"8: The Mormon Proposition"

[Daniel2]

How very ironic.

My thoughts, exactly!

Darin

[USU78]

Darin previously: I suppose when one casually ommits key peices of info, one can make a story look very reassuring and noble to others who are ignorant of the details.

USU previously: How very ironic

My thoughts, exactly!

I was, rather, referring to the irony of a member of that class of individual so famous for rewriting childhood memories accusing others of omitting key pieces of information . . . and being oblivious to the fact.

Classic irony.

[Daniel2]

I was, rather, referring to the irony of a member of that class of individual so famous for rewriting childhood memories accusing others of omitting key pieces of information . . . and being oblivious to the fact.

Classic irony.

It appears you're alluding to me, here, thought it isn't so clear what you're really referring to.

If you'd like to explain more, I'd be willing to try to understand more fully, if you are, in fact, suggesting that I am that individual you're referring to that is "a member of that class of individual so famous for rewriting childhood memories," and "being oblivious to that fact."

(Btw, my original comments to Makelan are directed specifically toward the irony of his comments in light of a lunch meeting that he and I shared--he'll likely know what I was referring to).

Darin

[LeSellers]

Darin (wondering if I'm one of the would-be "predators"... or, if not, who would be...?)

I don't know you from a bale of hay, so I can't answer about you. However, I know two homosexuals who were predators, and who were more than merely open about their proclivity to inducting young men into their cesspool.

It was on more than one occasion I heard them talking to each other bragging: "Today's conquest is tomorrow's competition." And, as I have mentioned earlier, the Broadway show "A Chorus Line" has a lead character recount how he was trained as a small, myopic child in the movie theatre where homosexual men fondled him while his father, several rows back, watched the movie with his other offspring. Kirkwood and Dante were hardly "homophobes", Dante was homosexual himself.

Paul : What do Puerto Ricans know about theatre? Now they have Channel Forty-Seven - but then they didn't have anything. But my father loved movies. And he'd take us to Forty-Second Street. And we'd come out of one movie and go to another and another movie - I don't know why - but I loved musicals.

Zach : How old were you?

Paul : Seven or eight.

Zach : On Forty-Second Street?

Paul : Yeah - it was a trip.

Zach : Go on ...

Paul : I'd have to move down front - 'cause I couldn't see - I wear contact lenses now ... I'd move down front and these strange men would come and sit beside me and play with me. I never told anyone because - well, I guess it didn't matter.

Zach : Why didn't it matter?

Paul : Why? Ah ... Well ...

There are recruiters out there. They publish magazine articles (or did in the not-so-distant past) on how to do it.

You ought to discard your na

[frankenstein]

Nonsense. You don't understand Mormons at all.

I'd like to see a precedent for taking somebody's recommend away for failing to vote a certain way. Surely if it is such a problem for the sceptical Mormon, one could come up with a single example. Since such horror was being imposed throughout CA Mormondom, no doubt francis can find many, many examples.

And, oh yeah, this is a C.F.R.

---------------------------------------------

jason: I also would like to see an example of someone who lost their recommend because they voted the wrong way on Prop 8. CFR.

ATTENTION - READ slowly and COMPREHEND.

I am requesting a from both of you a CFR. please reference where i stated as a fact or in the affirmative that a particular thing actually happened.

Are either of you LDS?

Do either of you have a Temple Rec.? (not a question that need be answered but if either of you do or have then you should have an idea of Temple Rec. and all attendant strings thereto.)

Is a Temple Rec. the sole and exclusive property of the individual LDS person who has been properly issued a Temple Rec. by proper Priesthood authority?

Is a Temple Rec. to be surrender on demand?

Does the proper Priesthood Leader have the authority, right, and at times obligation to cancel a LDS persons currently unexpired Temple Rec. due to that persons unworthiness?

Do either of you take into consideration how something may affect your "worthiness"?

Does the proper Priesthood Leader have the authority, right, and at times obligation to request or instruct a LDS person to "turn-in" their currently valid Temple Rec?

