Jump to content
bluebell

LDS Church gets beat on medical marijuana

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:
Quote

As a generality, I think the Church is fairly circumspect about getting into "political" issues.  

My concern is about the threats to the civil liberties the Church and others face because they have chosed to exercise those civil liberties.

Thanks,

-Smac

Nothing illegal about their getting involved politically. 

I'm not speaking of illegalities on the part of the Mormons.  I'm thinking of the frenzied and hate-filled reaction to the Church in relation to Prop 8 becaus the Mormons exercised their constitutional rights, some of which reactions are shown here:

Take a look at the 4:50 mark.  The protesters rush and kick and shake the gates of th temple, screaming "Shame on you!"  One fellow yells "Devil worshippers!"  At about 6:14, someone yells "You haven't seen the last of us!"  One protester even managed to break into the grounds of the temple itself.

I remember at the time thinking "Hmm.  So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened."

But for the rule of law (note the extensive law enforcement presence, literally protecting the temple and its patrons from the mob), I wonder what that mob would have done. 

Our own California Boy, having reviewed this video, admits that the LDS Church does "have a right to voice it's opinion," but then ominously declared - to a board full of Mormons - that "the church has to live with the consequence of it's political actions." 

These "consequences" include includes near riots at its places of worship. 

California Boy publicly declared on this board, knowing that it is heavily populated with Mormons, that he "like{s}" the above video.

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortable going to a the Jewish community and something like "Jews have a right to voice their opinion, but you have to live with barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates of your synagogues as the consequences of your doing so"?

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortable publicly expressing enjoyment at videos of profane and hate-filled riots at the gates of a synagogue?  Or a mosque?

I don't think so.  Mormons are on notice, from people like California Boy, that "consequences" inflicted on Mormons for exercising their constitutional rights are their fault.

Quote

I was more commenting on whether this is a smart decision for them to get actively involved from a PR perspective. 

Thank you for the clarification.  CB's prior remarks on this issue (in the context of the foregoing video) were pretty jarring and disturbing.  His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing.  He described it as his compatriots merely "voic[ing] their displeasure" at the LDS Church.  To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot.  Mob intimidation against a religious minority.  Because its members lawfully exercised its constitutional rights.  And California Boy "like{s}" it.  (Here's a bit more information about some of the things that happened in relation to Prop 8.)

I am concerned about the state of our society when people like California Boy feel at liberty to publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority - the Mormons - choose to exercise their constitutional rights in ways that he and his compatriots dislike.  I am concerned when otherwise good and decent people like California Boy nevertheless feel perfectly comfortable going to a venue heavily populated by Mormons and telling them that he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple.

From this story:

Quote

While leaders of the No on 8 campaign say the grass-roots activities underscore the deep resentment gays feel in losing the right to marry, backers of Proposition 8 say they have become the target of an ugly, anti-democratic witch hunt. They say printing the names of people who donated to the yes cause and circulating “blacklists” on the Web unfairly penalize small donors who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage.

Ah.  "Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists."  Or, as CB calls such things, "consequences."

Quote

“We’re in the midst of a social change. Remember the riots, the dogs, the fire hoses when they tried to integrate the public school system. It was tumultuous. That’s what happens when you go through social changes, and there’s going to be quite a bit more tumult,” predicted Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco, a leader in the gay marriage movement.

Ah.  Unapologetic threats from "a leader in the gay marriage movement" of "quite a bit more tumult" in the form of "riots, the dogs, the fire hoses."  

Or, as CB would put it, "consequences."

Quote

Gay marriage supporters have marched in recent days in front of Mormon temples in Oakland and Los Angeles to protest the church’s Yes on 8 fundraising activities. On Thursday, temples in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles were closed after receiving envelopes with a “white powdery substance,” though it was unknown who sent the envelopes or why.

Anthrax threats.

"Consequences."

From this article:

Quote

The campaign to weed out anyone who remotely has any connection to, or makes money from, gay consumers has reached far down the food chain. Marjorie Chrisofferson manages El Coyote, a modest (some would use more perjorative terms) Mexican restaurant on the West Side of Los Angeles that is popular as a late-night rocker and gay hangout.

When it was found that she had donated to Yes on 8, there was a slew of angry bloggers and L.A. activists who called for a boycott of the restaurant. At a hastily called news conference, as reported by Queerty, the manager of El Coyote promised a generous donation to Lambda Legal and L.A.'s LGBT Center.

When Chrisoferson came forward, she was asked if she would donate to No on 8. When she said she could not and started to cry, the meeting generated into chaos. While Eckern and Raddon had donated four figures to the campaign, Chrisofferson's was less: She had given $100.

Intimidating an old woman and making her cry.

"Consequences."

