What's your take?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You probably shouldn't take it so personal, then. She probably felt that underlying motivation and decided it wasn't the best environment for a first date.

I take issue with your use of the definite article. It was "a" motivating force, but the greatly subservient one.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

I am guessing they also enjoy shopping together as well.

Let me tell you, we had even picked out an adorable top from Tory Burch for her to wear!

[UtahDan]

Sounds like you were morally outraged. I wouldn't have reacted that way, but we are not the same person. Now she isn't coming for sure. Another way to approach it would have been to say "well that really surprises me and even strikes me as a little funny, but why don't you tell me your specific concerns."

You are an advocate (well, maybe you are someone's research flunky, I don't know) so you could have taken the opportunity to persuade her and address her concerns.

Be all that as it may, I would apologize for the overreaction if I were you. Maybe its not too late.

[Levin]

No. More. Preaching.

I know I overreacted.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Levin

No. More. Preaching.

I know I overreacted.

Then you have placed your feet on the path to repentance.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Then you have placed your feet on the path to repentance.

And I'm taking steps to her office to enter the second stage of repentance.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Levin

And I'm taking steps to her office to enter the second stage of repentance.

If she says something else upsetting, count to ten before you reply. Count to 100 if it is very upsetting.

[marsupial]

I think dinner and a reenactment of Daniel and the lion's den at a stranger's house would be a weird first date no matter your religion.

[marsupial]

Besides, why does she need an excuse to ask him out? Tell her to just do it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It should come as no surprise that most people in elite circles find Mormons who define themselves as such, whose identity is enmeshed with being Mormon, weird and even freaky.

There's some, but only some, truth to this, and it's an aspect of the "elite" that's certainly not to their credit. As a 3L, I interviewed with Morrison & Foerster. At the end of one interview, a young partner (the "Twit") touted the firm's many virtues and then, leaning back in his chair with his hands locked behind his head, observed smugly, "Yes, you could say that Morrison & Foerster and the Mormon Church don't have very much in common." I didn't get an offer.

Eight years later, as part of a migration away from my firm, Orrick Herrington, I met with MoFo's Chairman, Managing Partner, and the Twit where they presented me with an offer to become the first corporate/securities lawyer in their new Palo Alto office. The Twit didn't recall our interview eight years earlier, so I reminded him, in the presence of the others, of what he had said then (it really hadn't bothered me back then, but I was always amused by his condescending and self-satisfied tone). The Chairman recoiled in horror, and the Managing Partner invoked the name of Him after whom our church is named, and said, "You could have sued our asses off. Fortunately, we're a bit more enlightened now, and I apologize, rather belatedly, for what [the Twit] said." I laughed it off, and accepted the offer. Sometimes, SU, you remind me of the Twit.