Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sjdawg

Interesting Article (At Least I Found It Interesting)

Recommended Posts

I liked the article by Brother Porter, Nothing unusual in the talk, what did you think of the talk?

Share this post


Link to post

For some reason I missed the article, but I am not surprised at the reaction.

I happen to have a small bit of personal history with Elder Porter. We both served in the same mission in Germany at about the same time, and I was stationed in the mission headquarters city at the same time he was an assistant to the mission president. Several years later, we both served as presidents of servicemens branches in Germany in the same stake at the same time. So I had an opportunity to interact with him that while it wasn't buddy-buddy or anything like that, I always found him to be kind, caring, and a gentle giant (he could play in the NBA for his height). I also found him to be a man of impressive intellect and deep depth of spirit.

So, having now read the article and finding nothing that should have roused the reviewer's ire, it's perfectly obvious why he has gotten so exercised: he can't really find anything to complain about, so he writes about "code words", which basically means that he couldn't really find anything to argue with in Elder Porter's article, so he has to resort to pulling inferences out of one of his orifices. Ironically, Porter wrote about him in the article, wherein he said:

Curiously enough, this new modern tolerance is often a one-way street. Those who practice it expect everyone to tolerate them in anything they say or do, but show no tolerance themselves toward those who express differing viewpoints or defend traditional morality. Indeed, their intolerance is often most barbed toward those of religious conviction.

So, no surprise. It is clear that even a gentle giant's words cannot be allowed to past unmolested by those who seek to do exactly what Porter describes.

Perfectly congruent, actually.

Share this post


Link to post

Only the wicked would take offense at the article in the Ensign; it would, in fact, take a very special kind of malice to so do.

Share this post


Link to post

Only the wicked would take offense at the article in the Ensign; it would, in fact, take a very special kind of malice to so do.

While you may disagree with the stand the response article makes concerning Elder Porter's article, it seems like an honest analysis of his view point. Is there anything about his response that you think distorts what Elder Porter is writing about? Is there anything about his response to the churches anti gay marriage position that is a distortion of the churches official stance? Doesn't the church call for political action against gay famlies from being married? Don't you think that there are some members of the church that are struggling with the civli rights of this whole issue? Are those members "wicked" as well if they also feel this consistant political attack against gay marriage is wrong? Do you believe that anyone who honestly disagrees with the churches position on gay marriage to be "wicked". And maybe you could point to the unfair malice towards the church you found contained in this article.

Like Danzo said, "Nothing unusual in the talk" and nothing unusual about the response of those that disagree with the churches position.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how any of your questions concern anything I wrote. Perhaps you could try again?

Share this post


Link to post

For some reason I missed the article, but I am not surprised at the reaction.

I happen to have a small bit of personal history with Elder Porter. We both served in the same mission in Germany at about the same time, and I was stationed in the mission headquarters city at the same time he was an assistant to the mission president. Several years later, we both served as presidents of servicemens branches in Germany in the same stake at the same time. So I had an opportunity to interact with him that while it wasn't buddy-buddy or anything like that, I always found him to be kind, caring, and a gentle giant (he could play in the NBA for his height). I also found him to be a man of impressive intellect and deep depth of spirit.

So, having now read the article and finding nothing that should have roused the reviewer's ire, it's perfectly obvious why he has gotten so exercised: he can't really find anything to complain about, so he writes about "code words", which basically means that he couldn't really find anything to argue with in Elder Porter's article, so he has to resort to pulling inferences out of one of his orifices. Ironically, Porter wrote about him in the article, wherein he said:

So, no surprise. It is clear that even a gentle giant's words cannot be allowed to past unmolested by those who seek to do exactly what Porter describes.

Perfectly congruent, actually.

I agree with you. I haven't even received this months edition of the Ensign, and because of this thread, I went over and read Elder Porter's article, and then read Chino Blanco's article.

In light of this, I have published the first response to Blanco's article here. Feel free to come over and comment on there as well.

Share this post


Link to post

While you may disagree with the stand the response article makes concerning Elder Porter's article, it seems like an honest analysis of his view point. Is there anything about his response that you think distorts what Elder Porter is writing about? Is there anything about his response to the churches anti gay marriage position that is a distortion of the churches official stance? Doesn't the church call for political action against gay famlies from being married? Don't you think that there are some members of the church that are struggling with the civli rights of this whole issue? Are those members "wicked" as well if they also feel this consistant political attack against gay marriage is wrong? Do you believe that anyone who honestly disagrees with the churches position on gay marriage to be "wicked". And maybe you could point to the unfair malice towards the church you found contained in this article.

Like Danzo said, "Nothing unusual in the talk" and nothing unusual about the response of those that disagree with the churches position.