Quote

On Tuesday, Nov. 25, Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, decided to resign because of pressure from gay bloggers and others incensed over his donation to Yes on 8--this despite his popularity in Hollywood and what many said was a firm commitment to diversity.

These are only the best-known examples of people--all Mormons--who have been "outed' as supporting the successful campaign to pass an amendment to California's state constitution banning gay marriage.

The loss of a job.  Because Mr. Raddon lawfully exercised his constitutional rights.

"Consequences."

From this article ("An Ugly Attack on Mormons"):

Quote

At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of "Mormon scum!" were reported. Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott -- essentially Mormon blacklists -- have sprung up on the Internet. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned because of pressure after it was revealed he gave $1,000 to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

Hateful chants against a religious minority.

"Consequences."

Quote

It's amazing. Hollywood liberals, who shout "McCarthyism!" as a first resort, see nothing wrong with this. If Jews were attacked in this way for giving too much money to a political cause, Barbra Streisand would already have a French passport.

Never mind that Proposition 8 carried nearly every demographic slice of voters. Put aside the fact that the Catholic Church and scores of other Christian churches supported it too. Discount the inconvenient truth that bans on gay marriage have now passed in 30 states. It's all the Mormons' fault.

The argument is that Mormons used illegitimate power, in this case money, beyond their numerical standing in the population to secure victory for the measure. Golly, wealthy gay liberals would never do anything like that! I bet they're not giving a dime to the legal effort to overturn Proposition 8.

Yep.  Has California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences" to all the other "demographic slices" that voted for Prop 8?  I really, really doubt it.  And why?  Well, the article continues:

Quote

No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.

...

It's often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the "forces of change" and the "agents of progress." They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they're challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.

My own view is that gay marriage is likely inevitable, and won't be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be. But the scorched-earth campaign to victory pushed by gay-marriage advocates may well be disastrous, and "liberals" should be ashamed for countenancing it.

Quite so. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Many of my studies support it.  Do you have any that refute it?  If you do I still have many studies that support it.

Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. 🤔

Every couple of years admin trotted out a vast new program that “studies showed” was the panacea we were searching for, only to be replaced a few years later by another that “studies showed” was better. After a few decades, we started seeing old concepts and practices recycled in current edujargon. 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Right.  You're telling us we should disregard his assessment (MD, residency, internship, the whole bit) that marijuana can only delay the onset of Alzheimer's symptoms in favor of your assessment (anonymous Internet poster with only anecdotal evidence) that marijuana can actually treat Alzheimer's.  Q.E.D.!

As I said, I'm convinced! :huh: :unsure: :unknw:

Well I just emailed him again and told him what I said on the board, that I respectfully disagree that cbd oil can't treat Alz. So hopefully he'll not take it bad or like you did, haha.

I joined a discussion board on the Alzheimer's Association website and here is a sample of what one person said about it's treatment for symptoms of Alz.   https://www.alzconnected.org/discussion.aspx?g=posts&t=2147524356

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just wanted to share this other leaf. It's a fruit but the tree leaves can be made into a tea! Wow, I'm going to try it, since I have sleep issues, and IBS. Didn't see anything on Alzheimer's but it does fight inflammation too, so kind of in the area. Just wanted to share in case any on this board could find it useful. I'm going to try the tea leafs. I ordered the leafs for making a tea out of. https://www.amazon.com/NalLife-Organic-Soursop-Graviola-Leaves/dp/B00ET0LIXK

http://15healthbenefits.com/health-benefits-of-soursop-leaves/

I'm sure you have done lots of research into Alzheimer's, and I am far from an expert on the subject, but just wanted to point out that there are probably a number of factors important in its onset. it is probably a genetically-predisposed condition, but it is likely there are things we can do to stop its progression if we know what to do. Vitamin D3 and Omega 3 fats seem to cause macrophages to absorb more amyloid betas. While this probably won't get rid of the amyloid plaques already in the brain, it could probably reduce or stop their flow to the brain through the arteries. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255957.php  So it seems a half hour to hour of daily sun could be very beneficial. 

Being that the prevalence of Alzheimer's seems to be increasing, it seems to me that something that we have started doing or stopped doing may be a key factor. It seems statin drugs or anti-cholesterol drugs given by doctors could be a cause of the increase. These drugs are prescribed to approx 25% of people over 50 in the US. 

A last thing which has dramatically changed is our use of antibiotics. Antibiotics usually kill off our healthy gut flora. Most people don't realize that our gut flora are important in production of serotonin and dopamine - two chemicals very important to our brain function. http://www.caltech.edu/news/microbes-help-produce-serotonin-gut-46495 Therefore, a wide-spectrum acidophilus and bifidus supplement seems doubly important after antibiotic use, but probably neglected in elderly patients who are treated for pneumonia, etc with heavy doses of antibiotics.

