Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyJackWagon

Pres. Nelson Meets with Owner of Pulse Nightclub

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Interestingly, it doesn't appear that the murders were related to the clubgoers' sexual orientation.  It's obviously still a horrific tragedy, but it wasn't because they were LGBTQ+:

No big loss.  After all, the only thing they get is a sentencing enhancement if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp intended specifically to harm somebody because of demographics.  So the original legislative intent of, say, a 1st degree felony with possibility of parole for each count, instead of the stepped-up 1st degree felony without possibility of parole, would still hold.  <No, I haven't researched Florida law specifically>

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Nope. Rather, the instruction in these genocides was for the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and baby. Period. IIRC, in some cases they were even instructed to kill the fetuses of pregnant women for good measure.

It is actually both. In some cases they were to offer surrender but for certain people enumerated specifically they were to supposed to kill them all.

I personally suspect these sections of the Old Testament were tampered with to play up the glories of Israel in a similar way that I get “The Price is Right” vibes from the descriptions of the glories of the reigns of David and Solomon playing up wealth and glory as if Israel is some kind of Xanadu. There is something a little sick about focusing on the glories of their wealth and successful military conquests. Compare that to the accounts of the city of Enoch and the Nephites after the coming of Christ. The writers clearly valued different things.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

No big loss.  After all, the only thing they get is a sentencing enhancement if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the perp intended specifically to harm somebody because of demographics.  So the original legislative intent of, say, a 1st degree felony with possibility of parole for each count, instead of the stepped-up 1st degree felony without possibility of parole, would still hold.  <No, I haven't researched Florida law specifically>

Reminds me of this hilarious bit:

https://politics.theonion.com/man-attempts-to-assassinate-obama-but-not-because-hes-1819594896

Share this post


Link to post

The club owner was victimized as surely as his customers were by the nutjob mass murderer.  Demonstrating sympathy in a personal way for sufferers is a good thing.

Under the circumstances, with the history of being on the receiving end of attacks by homosexual advocacy groups and individuals, this event is a lesson to all of us.  This is what "turning the other cheek" looks like.  It isn't a cowering in fear.  It's a confrontation as equals and without weapons between you and your attacker, here represented by the club owner.  Doesn't cost any of us anything to be kind and sympathetic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Nope. Rather, the instruction in these genocides was for the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and baby. Period. IIRC, in some cases they were even instructed to kill the fetuses of pregnant women for good measure.

Nope. Here is the instruction:

Deut 20:

10  When thou comest nigh unto a city to afight against it, then proclaim bpeace unto it.

11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be atributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt aeat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

16 But of the acities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Or, also, in much of the Western world, due to the Bible, or those who use it as law, many are killed for many reasons.

The Pulse killer knew little of his own Islamic faith. It was more politically motivated than religiously--that is, it was a horrible response to US foreign policy that has killed or or contributed to the killing of millions of people in the Middle East.

Islam is a political religion so being "politically motivated" is practically moot. What about these murders leads you to believe that it was in response to US foreign policy which killed "millions?" In the first Persian Gulf war, the Unites States intervened at the behest of Kuwait whom Saddam Hussein overran. I do agree that the 2nd Persian Gulf War was unjustified, but I don't think that resulted in millions of civilian casualties. If you are talking about Obama's policies of supporting various Muslim rebels in Libya and Syria, I could probably concede the policy was a bad one, but it seemed to be an answer to the wishes of the Muslim brotherhood... but then I guess you don't think they understand their religion.  I'm a little put out though by people who seem to always blame all the problems of the Middle East on the United States. If there were no United States, they would definitely be fighting each other until there was only one caliphate left or would be fighting all their neighbors as 1400 years of history has shown.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The club owner was victimized as surely as his customers were by the nutjob mass murderer.  Demonstrating sympathy in a personal way for sufferers is a good thing.