Here is the first response I provided that may answer your question.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the article by Brother Porter, Nothing unusual in the talk, what did you think of the talk?

I didn't think it was nearly as inflammatory as the responding article seems to claim. It seemed like pretty standard fare to me. I don't agree with all of it, but I'm certainly not offended by it.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't think it was nearly as inflammatory as the responding article seems to claim. It seemed like pretty standard fare to me. I don't agree with all of it, but I'm certainly not offended by it.

Its offensive that anti-gay rights activists calls themselves defenders of traditional families, when not one traditional family is in any way placed in peril if their gay neighbors are allowed to marry.

We live in a day ... when good is called evil and evil good. Those who defend the traditional family ... are mocked and ridiculed. On the other hand, those ... who seek to redefine the very essence of what a family is, are praised and upheld as champions of tolerance.

Then there is this patently offensive self righteous gem:

May we as members of the Church rise up and assume our divinely appointed role as a light to the nations. May we sacrifice and labor to rear a generation strong enough to resist the siren songs of popular culture, a generation filled with the Holy Ghost so that they may discern the difference between good and evil, between legitimate tolerance and moral surrender.

Evil ... moral surrender. How could anyone possible find his words offensive.

Share this post


Link to post

Its offensive that anti-gay rights activists calls themselves defenders of traditional families, when not one traditional family is in any way placed in peril if their gay neighbors are allowed to marry.

Then there is this patently offensive self righteous gem:

Evil ... moral surrender. How could anyone possible find his words offensive.

Did you expect anything different from the LDS Church? I'm not offended because it is the same thing they always say. They are great, they are right. Everyone is against them. Blah, Blah, Blah

Share this post


Link to post

They are great, they are right. Everyone is against them.

Finally, sjdawg sees the light!

;)

Share this post


Link to post

While you may disagree with the stand the response article makes concerning Elder Porter's article, it seems like an honest analysis of his view point. Is there anything about his response that you think distorts what Elder Porter is writing about? Is there anything about his response to the churches anti gay marriage position that is a distortion of the churches official stance? Doesn't the church call for political action against gay famlies from being married? Don't you think that there are some members of the church that are struggling with the civli rights of this whole issue? Are those members "wicked" as well if they also feel this consistant political attack against gay marriage is wrong? Do you believe that anyone who honestly disagrees with the churches position on gay marriage to be "wicked". And maybe you could point to the unfair malice towards the church you found contained in this article.

Like Danzo said, "Nothing unusual in the talk" and nothing unusual about the response of those that disagree with the churches position.

I think the original talk by Elder Porter, is only periferally about homosexuality and homosexual marriage. The writer of the article seems to believe that the talk was exlusivly about homosexuality. I think that is where the distortion occurs. The talk is of the standard (and much needed) reject the world, and embrace the gospel. Of course the world will be offended, but the world is not the intended audience of the talk.

Share this post


Link to post

Finally, sjdawg sees the light!

;)

:good:

Share this post


Link to post

When I read the response I had to chuckle....

For the record, those of us who are on the receiving end of the Church's political campaigns do not mock the Church. We disagree with the Church's political actions, and we are harmed by the practical consequences of those actions. There's a difference between disagreeing and mocking, even if the Church doesn't see it.

Sure we aren't mocked. The disagreements was purely polite. Oh and the grafitti on our temples? Why nothing more than decorating ideas. :rolleyes:

The virulence of attacks against the church, not merely disagreement but attacks and mockery reflects mightily on how one sided and almost Goebbels like in the way they overlook everything except their point of view. Their adherents of course will say the same thing or justify it. What mockery? What attacks? Well, its justified because....

Why not a simple condemnation of what was wrong within their own group? Because that would be too fair and open and in their drive to bury any opposition painted as evil and dehumanized, they gladly overlook the attacks, all for the greater good of course.

Share this post


Link to post

When I read the response I had to chuckle.... Sure we aren't mocked. The disagreements was purely polite. Oh and the grafitti on our temples? Why nothing more than decorating ideas. :rolleyes:

Jeff,

I believe you're exaggerating things. Although I saw a photo of some grafitti on a fence post bordering the LDS temple grounds (an action which I and most LGBT individuals I know condemn), I've never seen any "grafitti on any LDS temples" in the wake of Prop 8. Can you provide documentation of that aspect? Or where you referring to the grafitti on the fence, and simply not clear in your choice of words?

(While grafitti is certainly inappropriate in either case, "The vandals painted grafitti on my house!" is obviously different than "the vandals painted grafitti on the fence in front of my house.")