That gut feeling - American Psychological Association

www.apa.org › Monitor on Psychology › September 2012 Monitor on Psychology

Evidence has mounted that the gut microbiome can influence neural ... For example, gut bacteria manufacture about 95 percent of the body's supply of serotonin, ...
Edited by RevTestament
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'm sure you have done lots of research into Alzheimer's, and I am far from an expert on the subject, but just wanted to point out that there are probably a number of factors important in its onset. it is probably a genetically-predisposed condition, but it is likely there are things we can do to stop its progression if we know what to do. Vitamin D3 and Omega 3 fats seem to cause macrophages to absorb more amyloid betas. While this probably won't get rid of the amyloid plaques already in the brain, it could probably reduce or stop their flow to the brain through the arteries. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/255957.php  So it seems a half hour to hour of daily sun could be very beneficial. 

Being that the prevalence of Alzheimer's seems to be increasing, it seems to me that something that we have started doing or stopped doing may be a key factor. It seems statin drugs or anti-cholesterol drugs given by doctors could be a cause of the increase. These drugs are prescribed to approx 25% of people over 50 in the US. 

A last thing which has dramatically changed is our use of antibiotics. Antibiotics usually kill off our healthy gut flora. Most people don't realize that our gut flora are important in production of serotonin and dopamine - two chemicals very important to our brain function. http://www.caltech.edu/news/microbes-help-produce-serotonin-gut-46495 Therefore, a wide-spectrum acidophilus and bifidus supplement seems doubly important after antibiotic use, but probably neglected in elderly patients who are treated for pneumonia, etc with heavy doses of antibiotics.

 

Thanks Rev! I agree that antibiotics are horrible. Yes, they do come in handy for a few things, but overusage is a bad thing. For the women who may read this. I finally quit all the doctor's visits and antibiotic Rx's by treating my reoccurring UTI with a supplement called D'mannose, that I ran across luckily. It works, and now I just take a capsule a day to keep it at bay. And if I do get one again, I just up the dosage and it's gone within a day or hours. https://www.walmart.com/ip/NOW-D-Mannose-500-mg-Capsules-120-Ct/39452917

I'm sorry if I'm bugging anyone with all the info or supplement suggestions. Just hoping it can help others. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I remember at the time thinking "Hmm.  So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened."

Are you seriously comparing the reaction to Prop 8 to Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany?  Please don't minimize the suffering of the Holocaust by comparing it to Mormons in the United States.  

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

These "consequences" include includes near riots at its places of worship. 

On public property.  Exercising their 1st amendment rights.  Do you have a problem with freedom of assembly?  

But nice use of the weasel word "near."  Riots?  No no, near riots.

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

the LDS Church does "have a right to voice it's opinion," but then ominously declares that "the church has to live with the consequence of it's political actions." 

Do you disagree with this statement? I voted for Donald J. Trump.  I wear a MAGA hat.  As a result I am constantly insulted by strangers.  These are the consequences of voting for DJT and letting people know.

Just like they taught in primary, "you can choose what you do, but you can't choose the consequences."

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortable publicly saying something like "Jews have a right to voice their opinion, but they have to live with the consequences of doing so?"  

Do you watch news coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict?  People say this stuff all the time.  

And please, stop trying to compare Mormons to Jews.  It is as absurd as it is offensive to the very real suffering of the Jewish people.

Look, you and I can probably agree that Nadine Hansen is a disgusting hypocrite for her actions in stoking anger against the LDS Church after Prop 8.  But none of what she, or anyone else did, even comes close to the persecution of Jews.  You sound like those people with TDS.

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortably publicly expressing enjoyment at videos of profane and hate-filled riots at the gates of a synagogue?  Or a mosque?

I can literally link to YouTube videos right now showing this exact thing.  Lots of people express public enjoyment at it.  And hey, radical anti-government Mosques should be protested.  Just like extremist Synagogues that promote violence against Muslims.  

This is about political disagreement, not religious identity.  And I think you know that.

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mormons are on notice, from people like California Boy, that "consequences" inflicted on Mormons for exercising their constitutional rights are their fault.

Again, what do you disagree with here?  That there will not be consequences for standing up for what is right?  That we as Church members will just have a happy go of thigns for following the Prophet?  Give me a break.  Taking a stand means people will take the oppositie view.  If you can't deal with it, then don't take a stand.

As for me, I'll follow President Nelson.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Are you seriously comparing the reaction to Prop 8 to Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany? 

Kirstallnacht was a precursor of what was to come.  And there were warnings even prior to that.

So in that context, yes, I am making that comparison.

Quote

Please don't minimize the suffering of the Holocaust by comparing it to Mormons in the United States.  

I said nothing about the Holocaust.  Are you familiar with Kristallnacht?

Quote

On public property.  Exercising their 1st amendment rights.  Do you have a problem with freedom of assembly?  