Under the circumstances, with the history of being on the receiving end of attacks by homosexual advocacy groups and individuals, this event is a lesson to all of us.  This is what "turning the other cheek" looks like.  It isn't a cowering in fear.  It's a confrontation as equals and without weapons between you and your attacker, here represented by the club owner.  Doesn't cost any of us anything to be kind and sympathetic.

Wait, you are casting President Nelson as the victim of the club owner?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Or they are like most of the faithful in the 1970s who would gladly dispense with the Priesthood restriction then in place and held no malice towards the people it applied to but were also loyal to God and their leaders and limited their contributions to dealing with this to prayer. That is where I am now on LGB issues. I want further light and knowledge to come. I don’t know where it will lead but I have seen suffering and hope for some divine remedy.

I left T off because I am convinced that transgenderism is offensive to God. Its incidence is almost always comorbid with other mental illnesses and there is nothing to show that gender transition leads to better health outcomes (physically, mentally, or emotionally). Plus it involves voluntary and intentional self-mutilation which falls under desecrating a temple.

I also reject the idea that “the administration” would defy the will of God. President Kimball would have, from the outside, been one of the last people I would have expected to change the Priesthood restriction but God led him to it and taught him and he humbly followed and led the other Apostles and eventually the whole church down that road.

Thanks for the candid response, but the misinformed and offensive rhetoric about the transgender community shows a strong ignorance and prejudice on the subject. 

Another way of viewing the history around racism in our church is to see God as trying to inspire leaders who were overwhelmingly biased because of their culture and the tradition of prior leaders, that it took significant hardship to unharden their hearts to the point that they were actually open to revelation on the topic.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, provoman said:

Was Jesus showing Christlike love when he told a woman "go and sin no more"?

Can a person teach that something is sin AND show Christlike love toward a person who commits sin? 

Its your interpretation that is the problem.  If you are taking away a right to judge others for what you believe is sin, from that story, then I would venture to say you are missing the entire point.  

Share this post


Link to post

On a side note, I scrolled though the many pictures of the article in the OP.  This was my favorite!  You have the bored-to-tears kid in the background, and a girl that is clearly more interested in the cute guy across the stadium. 

cec6445874?resize=width_1200&type=jpg&c=6&a=e0717f4c

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, you are casting President Nelson as the victim of the club owner?

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Islam is a political religion so being "politically motivated" is practically moot. What about these murders leads you to believe that it was in response to US foreign policy which killed "millions?" In the first Persian Gulf war, the Unites States intervened at the behest of Kuwait whom Saddam Hussein overran. I do agree that the 2nd Persian Gulf War was unjustified, but I don't think that resulted in millions of civilian casualties. If you are talking about Obama's policies of supporting various Muslim rebels in Libya and Syria, I could probably concede the policy was a bad one, but it seemed to be an answer to the wishes of the Muslim brotherhood... but then I guess you don't think they understand their religion.  I'm a little put out though by people who seem to always blame all the problems of the Middle East on the United States. If there were no United States, they would definitely be fighting each other until there was only one caliphate left or would be fighting all their neighbors as 1400 years of history has shown.

It is a little more complex then that. The modern version of Islam practiced is the child of Western European colonialism and that makes Britain and France the midwife and they did a terrible job. Islamic groups tried experimenting with democracy under European rule but their attempts were largely beaten down. They were oppressed with such ridiculous ideas as trying to force Islamic colonies to give up their native languages because only French can convey modern concepts. After this colonial rush the only large independent Islamic state was the Ottoman Empire. While in the past it was a more civilized state then Western Europe it suffered in the 16th century as its trade importance fell when Europe developed reliable trade around Africa.

The Ottoman Empire was a bit of a punching bag in the Napoleonic Wars and eventually the Young Turks movement led the movement to modernize and bring in democratic reforms but were faced with tribal parties based on ethnic divisions within the Empire, most of whom wanted independence. While idealism was not strong it mostly died during the First World War in the Armenian genocide. This led to the Arab Revolt in 1916. The Entente Alliance backed the revolt with the British and French backing the rebels and promising independence once the war was over. The rebels were moderates politically and might have led to Islamic democracy if they had been supported and allowed to grow.

