break but knew there were no substitutes. I've spent umpteen evening hours supporting practices and rehearsals of various kinds. I have kept children entertained during Worship Service when I would have rather dragged them out the door.

Okay, what am I saying here.

I'm saying that believers of all stripes, tolerate inconveniences and do things they'd rather not do for their faith.

How is the wearing of garments different?

You don't need to attempt to dictate my behavior as a believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

How is that any of your business?

Uhhh.. marg? I complain about a lot of things... my job, my children, my brother, my sisters, my car, my house, my dog, the weeds in my flowers, the necessity of pruning my roses, the taste of my food supplement, having to clean the brushes of my robot... so what? On a scale of 1-10 (1 being a perfect world, 10 being hell), having to wear garments rates pretty danged low. I'm used to them. They keep me warm. And thanks to all these years of hot flashes, at times... too warm. So I complain... and take them off.

It's a small thing, on average.

It's not. Except for marg, who isn't a believer by any stripe, and has no clue what it means to be a believer.

And you're a good woman, Jersey... even if you are height-challenged.

Whoa back, marg. You are not in a position to be able to make this statement... you know nothing about how anyone else receives Daniel's (or any bishop's) counsel. It's a private individual thing, and you have no horse in that race.



Where do you get off thinking you are qualified to tell Daniel (or any other bishop) what they need to ask/do/say in their capacity as leader of their congregation? You aren't a believer! You know nothing about it!

Of course. And I'm not going to answer. I know better than that.



I would agree with you here.



I disagree, Jason. Some bishops ask more than others. (Just read Ray's post earlier in the thread.) For example, when I was young, I had two bishops---one who would ask, "Do you obey the law of chastity," vs. the other, who was far more explicitly, asking things like, "Do you masturbate?"



There is a difference between "listening" and "asking questions." Listening to a parishioner's confession is, I think we'll agree, perfectly fine. But I think we need to draw a line between listening, vs. digging around in order to find out the specifics concerning "oral sex, coitus interruptus, and the like." Is it really necessary for a bishop to know such things?