Is one of the questions for a Temple Rec. about supporting things opposed to the Church or that the Church opposes.

Is the LDS Church opposed to SSM?

Is SSM in opposition the LDS Church position on marriage?

IF SSM is in opposition to the LDS Church or the LDS Church opposes SSM, then, could a LDS person think that their support of SSM marriage OR contributing to the cause of SSM would require an affirmative answer the Temple Rec.?

COULD an affirmative answer to supporting things that are in opposition to the LDS Church preclude a person from receiving a Temple Rec.?

Is the example I stated which both of you both so blindly and zealously requested a CFR for, a hypothetical situation, to which I neither stated nor affirmed actually happened.

Last question, how can one CFR an event which the person neither states nor affirms happened.

[Jason]

I take it from your response that you believe no one was denied a recommend for voting the wrong way on Prop 8. So why bring up the idea in the first place?

[frankenstein]

I take it from your response that you believe no one was denied a recommend for voting the wrong way on Prop 8. So why bring up the idea in the first place?

see post 122, perhaps a better response to USU would have been "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

[Jason]

see post 122, perhaps a better response to USU would have been "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

So you are saying that the Church leaders actively threatened their members with losing their recommend if they voted the wrong way on Prop 8, but that there is no actual evidence of this?

[Daniel2]

I don't know you from a bale of hay, so I can't answer about you. However, I know two homosexuals who were predators, and who were more than merely open about their proclivity to inducting young men into their cesspool...

There are recruiters out there. They publish magazine articles (or did in the not-so-distant past) on how to do it.

You ought to discard your na

[frankenstein]

So you are saying that the Church leaders actively threatened their members with losing their recommend if they voted the wrong way on Prop 8, but that there is no actual evidence of this?

you have yet to address my CFR so once you address it we can carry on.

[Jason]

This has been discussed on the forum several times - it's just that SSA/Gay marriage threads tend to get shut down by the mods pretty quick because the posters can't stay civil.

Judging from how the thread has gone for the last few pages - I was right.

[Jason]

you have yet to address my CFR so once you address it we can carry on.

Okay, I withdraw my claim (if I made such) that you said anyone had ever been denied a temple recommend for voting the wrong way on Prop 8.

Want to answer my question now?

So you are saying that the Church leaders actively threatened their members with losing their recommend if they voted the wrong way on Prop 8, but that there is no actual evidence of this?

[USU78]

ATTENTION - READ slowly and COMPREHEND.

Nice, francis.

I am requesting a from both of you a CFR. please reference where i stated as a fact or in the affirmative that a particular thing actually happened.

'Fraid it doesn't work that way. Here's what I had said:

I'd like to see a precedent for taking somebody's recommend away for failing to vote a certain way. Surely if it is such a problem for the sceptical Mormon, one could come up with a single example. Since such horror was being imposed throughout CA Mormondom, no doubt francis can find many, many examples.

I did so because francis had suggested the Church was intimidating CA members into support for Prop 8, or at least into not opposing it with an implicit threat of taking away dissenters' temple recommends. For francis to deny he did so would not be candid self-appraisal. Here is what francis wrote:

also, consider that just about every adult member of the church knows that their Temple Rec. can be cancelled or confiscated at anytime, and that every Temple Rec. holder, knows that one of the questions has to do with for a lack of better words "going against the church".

Accordingly, this:

Are either of you LDS?

Do either of you have a Temple Rec.? (not a question that need be answered but if either of you do or have then you should have an idea of Temple Rec. and all attendant strings thereto.)

Is a Temple Rec. the sole and exclusive property of the individual LDS person who has been properly issued a Temple Rec. by proper Priesthood authority?

Is a Temple Rec. to be surrender on demand?

Does the proper Priesthood Leader have the authority, right, and at times obligation to cancel a LDS persons currently unexpired Temple Rec. due to that persons unworthiness?

Do either of you take into consideration how something may affect your "worthiness"?

Does the proper Priesthood Leader have the authority, right, and at times obligation to request or instruct a LDS person to "turn-in" their currently valid Temple Rec?

