Jump to content
rockpond

Reaching out to our Youth in Post-Policy Mormonism

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What happened and what's a shame? That a victim used force to defend himself against attempted sexual assualt? Such defense should be condoned.

We don't know what really happened do we?  Isn't that what every body says?  We don't know.  Physical violence could have been avoided..but what the heck..unless you fight..you're better off dead.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have never, ever felt inclined to do that sort of thing, and I see nothing in Elder Packer's address that could reasonably be construed to rationalize such a thing.

You didn't run with the same crowd I did in 1978.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't imagine they feel it was a harmful statement to make... certainly it would be more harmful for them to contradict him.

So yes, the Brethren are willing to allow an untruth regarding their basic roles as revelators to be told and re-told as long as it supports their agenda of...what? Would you call it 'control'? 'Authority'?

Quote

 I honestly have no idea what kind of unity they have or don't have when it comes to the church's handling of LGBT issues.

I would good-naturedly concur! :)

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

We don't know what really happened do we?  Isn't that what every body says?  We don't know.  Physical violence could have been avoided..but what the heck..unless you fight..you're better off dead.

You think a man should just remain motionless and allow himself to be sexually assaulted?

That's what's coming across here.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So yes, the Brethren are willing to allow an untruth regarding their basic roles as revelators to be told and re-told as long as it supports their agenda of...what? Would you call it 'control'? 'Authority'?

I would good-naturedly concur! :)

President Nelson left plenty of wiggle room in his language to allow them to let his statement stand whether or not they agree that the policy was given to President Monson through direct revelation from the Lord.

I think the 15 believe it is important to be seen as unified.  I can't imagine them publicly contradicting one another unless they felt something said or done was clearly in the wrong or damaging.  And since the Brethren haven't shown a lot of concern for the particular struggles of LGBT members, it's unlikely that they'd speak up even if they felt their experience was different than that of President Nelson.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You think a man should just remain motionless and allow himself to be sexually assaulted?

That's what's coming across here.

I'm not clear on your meaning here, and I'm not certain you are clear on mine.

I'm saying faithful Latter-day Saints should not be supporting an unwarranted accusations against an apostle that the apostle condoned a criminal act.

Not at all..tell me what happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You think a man should just remain motionless and allow himself to be sexually assaulted?

That's what's coming across here.

Give me a break.  You're smarter than this, Scott.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×