I have a problem with threats and intimidation by a mob against a religious minority.

Quote

But nice use of the weasel word "near."  Riots?  No no, near riots.

Yes, near riots.  But for the heavy police presence (many of them in riot gear), I think there would have been substantial violence.

Quote
Quote

the LDS Church does "have a right to voice it's opinion," but then ominously declares that "the church has to live with the consequence of it's political actions." 

Do you disagree with this statement? I voted for Donald J. Trump.  I wear a MAGA hat.  As a result I am constantly insulted by strangers. 

But do these strangers gather as a mob outside the front door of your home?  Do they bang and kick at the door?  Do they scream threats and obscenities?  Are their numbers and and threatening conduct so serious that civil authorities have to send out large numbers of police officers (some in riot gear) to physically protect you from these strangers?

Quote

These are the consequences of voting for DJT and letting people know.

When the "consequences" being discussed are mob intimidation (and, but for a heavy police presence, mob violence), yes, I disagree with it.  "Consequences" for exercising constitutional rights should not involve being subjected to mob intimidation.

Quote

This is about political disagreement, not religious identity.  

The mob was chanting "Tax the Mormon Church!"  They were kicking and shaking the gates of the LA Temple.

Quote

Again, what do you disagree with here?  That there will not be consequences for standing up for what is right? 

That some of these "consequences" are inappropriate.  That's my point.

Quote

That we as Church members will just have a happy go of thigns for following the Prophet?  Give me a break.  Taking a stand means people will take the oppositie view.  If you can't deal with it, then don't take a stand.

As for me, I'll follow President Nelson.

So will I.  But that doesn't mean we just sit around and ignore clear indications that our rights are in peril.

Joseph Smith didn't just gloss over the injuries done to the members of the Church in Missouri.  He traveled to Washington and filed petitions seeking redress.  He brought attention to the misconduct.  Even though he didn't succeed (President Van Buren famously responded "What can I do? I can do nothing for you, -if I do anything, I shall come in contact with the whole State of Missouri."), he was nevertheless correct in bringing attention to improper conduct against his people.

In a very small way, that is what I am trying to do here.  I'm taking a stand.

I am reminded here of a poem cautioning against malaise in the face of a genuine threat:

Quote

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Interestingly enough, this poem is on display in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.  So it seems that some Jewish folks are in favor of not waiting until the threat is clear and immediate and irreversible and overwhelming.  To the contrary, the message of the above poem is to speak out before the situation becomes like what the Jews faced. 

I think civil liberties fo religious minority groups, like Mormons, are under threat now.  That threat is not yet dire.  It is not irresistible.  But it is here.  Now.  I choose to speak now, rather than wait until the threats become worse, and those making the threats start acting on them more and more.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Kirstallnacht was a precursor of what was to come.  And there were warnings even prior to that.

So in that context, yes, I am making that comparison.

I said nothing about the Holocaust.  Are you familiar with Kristallnacht?

I have a problem with threats and intimidation by a mob against a religious minority.

Yes, near riots.  But for the heavy police presence (many of them in riot gear), I think there would have been substantial violence.

But do these strangers gather as a mob outside the front door of your home?  Do they bang and kick at the door?  Do they scream threats and obscenities?  Are there numbers and conduct so serious that civil authorities have to send out large numbers of police officers (some in riot gear) to physically protect you from these strangers?

When the "consequences" being discussed are mob intimidation (and, but for a heavy police presence, mob violence), yes, I disagree with it.  "Consequences" for exercising constitutional rights should not involve being subjected to mob intimidation.

The mob was chanting "Tax the Mormon Church!"  They were kicking and shaking the gates of the LA Temple.

That some of these "consequences" are inappropriate.  That's my point.

So will I.  But that doesn't mean we just sit around and ignore clear indications that our rights are in peril.

Joseph Smith didn't just gloss over the injuries done to the members of the Church in Missouri.  He traveled to Washington and filed petitions seeking redress.  He brought attention to the misconduct.  Even though he didn't succeed (President Van Buren famously responded "What can I do? I can do nothing for you, -if I do anything, I shall come in contact with the whole State of Missouri."), he was nevertheless correct in bringing attention to improper conduct against his people.

In a very small way, that is what I am trying to do here.  I'm taking a stand.

I am reminded here of a poem cautioning against malaise in the face of a genuine threat:

Interestingly enough, this poem is on display in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.  So it seems that some Jewish folks are in favor of not waiting until the threat is clear and immediate and irreversible and overwhelming.  To the contrary, the message of the above poem is to speak out before the situation becomes like what the Jews faced. 

I think civil liberties fo religious minority groups, like Mormons, are under threat now.  That threat is not yet dire.  It is not irresistible.  But it is here.  Now.  I choose to speak now, rather than wait until the threats become worse, and those making the threats start acting on them more and more.