Is one of the questions for a Temple Rec. about supporting things opposed to the Church or that the Church opposes.

Is the LDS Church opposed to SSM?

Is SSM in opposition the LDS Church position on marriage?

IF SSM is in opposition to the LDS Church or the LDS Church opposes SSM, then, could a LDS person think that their support of SSM marriage OR contributing to the cause of SSM would require an affirmative answer the Temple Rec.?

COULD an affirmative answer to supporting things that are in opposition to the LDS Church preclude a person from receiving a Temple Rec.?

Is the example I stated which both of you both so blindly and zealously requested a CFR for, a hypothetical situation, to which I neither stated nor affirmed actually happened.

Last question, how can one CFR an event which the person neither states nor affirms happened.

is quite irrelevant. francis cannot cite a single precedent for the proposition that the Church has either threatened or carried through on a threat to "'turn-in' their currently valid Temple Rec" because of opposition to or non-support of any political position the Church has taken . . . either in CA or elsewhere.

francis' prior post is, accordingly, so much nonsensical murmer-mongering, an insupportable criticism of Church leadership, and political rhetoricizing frankly [pun intended] nicely consonant with the 8: The Mormon Proposition's writers' and producers' hit piece.

Of which francis should be roundly ashamed.

[Daniel2]

Judging from how the thread has gone for the last few pages - I was right.

Indeed, we agree on something, Jason.

Heated as this topic often may become, I'll maintain my hope that we'll all continue to enlarge our patience by learning to keep the discourse civil, if not cordial.

Darin

[frankenstein]

Okay, I withdraw my claim (if I made such) that you said anyone had ever been denied a temple recommend for voting the wrong way on Prop 8.

Want to answer my question now?

So you are saying that the Church leaders actively threatened their members with losing their recommend if they voted the wrong way on Prop 8, but that there is no actual evidence of this?

i am saying that there is a very real and legitimate reason for LDS members who wish to attend the Temple to remain silent. though I was not this specific in post 122.

[Jason]

i am saying that there is a very real and legitimate reason for LDS members who wish to attend the Temple to remain silent. though I was not this specific in post 122.

And the reason is that they may have their temple recommends taken away, though you don't claim this has actually happened to anyone and though there isn't any evidence that anyone was told this might happen to them?

[frankenstein]

Nice, francis.

'Fraid it doesn't work that way. Here's what I had said:

I did so because francis had suggested the Church was intimidating CA members into support for Prop 8, or at least into not opposing it with an implicit threat of taking away dissenters' temple recommends. For francis to deny he did so would not be candid self-appraisal. Here is what francis wrote:

Accordingly, this:

is quite irrelevant. francis cannot cite a single precedent for the proposition that the Church has either threatened or carried through on a threat to "'turn-in' their currently valid Temple Rec" because of opposition to or non-support of any political position the Church has taken . . . either in CA or elsewhere.

francis' prior post is, accordingly, so much nonsensical murmer-mongering, an insupportable criticism of Church leadership, and political rhetoricizing frankly [pun intended] nicely consonant with the 8: The Mormon Proposition's writers' and producers' hit piece.

Of which francis should be roundly ashamed.

USU78 still not reading nor comprehending, too bad your zealousness has the better of you.

I suggested nothing in form of intimidation or actual revocation of recommends....remember READ SLOWLY and comprehend.

I simple stated that I know LDS people (in bishoprics even who are licensed attorneys) who see SSM as a purely civil rights issue.

Once again, CFR, please address my CFR.

[USU78]

USU78 still not reading nor comprehending, too bad your zealousness has the better of you.

Knock off the insults, francis.

I suggested nothing in form of intimidation or actual revocation of recommends....remember READ SLOWLY and comprehend.

You're embarrassing yourself . . . and continuing with the insults. Knock it off.

I simple stated that I know LDS people (in bishoprics even who are licensed attorneys) who see SSM as a purely civil rights issue.

We must, then, tie roses around their right big toses . . . yet this activity, enjoyable as it will surely be, has nothing to do with my C.F.R.

