Recent Excommunications

[rockpond]

He either thinks your a sycophant who is trying to be like Rock or that you are actually Rock Waterman. He's mentioned this a couple of times so he must think he knows a secret about you and it's not that you're currently serving in local church leadership, unlike Rock

 

I wondered if that's what he was getting at.  If that's the case, I'll clarify:  I am not Rock Waterman.  My screen name comes from a beautiful little spot in Meuller State Park (Rock Pond) and is pictured in my profile shot.

[ttribe]

I wondered if that's what he was getting at.  If that's the case, I'll clarify:  I am not Rock Waterman.  My screen name comes from a beautiful little spot in Meuller State Park (Rock Pond) and is pictured in my profile shot.

 

Didn't you know - Speculative Suspicions of Deception > Truth ?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thanks for answering, I think that you claiming telling me that I am not a faithful Latter-day Saint because of my beliefs about gay marriage is setting yourself up as a final declarant of what constitutes valid LDS beliefs.  I suppose you didn't see it that way.

 

Not sure what you are getting at with the "Rock + Water" thing.

Lets cut to the chase. Is wanting SSM in the temple a valid LDS belief?

[rockpond]

Lets cut to the chase. Is wanting SSM in the temple a valid LDS belief?

 

Not sure what you mean by valid and (depending on what you mean) it's likely not my place to make such a determination.

[Russell C McGregor]

Thanks for answering, I think that you claiming telling me that I am not a faithful Latter-day Saint because of my beliefs about gay marriage is setting yourself up as a final declarant of what constitutes valid LDS beliefs.  I suppose you didn't see it that way.

You're right, I didn't.

And since it is my intent that is under discussion, I suggest that that should count for something.

More to the point, it wasn't about you; it was about your position.

And if you asserting the opposite doesn't make you "the final declarant of what constitutes valid LDS beliefs" then neither can me disagreeing with you.

Unless you are fond of double standards.

 

Not sure what you are getting at with the "Rock + Water" thing.

That's okay. Since you say you're not him, I accept that.

It was just a rather interesting coincidence, don't you think?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You're right, I didn't.

And since it is my intent that is under discussion, I suggest that that should count for something.

More to the point, it wasn't about you; it was about your position.

And if you asserting the opposite doesn't make you "the final declarant of what constitutes valid LDS beliefs" then neither can me disagreeing with you.

Unless you are fond of double standards.

 

That's okay. Since you say you're not him, I accept that.

It was just a rather interesting coincidence, don't you think?

Rockpond is not nearly witty enough to be the Rock. 

[rockpond]

You're right, I didn't.

And since it is my intent that is under discussion, I suggest that that should count for something.

More to the point, it wasn't about you; it was about your position.

And if you asserting the opposite doesn't make you "the final declarant of what constitutes valid LDS beliefs" then neither can me disagreeing with you.

Unless you are fond of double standards.

 

It became about me when you said that I was not a faithful Latter-day Saint.

 

On these threads we all discuss LDS beliefs.  But I don't make the claim that you are not a faithful Latter-day Saint.

[Russell C McGregor]

It became about me when you said that I was not a faithful Latter-day Saint.

You keep asserting this. I didn't recall it that way, so I've gone back and reviewed the history of our discussions.

I never said it. Sorry.

And since I never said you were not a faithful Latter-day Saint, it never became about you.

It was always, and only, about your positions, and nothing else.

You were the one who was arguing that since you were a faithful Latter-day Saint, your positions had to be taken seriously as genuine Latter-day Saint opinions.

You were the one who made your faithfulness an issue.

You.

Not me.

That you may understand me now, if you did not understand me then: I do not presume to judge who is or is not a faithful Latter-day Saint. But I do consider myself qualified to distinguish between those positions that are available to faithful Latter-day Saints, and those that are not.

So do please stop trying to manipulate the discussion in order to portray it as a personal attack upon you.

It is not.

Just so you know.

[rockpond]

You keep asserting this. I didn't recall it that way, so I've gone back and reviewed the history of our discussions.

I never said it. Sorry.

And since I never said you were not a faithful Latter-day Saint, it never became about you.

It was always, and only, about your positions, and nothing else.

You were the one who was arguing that since you were a faithful Latter-day Saint, your positions had to be taken seriously as genuine Latter-day Saint opinions.

You were the one who made your faithfulness an issue.

You.

Not me.

That you may understand me now, if you did not understand me then: I do not presume to judge who is or is not a faithful Latter-day Saint. But I do consider myself qualified to distinguish between those positions that are available to faithful Latter-day Saints, and those that are not.

So do please stop trying to manipulate the discussion in order to portray it as a personal attack upon you.

It is not.

Just so you know.

 

I'll just refer you to a coupe of posts you made under your other screen name... the one that was banned:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65146-general-conference-moving-away-from-traditional-marriage-definition/page-9#entry1209482981

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65146-general-conference-moving-away-from-traditional-marriage-definition/?p=1209483025

 

Not even sure what to make of this statement:  "That you may understand me now, if you did not understand me then: I do not presume to judge who is or is not a faithful Latter-day Saint. But I do consider myself qualified to distinguish between those positions that are available to faithful Latter-day Saints, and those that are not."