Thanks,

-Smac

How many people did the Mormons kill, vs. how many Mormons were killed? And how many Christians vs. how many people the Christians killed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence  and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_violence

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

How many people did the Mormons kill, vs. how many Mormons were killed?

As pertaining to Prop 8?  None.

But if you are trying to suggest that we should not worry about mobs literally baying at the gates of our temples, or anthrax threats, or blacklists, or hateful chants against a religious minority, I will have to disagree with you there.

If you are trying to suggest that we shouldn't speak in defense of our civil liberties until after someone is killed, I will have to disagree with you there, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yep.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its leaders, and its members are called upon to stand for what's right ... unless doing so isn't smart from a PR perspective.  (See Book of Mormon [KGV] Mosiah 18:9).

In practice I see the church extremely sensitive to public perceptions.  PR is a huge factor in how the institution manages its affairs today.  I'm not saying this is right or wrong morally or how it relates to scriptural teachings.  This is the reality for how large institutions generally operate in our modern society. 

If you think this practice is against the teachings from the BoM, perhaps you should communicate this concern to the church hierarchy.  It might not make a difference, but at least you'd know that you're honestly communicating your convictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not speaking of illegalities on the part of the Mormons.  I'm thinking of the frenzied and hate-filled reaction to the Church in relation to Prop 8 becaus the Mormons exercised their constitutional rights, some of which reactions are shown here:

I think there were some very legitimate concerns from people about the Church's involvement in prop 8.  I don't condone violence at all, and these few people I see as an outlier extreme example.  Conversely, it worries me when people take the worst actors in protests and try to stereotype the whole movement by the actions of a very few people.  This tactic happens on both sides of political debates, as we saw this with people against Hillary and Trump in the last election cycle.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think there were some very legitimate concerns from people about the Church's involvement in prop 8. 

I appreciate and respect that.

But those concerns, legitimate or not, do not justify or excuse anthrax threats, mob intimidation, and so on.

Quote

I don't condone violence at all, and these few people I see as an outlier extreme example. 

"Outliers?"  I hope so.  

How many people like California Boy are out there, who "like" the sorts of scenes that play out in the video I linked to before?  How many Fred Kargers?  I honestly don't know.  I really hope there's more tolerance for diversity of opinion than what came out after Prop 8.  

Quote

Conversely, it worries me when people take the worst actors in protests and try to stereotype the whole movement by the actions of a very few people. 

A fair point.  I am not interested in characterizing all gay rights folks as agreeing with the sentiments expressed in the video and by California Boy.

But I'm not sure about the whole "very few people" bit.  I sure hope so.  See, e.g., here:

Quote
  • A full-page New York Times advertisement titled "No Mob Veto" read in part, "When thugs ... terrorize any place of worship, especially those of a religious minority, responsible voices need to speak clearly: Religious wars are wrong; they are also dangerous." The advertisement, paid for by Washington, D.C.-based The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, was signed by law professors, diplomats, civil rights activists, and heads of religious organizations.[26] The Human Rights Campaign responded to these ads, opposing violence but claiming that the ads distort the truth when "they say we are in favor of mob intimidation and violence", suggesting that the ads paint the entire opposition to Proposition 8 with the actions of a few.[27] A full-page New York Times ad released by Truth Wins Out in response to the ad goes further, accusing the original ad of "blatant falsehoods", as well as "spotlighting the religious bigotry of the ad's very own signers."[28]
  • Several opinion pieces condemn the tactics including "Editorial: Protest and civility in a democracy" from the Dallas Morning News,[29] "So Much for Tolerance" from Chuck Colson of the Christian Post,[30]and "California and Thank-A-Mormon Day" from John Reynolds of Biola University.[31]

I am gratified that the Human Rights Campaign opposes violence, and that it at least tacitly disagreed "with the actions of a few" and disagree with "mob intimidation and violence" (as opposed to California Boy, who "like{d}" a video showing mob intimidation and violence against Mormons, suggested that these people were merely "voic[ing] their displeasure" at the LDS Church, and then warned the Mormons that they must learn that "the church has to live with the consequence of it's political actions" (including, presumably, the "mob intimidation and violence" disavowed by the Human Rights Campaign).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not speaking of illegalities on the part of the Mormons.  I'm thinking of the frenzied and hate-filled reaction to the Church in relation to Prop 8 becaus the Mormons exercised their constitutional rights, some of which reactions are shown here:

Take a look at the 4:50 mark.  The protesters rush and kick and shake the gates of th temple, screaming "Shame on you!"  One fellow yells "Devil worshippers!"  At about 6:14, someone yells "You haven't seen the last of us!"  One protester even managed to break into the grounds of the temple itself.

I remember at the time thinking "Hmm.  So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened."