The virulence of attacks against the church, not merely disagreement but attacks and mockery reflects mightily on how one sided and almost Goebbels like in the way they overlook everything except their point of view. Their adherents of course will say the same thing or justify it. What mockery? What attacks? Well, its justified because....

You're right about one thing: I'd respond by asking, "What attacks?" Followed by asking: why do you presume to subscribe such "virulence" to such a large population, the vast majority (thousands) of which marched peacefully to display their frustration, anger, and sadness at Prop 8's passage?--the key word being "peacefully," despite the depth of their anger/disappointment.

Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post

When I read the response I had to chuckle....

Sure we aren't mocked. The disagreements was purely polite. Oh and the grafitti on our temples? Why nothing more than decorating ideas. :rolleyes:

The virulence of attacks against the church, not merely disagreement but attacks and mockery reflects mightily on how one sided and almost Goebbels like in the way they overlook everything except their point of view. Their adherents of course will say the same thing or justify it. What mockery? What attacks? Well, its justified because....

Why not a simple condemnation of what was wrong within their own group? Because that would be too fair and open and in their drive to bury any opposition painted as evil and dehumanized, they gladly overlook the attacks, all for the greater good of course.

There is a small minority of people that condone the extreme. The vast majority of people limit their actions to what one would consider acceptable forms of disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeff,

I believe you're exaggerating things. Although I saw a photo of some grafitti on a fence post bordering the LDS temple grounds (an action which I and most LGBT individuals I know condemn), I've never seen any "grafitti on any LDS temples" in the wake of Prop 8. Can you provide documentation of that aspect? Or where you referring to the grafitti on the fence, and simply not clear in your choice of words?

(While grafitti is certainly inappropriate in either case, "The vandals painted grafitti on my house!" is obviously different than "the vandals painted grafitti on the fence in front of my house.")

You're right about one thing: I'd respond by asking, "What attacks?" Followed by "why to presume to subscribe such "virulence" to such a large population, the vast majority (thousands) of which marched peacefully to display their frustration, anger, and sadness at Prop 8's passage--the key word being "peacefully," despite the depth of their anger/disappointment.

Daniel2

+1, well said

Share this post


Link to post
Jeff K., on 13 June 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

When I read the response I had to chuckle.... Sure we aren't mocked. The disagreements was purely polite. Oh and the grafitti on our temples? Why nothing more than decorating ideas.

Jeff,

I believe you're exaggerating things. Although I saw a photo of some grafitti on a fence post bordering the LDS temple grounds (an action which I and most LGBT individuals I know condemn), I've never seen any "grafitti on any LDS temples" in the wake of Prop 8. Can you provide documentation of that aspect? Or where you referring to the grafitti on the fence, and simply not clear in your choice of words?

(While grafitti is certainly inappropriate in either case, "The vandals painted grafitti on my house!" is obviously different than "the vandals painted grafitti on the fence in front of my house.")

No, living in Southern California, I am not exaggerating what happened here. And the silence from the LGBT community was more telling than any rancour they raised. I saw no condemnation of such, indeed I saw a continued pattern of harrassment, people from their jobs, from their positions, and so on. And through it all silence. You may claim that anecdotally some LGBT individuals condemned it, but it certainly isn't reflected anywhere, in fact most justified the actions and continue to justify the actions.

The grafitti is well known, one example is here.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/nov/08110704

I would also like to point out that the temple is not "your house", it is not considered a holy place of worship by you, it does not symbolize something more than mere property to you. If you cannot tell the difference between a random act upon your house and a pointed attempt at desecration I would say you have more than a little to learn in the way of respecting the ideals of others, or in the least be less disengenuous in your remarks.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a small minority of people that condone the extreme. The vast majority of people limit their actions to what one would consider acceptable forms of disagreement.

The silence of the vast majority is aquiesence to the actions of the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The virulence of attacks against the church, not merely disagreement but attacks and mockery reflects mightily on how one sided and almost Goebbels like in the way they overlook everything except their point of view. Their adherents of course will say the same thing or justify it. What mockery? What attacks? Well, its justified because....

You're right about one thing: I'd respond by asking, "What attacks?" Followed by "why to presume to subscribe such "virulence" to such a large population, the vast majority (thousands) of which marched peacefully to display their frustration, anger, and sadness at Prop 8's passage--the key word being "peacefully," despite the depth of their anger/disappointment.

Well if you respond that grafitti on your home is somehow the equivalent of directed grafitti on the temple, then of course you would consider attacks on people losing their jobs as mere objective job review on performance. It is amazing how the group mentality, or lynch mob mentality is viewed as entirely acceptable and benign by those holding the rope.

It is also sad how those who claim to be the reciptient of attacks, are more than willing to engage in the same without batting an eye.