[Scott Lloyd]

Not even sure what to make of this statement:  "That you may understand me now, if you did not understand me then: I do not presume to judge who is or is not a faithful Latter-day Saint. But I do consider myself qualified to distinguish between those positions that are available to faithful Latter-day Saints, and those that are not."

For some thoughts on a position that is available to a faithful Latter-day Saint as opposed to those positions that are not, see this piece by Ralph Hancock.

 

Some excerpts:

 

Most surprising and disappointing for me, as a Latter-day Saint (LDS), has been witnessing friends and family from within the faith jump on board the “marriage equality” bandwagon, despite the fact that their increasingly vocal advocacy for redefining marriage flies in the face of repeated, consensus views shared at LDS worldwide conferences by church authorities (to say nothing of Holy Writ). Furthermore, this advocacy risks ostracizing the very church leaders these members claim to sustain by fueling the fires of opposition to the traditional and natural understanding of marriage, and therefore painting those who cling to such outdated as “bigots,” that is, as persons whose views deserve no respect.

The possible repercussions are not pretty: the tax exempt status of faith groups could be increasingly called into question; the chastity standards of even private universities (think BYU) could be deemed beyond the pale of respectability in an “inclusive” society; and individual members who choose to uphold and proclaim what they deeply believe regarding marriage and the family could be subject to increasingly detrimental societal sanctions.

 

And

 

This, then, is the momentous decision we have somehow delegated to our sovereign Supreme Court: What is human dignity? Will we as a people honor liberty under God, or will we put the full force of law behind the worship of the new dignity of absolute human autonomy?

This should be an easy question for Latter-day Saints, no matter how the Supreme Court decides the marriage question. But we will retain a firm grasp of the grounding of human dignity in God’s laws and purposes only if we resist the subtle slippage from compromise to respect to embrace of the new “dignity” of the limitless secular self.   Religious people may indeed have to compromise with secularists, even extreme secularists, but we must not indulge the temptation to confuse true religion and the religion of secularism under the appealing but misleading notion of “dignity.”

 

Edited June 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

That you may understand me now, if you did not understand me then: I do not presume to judge who is or is not a faithful Latter-day Saint. But I do consider myself qualified to distinguish between those positions that are available to faithful Latter-day Saints, and those that are not.

 

Do these sentences not contradict each other?

 

If you are qualified in setting out what positions are not available to faithful latter-day saints, then you are saying that those who hold said position you deem to be unfaithful latter-day saints... are you not?

[Russell C McGregor]

I'll just refer you to a coupe of posts you made under your other screen name... the one that was banned:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65146-general-conference-moving-away-from-traditional-marriage-definition/page-9#entry1209482981

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65146-general-conference-moving-away-from-traditional-marriage-definition/?p=1209483025

 

Not even sure what to make of this statement:  "That you may understand me now, if you did not understand me then: I do not presume to judge who is or is not a faithful Latter-day Saint. But I do consider myself qualified to distinguish between those positions that are available to faithful Latter-day Saints, and those that are not."

I realise that you find it polemically useful to try to cast every disagreement with your apostate positions as a personal attack upon yourself. That tactic relieves you of the responsibility to defend the indefensible upon its merits, while enabling you to claim to be the offended party. The first post to which you linked -- in which I did not say you were not a faithful Latter-day Saint -- begins with a quote from you, thus:

 

You are wrong with your "not one believing Latter-day Saint" claim. I am here.

Who was it who tried to drag your personal faithfulness into the discussion?

It was you.

Your faithfulness became an issue only when you decided to appeal to it as proof of the orthodoxy of your position.

An argument that was, and remains, "fallacious and dishonest." To use your own phrase.

I congratulate you on your success in sidetracking the discussion to make it about you.

But that is over now.

I won't fall for that trick again.

I repeat: for me, it has never been about anything but the question of what positions are validly available to faithful Latter-day Saints.

And I point-blank refuse to let you make it about you again.

You'll have to try your "It's all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" schtick on someone else.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

Do these sentences not contradict each other?

No. They do not.

Thank you for asking.

If you are qualified in setting out what positions are not available to faithful latter-day saints, then you are saying that those who hold said position you deem to be unfaithful latter-day saints... are you not?

No. I am not.

I am saying that they are holding positions that are unavailable to them as faithful Latter-day Saints.

Thank you for asking.

[rockpond]

I realise that you find it polemically useful to try to cast every disagreement with your apostate positions as a personal attack upon yourself. That tactic relieves you of the responsibility to defend the indefensible upon its merits, while enabling you to claim to be the offended party. The first post to which you linked -- in which I did not say you were not a faithful Latter-day Saint -- begins with a quote from you, thus:

Who was it who tried to drag your personal faithfulness into the discussion?

It was you.

Your faithfulness became an issue only when you decided to appeal to it as proof of the orthodoxy of your position.

An argument that was, and remains, "fallacious and dishonest." To use your own phrase.

I congratulate you on your success in sidetracking the discussion to make it about you.

But that is over now.

I won't fall for that trick again.

I repeat: for me, it has never been about anything but the question of what positions are validly available to faithful Latter-day Saints.