But for the rule of law (note the extensive law enforcement presence, literally protecting the temple and its patrons from the mob), I wonder what that mob would have done. 

Our own California Boy, having reviewed this video, admits that the LDS Church does "have a right to voice it's opinion," but then ominously declared - to a board full of Mormons - that "the church has to live with the consequence of it's political actions." 

These "consequences" include includes near riots at its places of worship. 

California Boy publicly declared on this board, knowing that it is heavily populated with Mormons, that he "like{s}" the above video.

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortable going to a the Jewish community and something like "Jews have a right to voice their opinion, but you have to live with barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates of your synagogues as the consequences of your doing so"?

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortable publicly expressing enjoyment at videos of profane and hate-filled riots at the gates of a synagogue?  Or a mosque?

I don't think so.  Mormons are on notice, from people like California Boy, that "consequences" inflicted on Mormons for exercising their constitutional rights are their fault.

Thank you for the clarification.  CB's prior remarks on this issue (in the context of the foregoing video) were pretty jarring and disturbing.  His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing.  He described it as his compatriots merely "voic[ing] their displeasure" at the LDS Church.  To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot.  Mob intimidation against a religious minority.  Because its members lawfully exercised its constitutional rights.  And California Boy "like{s}" it.  (Here's a bit more information about some of the things that happened in relation to Prop 8.)

I am concerned about the state of our society when people like California Boy feel at liberty to publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority - the Mormons - choose to exercise their constitutional rights in ways that he and his compatriots dislike.  I am concerned when otherwise good and decent people like California Boy nevertheless feel perfectly comfortable going to a venue heavily populated by Mormons and telling them that he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple.

From this story:

Ah.  "Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists."  Or, as CB calls such things, "consequences."

Ah.  Unapologetic threats from "a leader in the gay marriage movement" of "quite a bit more tumult" in the form of "riots, the dogs, the fire hoses."  

Or, as CB would put it, "consequences."

Anthrax threats.

"Consequences."

From this article:

Intimidating an old woman and making her cry.

"Consequences."

The loss of a job.  Because Mr. Raddon lawfully exercised his constitutional rights.

"Consequences."

From this article ("An Ugly Attack on Mormons"):

Hateful chants against a religious minority.

"Consequences."

Yep.  Has California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences" to all the other "demographic slices" that voted for Prop 8?  I really, really doubt it.  And why?  Well, the article continues:

Quite so. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Why are you going after California Boy (naming him and making this so personal)?  This post of yours seems out of character for you Smac.  (I haven’t followed this entire thread so I’m just wondering why you feel the need to do this and maybe CB got personal first?)

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Why are you going after California Boy (naming him and making this so personal)?  This post of yours seems out of character for you Smac.  (I haven’t followed this entire thread so I’m just wondering why you feel the need to do this and maybe CB got personal first?)

I am critiquing CB's public remarks.  I provided links to them.  I don't know him otherwise, and otherwise don't have much to say about him.  However, when he publicly speaks of liking videos showing mob intimidation and violence against my faith's sacred temples, I am going to speak against that. 

When he suggests that mob violence and intimidation by his compatriots is merely them "voic[ing] their displeasure" at the LDS Church, I am going to speak against that.

When he suggests, when specifically discussing mob violence and intimidation, that the LDS Church and its members must "live with the consequence of it's political actions," I am going to speak against that.

I disagree with mob intimidation and violence against members of a religious monority who have chosen to lawfully exercise their constitutional rights in ways that CB and his compatriots (the ones whose conduct in the video he "likes") dislike.

I have said nothing about CB's private life.  I am critiquing his public remarks, which he has presented to a board full of Mormons.  If I thought he was merely a provocateur, I would ignore what he has said.  But I don't think that.  He has put his ideas into the public sphere for discussion, so I am discussing them.

As for whether this is "out of character" for me, I don't know.  I found his comments too jarring and disturbing to ignore. 

I guess I've had my say, though.  So I'll stop.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not speaking of illegalities on the part of the Mormons.  I'm thinking of the frenzied and hate-filled reaction to the Church in relation to Prop 8 becaus the Mormons exercised their constitutional rights, some of which reactions are shown here:

Take a look at the 4:50 mark.  The protesters rush and kick and shake the gates of th temple, screaming "Shame on you!"  One fellow yells "Devil worshippers!"  At about 6:14, someone yells "You haven't seen the last of us!"  One protester even managed to break into the grounds of the temple itself.

I remember at the time thinking "Hmm.  So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened."

But for the rule of law (note the extensive law enforcement presence, literally protecting the temple and its patrons from the mob), I wonder what that mob would have done. 

Our own California Boy, having reviewed this video, admits that the LDS Church does "have a right to voice it's opinion," but then ominously declared - to a board full of Mormons - that "the church has to live with the consequence of it's political actions." 