Once again, CFR, please address my CFR.

I asked for any examples francis might have stashed in his tuckerbag which would provide precedence for the fear francis asserted here:

also, consider that just about every adult member of the church knows that their Temple Rec. can be cancelled or confiscated at anytime, and that every Temple Rec. holder, knows that one of the questions has to do with for a lack of better words "going against the church".

Thus:

I'd like to see a precedent for taking somebody's recommend away for failing to vote a certain way. Surely if it is such a problem for the sceptical Mormon, one could come up with a single example. Since such horror was being imposed throughout CA Mormondom, no doubt francis can find many, many examples.

If francis wishes to withdraw all express and implicit criticism of Church leadership for threatened or implicitly threatened or actual takings of dissenters' temple recommends, he will more than satisfy my C.F.R. Otherwise, we are at an impasse . . . and francis will have to drink the wine in front of me.

[frankenstein]

Thus:

If francis wishes to withdraw all express and implicit criticism of Church leadership for threatened or implicitly threatened or actual takings of dissenters' temple recommends, he will more than satisfy my C.F.R. Otherwise, we are at an impasse . . . and francis will have to drink the wine in front of me.

once agains CFR to both you and jason. to your claim. please show where, when and how, I posted what you assert....CFR

a suggestion "read slowly and comprehend" is not an insult, it is a suggestion.

I can't post that you or anyone else is a moron (insult) , but I can post that yours or anyone else's position is moronic.

[USU78]

once agains CFR to both you and jason. to your claim. please show where, when and how, I posted what you assert....CFR

a suggestion "read slowly and comprehend" is not an insult, it is a suggestion.

I can't post that you or anyone else is a moron (insult) , but I can post that yours or anyone else's position is moronic.

As King Arthur said to the Black Knight after the

, "Gentleman that I am, I cede you the last word."

[selek]

once agains CFR to both you and jason. to your claim. please show where, when and how, I posted what you assert....CFR

He already has. Twice.

You said:

i spoke to LDS people who did not support the party line on this issue,...the people I know did not voice their skepticism ...

In explaining why they did not voice their skepticism, you said:

... every adult member of the church knows that their Temple Rec. can be cancelled or confiscated at anytime, and that every Temple Rec. holder, knows that one of the questions has to do with for a lack of better words "going against the church".

You are deliberately and unequivocally implying that "those people" did not voice their opposition for fear of being accused of "going against the Church" and having their Temple recommends taken away.

Those are your words, Francis. That is your innuendo.

And when called to back up the allegation with fact, you started throwing up clouds of nonsense to onbscure your inability to back up the claims.

Better to take a moronic position than a disingenuous one.

Despite your denials and obfuscations, you attempted to repeat the allegation in Post 140:

i am saying that there is a very real and legitimate reason for LDS members who wish to attend the Temple to remain silent.

And what was the "very real and legitimate reason"? According to you, that reason is fear of losing their temple recommends- despite the fact that you've established not a single case, claim, or charge to support that allegation.

You're blowing smoke trying to back up a foolish and untenable charge.

Can you really claim to support and sustain the Church's leaders while spreading false charges and libel against them?

though I was not this specific in post 122.

You weren't specific, because facts were the last thing you wanted brought to bear. Innuendo was your watchword and rumor-mongering is your creed (just as with the propagandists and hatemongers who wrote, underwrote, filmed and are distributing 8: The Mormon Proposition).

[Jason]

once agains CFR to both you and jason. to your claim. please show where, when and how, I posted what you assert....CFR

I already responded to your CFR.

Was my restatement of your position inacurate then? If so, could you tell me where?

a suggestion "read slowly and comprehend" is not an insult, it is a suggestion.

It's certainly borderline, as it implies that those you are addressing didn't read slowly and didn't comprehend the first time.

[frankenstein]

He already has. Twice.

You said:

In explaining why they did not voice their skepticism, you said:

You are deliberately and unequivocally implying that "those people" did not voice their opposition for fear of being accused of "going against the Church" and having their Temple recommends taken away.