Share this post


Link to post

No, living in Southern California, I am not exaggerating what happened here. And the silence from the LGBT community was more telling than any rancour they raised. I saw no condemnation of such, indeed I saw a continued pattern of harrassment, people from their jobs, from their positions, and so on. And through it all silence. You may claim that anecdotally some LGBT individuals condemned it, but it certainly isn't reflected anywhere, in fact most justified the actions and continue to justify the actions.

The grafitti is well known, one example is here.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/nov/08110704

I would also like to point out that the temple is not "your house", it is not considered a holy place of worship by you, it does not symbolize something more than mere property to you. If you cannot tell the difference between a random act upon your house and a pointed attempt at desecration I would say you have more than a little to learn in the way of respecting the ideals of others, or in the least be less disengenuous in your remarks.

Jeff,

The article you posted confirms what I said: grafitti was scrawled on the fence outside the temple grounds--not the temple itself:

Hundreds of protesters, bearings signs with such messages as "Don’t teach hate!" and "Mormons have 10 wives - I can’t have one?" chanted in front of the temple and scrawled graffiti on its gates. 

It's worth noting that there were allegedly hundreds of protestors mentioned in the article that "surrounded the temple grounds," yet the article onlyl mentions grafitti "on the gates" of the temple, itself. Such a limited incident of grafitti (in the face of hundreds of protestors) is obviously indicative that the vast majority of protestors didn't engage in such fringe (and inappropriate and illegal) behavior.

Indeed, I certainly appreciate that a house is different than a temple, and my point was not that the two types of buildings are interchangeable--but to illustrate the difference of "grafitti on the BUILDING" vs, "grafitti on the fence" (or, "gates").

Ironically, I would agree with your point that there's clearly a gulf of misunderstanding between Pro-Prop8 Latter-day Saints and pro-marriage equality supporters in which there exists a great lack of understanding and appreciation for what is "holy" and deserving of "worship." While I appreciate and understand that a temple is more than a house, in the hearts of Latter-day Saints, most Latter-day Saints seem to have trouble understanding that "a marriage license" is "symbolizes something more than mere property to [LGBT couples]." I would use your same words to describe the frustration of the pro-marriage-equality community: "If you cannot tell the difference between a random act upon a gay relationship and a pointed (and very political) attempt at desecration (by removing LGBT individuals' right to civilly-marry their same-sex spouse), I would say you have more than a little to learn in the way of respecting the ideals of others, or in the least be less disengenuous in your remarks."

Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure you think that grafitti on a temple is "limited", and therefore should not be condemned by the majority, anymore than a cross of David upon a store front but not inside. After all, grafitti was found on your house right?

Again the silence of the majority is equivalent to the acquiesence of the minority. Do you believe that if a gay couple were attacked by members of our church they would not be whole heartedly condemned and perhaps even lose their membership for such action? Do I see any reciprocity of respect? Or as I have mentioned before merely excuses and justification?

By the way living in Palm Springs, I knew more than a few gay men who did not want gay marriage due to the civil liability it would carry with their many partners. So your point is not entirely monolithic in that sense.

Gay marriage and the attempt to make everyone acquiese to their personal interpretation, when they cannot in anyway articulate convincingly to the public that theirs is marriage. You can call it what you will within the group, indeed in California all rights to partnerships exist regarding gay couplings, it is merely not called marriage. And civil union is apparently not good enough.

So I view your objections as so much spoilt milk by a self indulgent class of people, who use the excuse to remain quiet while saints are driven from work and office because of their own sincere beliefs without rancor upon the gay community. Nor were gay bars grafitti'd by Mormons, nor were gay men and women driven from their jobs by Mormons.

And yet, all your posts have been were "justifications", reasons why doing something like that to Mormons was somehow "acceptable", even "justified".

You basically fall into the same trap in justifying the mob rather than condemning it.

Share this post


Link to post

Do I see any reciprocity of respect?

Does it matter if you haven't? I assume you haven't does this mean you other LDS member, who claims to be a follower of Christ, are now exempt from the several statements from the Church and the several instructions from Christ via the scriptures, on how to treat your "neighbor"? A lack of reciprocity of respect is a strawman, unless you can show that said lack of respect exempts anyone from being a neighbor as explained by Christ.

Share this post


Link to post

Does it matter if you haven't? I assume you haven't does this mean you other LDS member, who claims to be a follower of Christ, are now exempt from the several statements from the Church and the several instructions from Christ via the scriptures, on how to treat your "neighbor"? A lack of reciprocity of respect is a strawman, unless you can show that said lack of respect exempts anyone from being a neighbor as explained by Christ.

Thank you. I appreciate this reasonable comment.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...