ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Well, with no insult intended, I really do not care what you (or most here) think about me.Okay. Sorry to hear that you hold me (and several others) in such low regard.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 And why is it not okay for the Church to mobilize its members in a political matter that will affect nearly a million of its members directly and could have a nationwide impact?As long as you, and leaders like Oaks, are prepared to wear nationwide criticism. So stop yelping.
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 It certainly wasn't intended to be insulting...I guess this is where the "no voice inflections" and "no facial expressions" thing comes back and bites me in the rear again...it really was intended to be friendly. My apologies if it didn't come off that way.Did you mean to say... unfriendly?
ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 As long as you, and leaders like Oaks, are prepared to wear nationwide criticism. So stop yelping. I'm not yelping...but if the "criticism" is justified, then so be it. However, the misquotes and misrepresentations are unconscionable.
ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Did you mean to say... unfriendly?No...I was trying to be friendly.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I'm not yelping...but if the "criticism" is justified, then so be it. However, the misquotes and misrepresentations are unconscionable.Like what? Oaks himself said that his comparisons were not fully justified. Or did you miss that? The fact is that his speech has received enormous criticism outside LDS circles, and even many Mormons are criticising them. But I understand that there has to be some "holding the fort" here.
ttribe Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Like what? Oaks himself said that his comparisons were not fully justified. Or did you miss that? The fact is that his speech has received enormous criticism outside LDS circles, and even many Mormons are criticising them. But I understand that there has to be some "holding the fort" here.Like this: Post Link.I think I'm done with your persistent cynicism tonight Ray. You win this round.
juliann Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Exactly what I said. Massive interstate intervention with the second largest financial aid to pass prop 8, outside of California itself.You dodged my first request for some facts by asking me to restate it in "bullet points". You need to stop throwing out falsehoods. Are you really unaware that less money in support of Prop 8 came from Utah than to fight it? You are seriously out of touch on this. It is bad enough that you are in Australia trying to tell Californians what they thought and did...and why. But it is inexcusable that you are making up things to do it. BTW....Americans "intervene" in other states' business all the time with contributions. We consider ourselves a nation and we are allowed to support anything anywhere. Come on.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Like this: Post Link.I think I'm done with your persistent cynicism tonight Ray. You win this round.The raw fact is that Oaks made a serious blunder. Blind Freddy can see that. Semantics isn't going to get him out of this. And that's all I'm seeing.
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 It wasn't the boycotting. It was the intimidation. They brought in their thugs and formed a gauntlet that any potential custormer would be required to walk through to get in....probably because supporters showed up that made up for their absence. Don't let them get away with making it sound like a little "boycott". Most of the time these "democratic" activities were accompanied by threats or a threatening presence.Indeed.I keep trying to imagine a group of Christians forming such a 'gauntlet' outside a restaurant, intimidating others not to patronise the business as long as a gay person is allowed to work there who hasn't openly 'repented' of her previous political contribution to the HRC. And then I try to imagine anyone at all being OK with such behaviour. Now I need to go lie down and let the dizziness subside.
juliann Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Like what? Oaks himself said that his comparisons were not fully justified. Or did you miss that? The fact is that his speech has received enormous criticism outside LDS circles, and even many Mormons are criticising them. But I understand that there has to be some "holding the fort" here.More like "holding to the facts". Have at it with Elder Oaks all you want....but have the intellectual honesty to criticize what he actually said and provide accurate information about what happened in CA.
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 More like "holding to the facts". Have at it with Elder Oaks all you want....but have the intellectual honesty to criticize what he actually said and provide accurate information about what happened in CA.What was it the Mayor of Sanfansisco was saying?"What happens in California doesn't stay in California"Or was it..."The way California goes, so does the nation".
DanGB Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Pro ably time to move on here. Elder Oaks isn't the first to wsh he had a do over in th Church. Mark Peterson on "cadillacs" and Elder Packer on "things that are true.." and these go along with George H Bush " read my lips", Howard Dean "eeeeeeehhaaaaaah", and who will ever forget, " I did not have sex that woman"! And Im sure each of us have a few we wish we could retract with a little after thought! Hell for me " I do" comes to mind (just kiddin)!So, time to move on???
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 It is bad enough that you are in Australia trying to tell Californians what they thought and did...and why. But it is inexcusable that you are making up things to do it. BTW....Americans "intervene" in other states' business all the time with contributions. We consider ourselves a nation and we are allowed to support anything anywhere. Come on. I'll address this first. I'm not telling Californians "what to do". Sure, when America intervenes to stop the possible inflitration of commmunists, such as they did in Grenada in 1983, to the condemnation of many, I would disagree with Chomsky. But no, you are not allowed to support "anything, anywhere". What you're virtually saying is that in all cases the end justifies the means. America is not a theocracy. It doesn't go telling the Sultan of Brunei he should get rid of his plural wives, nor does it tell Muslims what laws they should have in Lebanon or Egypt. It didn't attack Iraq because of Muslim values, and it doesn't tell Australia its abortion rate is unacceptably high, and generally it stays out of trying to control other countries' "values". That is what religions do. And if you're going to even attempt to try to lecture me, as an Australian, then you'd better also turn your attention to your resident Kiwi apologist.