These "consequences" include includes near riots at its places of worship. 

California Boy publicly declared on this board, knowing that it is heavily populated with Mormons, that he "like{s}" the above video.

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortable going to a the Jewish community and something like "Jews have a right to voice their opinion, but you have to live with barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates of your synagogues as the consequences of your doing so"?

Can any of us imagine people like California Boy feeling comfortable publicly expressing enjoyment at videos of profane and hate-filled riots at the gates of a synagogue?  Or a mosque?

I don't think so.  Mormons are on notice, from people like California Boy, that "consequences" inflicted on Mormons for exercising their constitutional rights are their fault.

Thank you for the clarification.  CB's prior remarks on this issue (in the context of the foregoing video) were pretty jarring and disturbing.  His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing.  He described it as his compatriots merely "voic[ing] their displeasure" at the LDS Church.  To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot.  Mob intimidation against a religious minority.  Because its members lawfully exercised its constitutional rights.  And California Boy "like{s}" it.  (Here's a bit more information about some of the things that happened in relation to Prop 8.)

I am concerned about the state of our society when people like California Boy feel at liberty to publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority - the Mormons - choose to exercise their constitutional rights in ways that he and his compatriots dislike.  I am concerned when otherwise good and decent people like California Boy nevertheless feel perfectly comfortable going to a venue heavily populated by Mormons and telling them that he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple.

From this story:

Ah.  "Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists."  Or, as CB calls such things, "consequences."

Ah.  Unapologetic threats from "a leader in the gay marriage movement" of "quite a bit more tumult" in the form of "riots, the dogs, the fire hoses."  

Or, as CB would put it, "consequences."

Anthrax threats.

"Consequences."

From this article:

Intimidating an old woman and making her cry.

"Consequences."

The loss of a job.  Because Mr. Raddon lawfully exercised his constitutional rights.

"Consequences."

From this article ("An Ugly Attack on Mormons"):

Hateful chants against a religious minority.

"Consequences."

Yep.  Has California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences" to all the other "demographic slices" that voted for Prop 8?  I really, really doubt it.  And why?  Well, the article continues:

Quite so. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I am pretty offended by this whole ginning up of what I said and what actually happened.  You acknowledged that I said the church was completely within its right to try and sway the voters of California to take away the civli rights of gay couples.  JUST AS LEGAL is the right of those that support the rights of gay couples to protest the church's actions.

It is you that is trying to inflame the situation by trying to create some kind of aggression taking place other than a protest.  Of course those people are angry with what the church did.  Did you think that NO ONE would protest the actions of the church?  Do you think that they do not have a right to voice their outrage at what the church did?  Honestly you are unbelievable.  Trying to gin up this whole thing against what actually happened at the protest and what I actually said.  Just like the protester said through the gates of the temple.  SHAME ON YOU

Here is a list of your inflamed language describing what happened.

1. So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened

2. I wonder what that mob would have done. 

3. ominously declared

4. barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates

5. His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing

6. To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot.

7. Mob intimidation against a religious minority

8. publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority

9. he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple.

10. Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists.

11. California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences

You got all of this hate speech out of me saying that you should not be surprised that those who lost their civil rights because of the actions of the Mormon Church have just as much of a right to protest that action as the church has to participate in the election process.

Are you writing this post just to inflame anger?  Because you succeeded.

 

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am critiquing CB's public remarks.  I provided links to them.  I don't know him otherwise, and otherwise don't have much to say about him.  However, when he publicly speaks of liking videos showing mob intimidation and violence against my faith's sacred temples, I am going to speak against that. 

When he suggests that mob violence and intimidation by his compatriots is merely them "voic[ing] their displeasure" at the LDS Church, I am going to speak against that.

When he suggests, when specifically discussing mob violence and intimidation, that the LDS Church and its members must "live with the consequence of it's political actions," I am going to speak against that.

I disagree with mob intimidation and violence against members of a religious monority who have chosen to lawfully exercise their constitutional rights in ways that CB and his compatriots (the ones whose conduct in the video he "likes") dislike.

I have said nothing about CB's private life.  I am critiquing his public remarks, which he has presented to a board full of Mormons.  If I thought he was merely a provocateur, I would ignore what he has said.  But I don't think that.  He has put his ideas into the public sphere for discussion, so I am discussing them.

As for whether this is "out of character" for me, I don't know.  I found his comments too jarring and disturbing to ignore. 

I guess I've had my say, though.  So I'll stop.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are not critiquing my comments, you are going after me with pitch forks and torches.  You are building your whole hate filled case against me by claiming that I liked the video.  CFR where I ever said I liked the video.  

