It is currently Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:37 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:02 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
harmony wrote:
4. Daniel... bless his heart... :wink:


I know you've said he must love you, but it appears to be the other way around.


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

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:25 pm 
Daniel Peterson wrote:
And any organization which can get its members to do something of which I disapprove has got to be a fillogrobzuweerd. There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be persuaded to do something of which I disapprove."


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.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9189
Quote:
DCP described his techniques:


Actually that was my example. I

Quote:
First Scratch doesn't need to portray him as a Peeping Tom, he portrays himself as such.


Hardly.

Quote:
Second he doesn't need to know any person's private sex practices.


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.
Quote:
You have no idea how disgusting his description of his interview sounds.


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

Quote:
If I had teens I would never have allowed them to be subjected to something like this.


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.



Quote:
Just because someone claims authority does not mean they have the expertise, nor the best interests of those they question and counsel.


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.

Quote:
In DCP's case his interest is not the individuals but perpetuation of a cult mentality.


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.

Quote:
And to some extent he sounds like a peeping tom, as I'm sure many men are in the position of Bishop.


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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9189
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:47 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
Anyone who wasn't mentally controlled would not wear Mormon garments 24/7. That's pretty obvious to objective observers.


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.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:54 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 7173
marg wrote:
Anyone who wasn't mentally controlled would not wear Mormon garments 24/7.

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

(This game is very easily played.)

marg wrote:
That's pretty obvious to objective observers.

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

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:57 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Daniel Peterson wrote:
marg wrote:
I think the issue is not so much on what exactly is a definition of a cult, but whether or not an organization uses thought reform tactics common to cults as a means to manipulate and control members. And any organization which can get its members to wear ugly uncomfortable underwear to the point that members actually fear not obeying and doing so, and when there is no benefit or necessity to so so, and much better alternatives available..has got to be a cult. There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be manipulated and controlled mentally to fear not wearing sanctioned underwear.

Unless and until you can define cult in a coherent way, none of the above means anything at all.

Consider this:

"I think the issue is not so much on what exactly is a definition of a fillogrobzuweerd, but whether or not an organization uses tactics common to fillogrobzuweerds as a means to accomplish its goals. And any organization which can get its members to do something of which I disapprove has got to be a fillogrobzuweerd. There is little other possible explanation, that people can actually be persuaded to do something of which I disapprove."


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:01 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
marg wrote:

First Scratch doesn't need to portray him as a Peeping Tom, he portrays himself as such.

.


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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9189
Quote:
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?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:11 pm 
harmony wrote:
marg wrote:
Anyone who wasn't mentally controlled would not wear Mormon garments 24/7. That's pretty obvious to objective observers.


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?


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?



Quote:
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.


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.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:16 pm 
Mister Scratch wrote:
marg wrote:

First Scratch doesn't need to portray him as a Peeping Tom, he portrays himself as such.

.


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.


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.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:17 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 7173
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.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:22 pm 
marg wrote:
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?


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.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:23 pm 
Daniel Peterson wrote:
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.


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.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:25 pm 
Ray A wrote:

Only those who go through the temple wear garments.


I know that.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 28246
Location: Off the Deep End
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?

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:33 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:56 pm
Posts: 7173
marg wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:
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.

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.

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?

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:37 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
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.


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.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:38 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Jersey Girl wrote:

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?


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. :wink:

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:41 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
Then don't do it, you aren't doing anyone any favors by prying into their sex lives.


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.

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


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!

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:41 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Jason Bourne wrote:
Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
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.


I would agree with you here.

Quote:
Nothing Dan wrote is much different than what any other decent bishop does in humbly attempting to bless the lives of their flock. Nothing.


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?"

Quote:
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 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?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: consiglieri, Eyepatch, Google [Bot] and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group