Those are your words, Francis. That is your innuendo.

And when called to back up the allegation with fact, you started throwing up clouds of nonsense to onbscure your inability to back up the claims.

Better to take a moronic position than a disingenuous one.

Despite your denials and obfuscations, you attempted to repeat the allegation in Post 140:

And what was the "very real and legitimate reason"? According to you, that reason is fear of losing their temple recommends- despite the fact that you've established not a single case, claim, or charge to support that allegation.

You're blowing smoke trying to back up a foolish and untenable charge.

Can you really claim to support and sustain the Church's leaders while spreading false charges and libel against them?

You weren't specific, because facts were the last thing you wanted brought to bear. Innuendo was your watchword and rumor-mongering is your creed (just as with the propagandists and hatemongers who wrote, underwrote, filmed and are distributing 8: The Mormon Proposition).

if you want to misinterpret what i posted go ahead.

there are several unanswered question

Is a Temple Rec. the sole property of the holder.

Is s Temple Rec. to be surrender on demand.

Is SSM in opposition the LDS church teachings on marraige.

COULD (NOTICE COULD once again slowly this time COULD) one supports for a position that is in oposition to the LDS Church precluded someone from being issued a Temple Rec. or COULD ones support for a position in opposition to the Church be grounds for "the church" to demand surrender of a Temple Rec. Is there a "Websters" type of anything that can be used to determine what this question means...NO there is not. Which means, fallible persons, get to apply the standard, and as it painfully obvious from many convo's on this board, every body has a different standard to apply to any given situation - I know stake pres. who would not issue Temple Rec. to men who did not at all times remain clean shaven, the Temple the stake pres. attended had an officiator who had a full one salt and pepper beard - different strokes for different folks. lets also consider the german kid who was ex. by the local authority, which ex'ing was later revoked, different strokes for different. I dare say none of you hear have the authority to define what the Temple Rec. in question means, and I dare say, it is applied case by case and would seemingly have inconsistent application.

I do not have to provide proof that anything happened - as I have not stated anything happened., I only suggest that in the minds of some PERHAPS (read slowly PERHAPS) they remain silent because of a legitimate fear of loosing their Temple Rec. hence the need to bring up a question of the Temple Rec. interview. do I know of time when it has happened. Nope. Does that mean it does not happen. NOPE.

However, does the LDS Church require surrendering a Temple Rec. on demand. YEP it sure does, infact such contractual condition is printed on the Rec. .

[frankenstein]

It's certainly borderline, as it implies that those you are addressing didn't read slowly and didn't comprehend the first time.

yes i agree it is borderline, but that is the standard set forth by a board mod. "can't call someone a bigot, but can say their position is bigoted" (not exact quote but gets the borderline point acroos.) as what are the chances a non-bigot would espouse a bigoted position. So I think the rule is borderline but "the no personal insults" rule is defined as best that it can be.

[USU78]

I do not have to provide proof that anything happened - as I have not stated anything happened.,

Well, actually, you do >Board rules and all< since I C.F.R.'d you on precedents justifying the alleged fear you asserted.

I only suggest that in the minds of some PERHAPS (read slowly PERHAPS) they remain silent because of a legitimate fear of loosing their Temple Rec. hence the need to bring up a question of the Temple Rec. interview. do I know of time when it has happened. Nope. Does that mean it does not happen. NOPE.

And we're almost there, francis. You now admit to mindreading of unnamed and unidentified others who may have determined it is wiser not to go out and campaign against Prop 8 against their inclinations. You now admit there are no precedents for what you claim such unnamed and unidentified others feared might happen to them.

Yet you hang on by your toenails to "Does that mean it does not happen. NOPE." And wholly without factual support. This makes francis a propagandist.

However, does the LDS Church require surrendering a Temple Rec. on demand. YEP it sure does, infact such contractual condition is printed on the Rec. .

Which, while true, means precisely nothing in our instant context.

USU "Sorry folks, I know I said I was done, but this had to be responded to" 78