jwhitlock Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 The raw fact is that Oaks made a serious blunder. Blind Freddy can see that. Semantics isn't going to get him out of this. And that's all I'm seeing.Let's at least try to be accurate. I'll rephrase for you.Your raw opinion is that Elder Oaks made a serious blunder. The real fact is that your statement is only your opinion, for what it's worth.It's also only your opinion that your made-up "facts" can be seen as self evident - your "blind" hype notwithstanding.In addition, semantics is important as a form of communication and in understanding what is actually meant when a person says something. It's somewhat disappointing that you're so dismissive of using semantics in understanding context.For the record, I agree with Elder Oaks, and I admire directness and firmness and telling it like it is. I hope we see more of it. Edit: I'm done for the evening. The spin is starting to get too unrealistic to deal with.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 For the record, I agree with Elder Oaks, and I admire directness and firmness and telling it like it is. I hope we see more of it.I agree, we need more directness and firmness is Mormon history. Not, "some truths are not very useful". "Milk before meat", and all that (and the meat never comes). Oaks is the same one who said that any criticism of leaders, even if true, is unjustified. Well he should not expect that standard outside of Mormonism. And maybe many defending him bear this statement of his in mind. No criticism of a GA, is ever justified, according to Oaks, "no matter if it's true".
juliann Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I'll address this first. I'm not telling Californians "what to do". Sure, when America intervenes to stop the possible inflitration of commmunists, such as they did in Grenada in 1983, to the condemnation of many, I would disagree with Chomsky. But no, you are not allowed to support "anything, anywhere". What you're virtually saying is that in all cases the end justifies the means. America is not a theocracy. It doesn't go telling the Sultan of Brunei he should get rid of his plural wives, nor does it tell Muslims what laws they should have in Lebanon or Egypt. It didn't attack Iraq because of Muslim values, and it doesn't tell Australia its abortion rate is unacceptably high, and generally it stays out of trying to control other countries' "values". That is what religions do. And if you're going to even attempt to try to lecture me, as an Australian, then you'd better also turn your attention to your resident Kiwi apologist.I don't know if you are doing this on purpose....but you are barely coherent. Of course we are allowed to support what we want. I can write a check to any PAC anywhere in this country. For crying out loud....you are being ridiculous and you are extremely ignorant of American political practice. I'm out of this, too.
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 ...you are being ridiculous and you are extremely ignorant of American political practice. I'm out of this, too.I'm not ignorant of political practice, and as I said before to Pahoran, I'm familiar with the concept of Gerrymander, which has occurred in Australia, and also occurs in America. That it occurs, does not make it right. I've also referred to anti-democratic processes where politicians, "God's chosen", have aborted the concept of democracy in favour of their "enlightened views".
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I don't know if you are doing this on purpose....but you are barely coherent. Of course we are allowed to support what we want. I can write a check to any PAC anywhere in this country. For crying out loud....you are being ridiculous and you are extremely ignorant of American political practice. I'm out of this, too.She's got a point. This coming from one who works for the LGs Office who runs the financial disclosures for PIC/PAC/Corporations in Utah.
Avatar4321 Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Pro ably time to move on here. Elder Oaks isn't the first to wsh he had a do over in th Church. Mark Peterson on "cadillacs" and Elder Packer on "things that are true.." and these go along with George H Bush " read my lips", Howard Dean "eeeeeeehhaaaaaah", and who will ever forget, " I did not have sex that woman"! And Im sure each of us have a few we wish we could retract with a little after thought! Hell for me " I do" comes to mind (just kiddin)!So, time to move on???I dont think Elder Oaks would want to do anything over. Why should he? He is correct.
Zakuska Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 I'm not ignorant of political practice, and as I said before to Pahoran, I'm familiar with the concept of Gerrymander, which has occurred in Australia, and also occurs in America. That it occurs, does not make it right. I've also referred to anti-democratic processes where politicians, "God's chosen", have aborted the concept of democracy in favour of their "enlightened views".But the probelm is its only Anti-Democratic in your eyes when the church does it even though more utah money went to No then on Yes.
Calm Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Exactly what I said. Massive interstate intervention with the second largest financial aid to pass prop 8, outside of California itself.Do you also think it was inappropriate for donations for CA politics from any other state as well? Both pro and opposed?
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 But the probelm is its only Anti-Democratic in your eyes when the church does it even though more utah money went to No then on Yes.Members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, the second-highest church governing body, explained their plan to pass the ballot initiative. They asked each California congregation to commit 30 volunteers to donate four hours a week to Proposition 8. They also urged young people to use technology -- such as social networks, text messaging, and blogging -- to spread the word. (Michelle Garcia, The Advocate) Mormons Bankroll Anti
Ray Agostini Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Do you also think it was inappropriate for donations for CA politics from any other state as well? Both pro and opposed?Yes. Totally so. That is one of my serious grievances with Australian politics. And the politicians' concept of "democracy".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.