And I point-blank refuse to let you make it about you again.

You'll have to try your "It's all about MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" schtick on someone else.

I think that the links I provided to your own words along with Brian's accurate observation need no further commentary.

[rockpond]

For some thoughts on a position that is available to a faithful Latter-day Saint as opposed to those positions that are not, see this piece by Ralph Hancock.

Some excerpts:

And

I'm familiar with Hancock's fear-infused strawman argument but I'm not sure of your point in bringing it up as part of this thread. Don't you and I agree that the Church is not excommunicating people for supporting gay marriage? Edited June 18, 2015 by rockpond

[Russell C McGregor]

I think that the links I provided to your own words along with Brian's accurate observation need no further commentary.

Indeed. The fact that you were unable to find a post in which I said what you continually attribute to me needs no further commentary.

[Russell C McGregor]

I'm familiar with Hancock's fear-infused strawman argument but I'm not sure of your point in bringing it up as part of this thread. Don't you and I agree that the Church is not excommunicating people for supporting gay marriage?

In what way is it a straw man argument? What arguments does he attribute to the "gay marriage" cabal that they don't actually make?

I'm not at all surprised that you don't agree with his position; the fact that he approaches the issue from the standpoint of one who measures the "values" of the world against the standards of the Gospel, instead of the other way around, makes that pretty much inevitable. But that doesn't make him wrong.

Quite the contrary.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm familiar with Hancock's fear-infused strawman argument but I'm not sure of your point in bringing it up as part of this thread.

 

I brought it up, just as I said, as an example of a position that is available to a faithful Latter-day Saint, that being that marriage in the eyes of God can only properly transpire between a man and a woman.

 

 

Don't you and I agree that the Church is not excommunicating people for supporting gay marriage?

 

The Church does not routinely excommunicate people merely for their less-than-faithful adherence to Church teachings and views. Otherwise, there would be a whole lot of Church members with tattoos and body piercings that would be on the outside by now.

[rockpond]

I brought it up, just as I said, as an example of a position that is available to a faithful Latter-day Saint, that being that marriage in the eyes of God can only properly transpire between a man and a woman.

 

Yes - that is one position available to faithful Latter-day Saints.  Supporting gay marriage is also a position available to faithful Latter-day Saints (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2301174-155/mormons-free-to-back-gay-marriage)

 

 

The Church does not routinely excommunicate people merely for their less-than-faithful adherence to Church teachings and views. Otherwise, there would be a whole lot of Church members with tattoos and body piercings that would be on the outside by now.

 

I am grateful we haven't reached the point where we would excommunicate someone for having a body piercing or a tattoo.

Edited June 18, 2015 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes - that is one position available to faithful Latter-day Saints.  Supporting gay marriage is also a position available to faithful Latter-day Saints (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2301174-155/mormons-free-to-back-gay-marriage)

 

 

The fact that the Church does not go after and purge out people who hold that position does not negate the fact that it is at odds with the established position and teaching of the Church.

 

I am grateful we haven't reached the point where we would excommunicate someone for having a body piercing or a tattoo.

 

You can feel grateful for it if you are so inclined, but the point is that freedom from excommunication is not necessarily an indication that one's views and behavior are in harmony with the teachings of the Church and the urging and warning of apostles and prophets.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

The fact that the Church does not go after and purge out people who hold that position does not negate the fact that it is at odds with the established position and teaching of the Church.

 

You can feel grateful for it if you are so inclined, but the point is that freedom from excommunication is not necessarily and indication that one's views and behavior are in harmony with the teachings of the Church and the urging and warning of apostles and prophets.

 

Maybe it is an issue of "teachings of the Church" vs. the Gospel of Christ.

[cinepro]

I brought it up, just as I said, as an example of a position that is available to a faithful Latter-day Saint, that being that marriage in the eyes of God can only properly transpire between a man and a woman.

 

The Church does not routinely excommunicate people merely for their less-than-faithful adherence to Church teachings and views. Otherwise, there would be a whole lot of Church members with tattoos and body piercings that would be on the outside by now.

 

Global flood deniers too.

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe it is an issue of "teachings of the Church" vs. the Gospel of Christ.

I suppose every self-proclaimed leader of every apostate schism from the Church of Jesus Christ in this dispensation has tried to draw that distinction.

 

But God is not the author of confusion.

[rockpond]

But God is not the author of confusion.

 

True.

[Russell C McGregor]

Yes - that is one position available to faithful Latter-day Saints.  Supporting gay marriage is also a position available to faithful Latter-day Saints (http://www.sltrib.com/blogs/2301174-155/mormons-free-to-back-gay-marriage)

No.

It is not.

It is a position available to jack Mormons and MINOs. 

 

I am grateful we haven't reached the point where we would excommunicate someone for having a body piercing or a tattoo.

Or for just generally being a jack Mormon.

But the Church does, rightly, remove those who try to proselyte among the Saints for apostate doctrines.

For example, the notion of "same sex temple marriage" is an apostate doctrine.

Far more so than mere craven surrender to the non-values of a wicked world on the subject of "same sex marriage" in the secular realm.