This ended in a great betrayal. The British and French reinterpreted the deal after the war and betrayed their allies. The Ottoman Empire was dismantled and almost all of the Empire except Turkey was cut up into French and British holdings. The first attempt at Arab nationalism that might have resulted in developing Arab states was stabbed in the back. From this point on the Arabs largely distrusted western democracies and democracy in general. After the Second World War Britain’s position on the world stage was diminished and France was occupied and its Vichy territories were taken. The colonial empires ended and the British unilaterally drew borders in their old holdings and set up new nations. This is why you get nations like Iran and Iraq which should have been multiple nations due to their internal divisions. Basically, nations where violent civil conflict was basically inevitable. Add in the decision to form Israel in a state where Christians, Jews, and Muslims were previously getting along relatively well and the West was giving the whole area a regional enemy and an enduring source of conflict and just washing their hands of it while they rebuilt. The one Hope was that the end of the Second World War brought a huge demand for oil and they were finding it everywhere so they had a commodity to bargain with.

Then came the Cold War and again they were pawns on the playing field of international diplomacy with the United States propping up tyrants in the region (and worldwide) as long as they would align with us (and bring their oil) against the Soviets. The CIA even helped in “discouraging” a few movements at liberalizing some middle eastern states for fear communism would take hold.

By the end of the Cold War is it even surprising so many of them hate the West? The Arab Muslims are by no means blameless but acting like the United States and its allies are getting unjustly blamed requires an ignorance of history or a carefully sanitized version of it. Saying Islam is inherently political is unfair. It very much is now and has been in the past but so was Catholicism. If the Islamic nations had been allowed to modernize and liberalize their religion would probably not be such a dominant force in politics.

There are jokes amongst history buffs that every world conflict has its roots in or were exacerbated by the First World War and that every territorial conflict is due to some British aristocrat ignorantly doodling a line on a map. It is not strictly true in all cases but it is true in a lot of cases.

Should we feel guilt over it? No, we were not born when our ancestors decided to betray the Arab revolt or divvy up Arab lands into nations with little foresight or set up Israel and factionalize a relatively peaceful region and then leave it to die and were all surprised when Israel almost inexplicably survived. I doubt any of use were deciding US foreign policy during the Cold War and advocating anti democratic rule to ensure they would align with us. We should acknowledge they were dealt a bad hand while we got a better one and avoid characterizing them as a bunch of wacko religious nuts bent on punishing the west for fabricated reasons because they struggle. Some were recruited to fight us using that kind of propaganda but that does not make our anti-Islam propaganda as to why things are the way they are right.

Looking at all the missteps and betrayals the west made for our own convenience instead of justice I can only imagine what would have happened if we had taken a different path: “For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, ‘It might have been.’”

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Islam is a political religion 

Explain please.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Assigning homework is not appropriate.  And I want to know why he thinks Islam is a political religion in order to better understand his assumptions, not why someone else thinks that way as they may not be the same reasoning. I am aware of why many view Islam as a political religion, I want to be sure I understand why Rev sees it that way.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the candid response, but the misinformed and offensive rhetoric about the transgender community shows a strong ignorance and prejudice on the subject. 

Another way of viewing the history around racism in our church is to see God as trying to inspire leaders who were overwhelmingly biased because of their culture and the tradition of prior leaders, that it took significant hardship to unharden their hearts to the point that they were actually open to revelation on the topic.  

I would contend I am more well read on transgenderism then most so I reject your characterization of my words as ignorant and prejudice implies I judged before I studied it out. If I could find solid case studies and emprical studies of gender transition helping people I would be less harsh (though I would probably disagree) but this is one area where the data is skewed heavily against it. Almost everything shows that those who transition are at least as bad off if not worse. Mental and emotional health is not aided and there is a lot of regret. As to being offensive, yeah, probably. I am not sure where I stand on it legally (we should be allowed to make bad decisions) but I detest it as an abominable practice and I hold a special disgust that teenagers are allowed to transition. We do not trust them enough to vote but we are okay with them making irrevocable decisions to mutilate their own body. 