SMAC, I may never forgive you for this.  You have so distorted what I said that it is beyond recognition.  You are intentionally posting inflaming post that completely distort what I actually said.  Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with medical marijuana.  If you want too start a thread about why we should all hate CB, then do a separate thread.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I apologize to CB.  Some of my remarks have been intemperate, and I apologize for them.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are not critiquing my comments, you are going after me with pitch forks and torches.  You are building your whole hate filled case against me by claiming that I liked the video.  CFR where I ever said I liked the video.  

Here (responding specifically to my post in which I posted the video clip in question).

Quote

I like the clip you posted.  As if those that supported civil rights don't have the right to voice their displeasure at the institute that took that right away from them.

"I like the clip you posted" is what Ihad in mind.  I even responded to it here:

Quote
Quote

I like the clip you posted.  

I am saddened, but not really surprised, that you like it.  It is an ugly, vile display.  If that mob was screaming in front of a synagogue, or a mosque, would you still "like" it?

Or is it just when Mormons are in the crosshairs?

So there it is.

Quote

SMAC, I may never forgive you for this.  You have so distorted what I said that it is beyond recognition.  You are intentionally posting inflaming post that completely distort what I actually said.  Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with medical marijuana.  If you want too start a thread about why we should all hate CB, then do a separate thread.  

I have apologized already, and do so again here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are not critiquing my comments, you are going after me with pitch forks and torches.  You are building your whole hate filled case against me by claiming that I liked the video.  CFR where I ever said I liked the video.  

SMAC, I may never forgive you for this.  You have so distorted what I said that it is beyond recognition.  You are intentionally posting inflaming post that completely distort what I actually said.  Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with medical marijuana.  If you want too start a thread about why we should all hate CB, then do a separate thread.  

CB, perhaps you could explain why you said you like the clip that Smac97 posted. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here (responding specifically to my post in which I posted the video clip in question).

"I like the clip you posted" is what Ihad in mind.  I even responded to it here:

So there it is.

I have apologized already, and do so again here.

Thanks,

-Smac

And that is what you built this entire page of hate filled attack on?  Because I saw a group legally protesting the actions the church took against them that took away their civil right to marry?.  There is no justification for what you have done.  None.

Share this post


Link to post

smac...you are disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

smac...you are disgusting.

I have apologized.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CB, perhaps you could explain why you said you like the clip that Smac97 posted. 

 

This is going to be my last post on this issue.  This thread is about medical marijuana until SMAC turned it into a hate filled attack against me.  But I will be glad to answer your question.  And if SMAC had asked me to explain why I said that, then I would have answered him as well.

We live in a country that allows everyone to participate in the political process.  That includes the Mormon Church launching a full scale campaign supporting Prop 8.  We also live in a country where protests over wrongs committed against a group are allowed to happen.  I support the Mormon Church in its right to participate in public elections.  I always have.  I also support those that wish to protest such actions.  There were no near riots.  No tear gas was fired.  No rubber bullets fired.  It was a protest.  People were carrying signs and chanting.  Has there ever been a protest where people don't carry signs and chant?  There were literally over 1000 protesters peacefully protesting an egregious wrong.  There was no near riot.  There was no threat of life.  

You know why I like this video?  Because it showed exactly what happened, people exercising their right to protest a wrong that was done to them.  Without this video, perhaps some would believe inflamed remarks made by the likes of SMAC of what was going on.  Did you notice the single woman that jumped the fence?  What did she do?  Did she lunge at anyone?  Did she threaten anyone?  Nope, she just chanted and peacefully left. So even those few that were out of line were in no way  threatening to anyone physically.  And that is the what some are pointing to in order to gin up the event.  Notice when they open the gate to let her out.  Any angry mob surging forward to flood the grounds of the temple?  NOPE.  Of the over thousand protesters, make a note of how many of those protesters did anything but hold signs and chant.  

Now read what SMAC wrote about the protest.  Even with a news camera that loves to sensetionalize these kinds of events, showing the worse of anything they carry, what actually was the worse they were able to capture.  Just how many of those people were doing anything BUT peacefully protesting.  

And Scott, I am disappointed you fed into what SMAC wrote by up voting his hateful remarks.  Do you hate me that much that anyone who attacks me deserves your support?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Take a look at the 4:50 mark.  The protesters rush and kick and shake the gates of th temple, screaming "Shame on you!"  One fellow yells "Devil worshippers!"  At about 6:14, someone yells "You haven't seen the last of us!"  One protester even managed to break into the grounds of the temple itself.

I just watched the video and I didn’t see anything egregious.  No vandalism or violent acts here.  So I’m thinking you’re being overly critical of california boy as well, at least as it pertains to the protesters in this video.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have apologized.

For which I appreciate..but you do an awful lot of apologizing on this board.  Kind of uncanny for a mormon..☺️

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×