I do not subscribe to that view and I find it historically untenable. The idea that church leaders were suffering hardship due to the ban is ridiculous. The hypotheses put forward as to the timing are silly unless you believe that all the apostles were BYU sports nuts willing to change church policy based on college athletics. The pressure they felt were things like the temple in Brazil and the wannabe converts in Africa that we could not operate well and those were not hardships except as the Brethren cared about those who were not getting the blessings of the gospel.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Assigning homework is not appropriate.  And I want to know why he thinks Islam is a political religion in order to better understand his assumptions, not why someone else thinks that way as they may not be the same reasoning. I am aware of why many view Islam as a political religion, I want to be sure I understand why Rev sees it that way.

What can I say?  It's a great read, nicely researched.  I read it a couple of years ago at my history major/USAF brother's suggestion.  Puts European imperialism in its context as nothing special given the history of Islamic/-ist/Muslim imperialism.  Nasser and the Hashemites of the last Century look just like about any other Muslim potentates, and the scuffle for empires of various scales at the end of WWI business as usual for that neck of the woods.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would contend I am more well read on transgenderism then most so I reject your characterization of my words as ignorant and prejudice implies I judged before I studied it out. If I could find solid case studies and emprical studies of gender transition helping people I would be less harsh (though I would probably disagree) but this is one area where the data is skewed heavily against it. Almost everything shows that those who transition are at least as bad off if not worse. Mental and emotional health is not aided and there is a lot of regret. As to being offensive, yeah, probably. I am not sure where I stand on it legally (we should be allowed to make bad decisions) but I detest it as an abominable practice and I hold a special disgust that teenagers are allowed to transition. We do not trust them enough to vote but we are okay with them making irrevocable decisions to mutilate their own body. 

I do not subscribe to that view and I find it historically untenable. The idea that church leaders were suffering hardship due to the ban is ridiculous. The hypotheses put forward as to the timing are silly unless you believe that all the apostles were BYU sports nuts willing to change church policy based on college athletics. The pressure they felt were things like the temple in Brazil and the wannabe converts in Africa that we could not operate well and those were not hardships except as the Brethren cared about those who were not getting the blessings of the gospel.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.  Rather than prejudice it sounds like straight-forward offensive bigotry towards my transgender friends.  For those that might care, using the term transgenderism is offensive, but now I suspect the offense was intended.

Try meeting some transgender people in person and get to know their stories.  First hand experience tends to change even the harshest critics.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Forgot about that, I didn't like that book. 

What book are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its your interpretation that is the problem.  If you are taking away a right to judge others for what you believe is sin, from that story, then I would venture to say you are missing the entire point.  

I am trying understand how one can show Christ-like love and maintain a standard of right and wrong; what you have posted so far suggest a person cannot maintain a standard of right/wrong and show Christ-like love towards those who do wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

No, what I'm suggesting is that current church leaders are not showing Christlike love.  

And you would be wrong

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am trying understand how one can show Christ-like love and maintain a standard of right and wrong; what you have posted so far suggest a person cannot maintain a standard of right/wrong and show Christ-like love towards those who do wrong.

Which is absolutrly amazing since Christ did just that.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am trying understand how one can show Christ-like love and maintain a standard of right and wrong; what you have posted so far suggest a person cannot maintain a standard of right/wrong and show Christ-like love towards those who do wrong.

It’s your starting point that seems to be the obstacle.  The Christian message as I see it is to love others, neighbors and enemies alike.  I don’t see a Christian ethic that articulates a requirement to judge the lifestyles of others as wrong.  As for yourself, you should do what your conscience tells you is right for you.  As for others you should love them.  But you cross over into unchristian conduct when you feel it important to label the behaviors of others as sin for them.  That’s the difference as I see it, with some exceptions.  

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...