JulieM Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: Thanks for the compliment, but am wondering what you mean by this. Russell and I have had some very significant disagreements over the years, but I do give him credit for being the one ZLMB poster I moderated who never debated about getting dinged. Scott and I have some significantly different views though I don't think I ever had to moderate him on ZLMB. I don't have any relationship with either of them outside the public message board, not even sure if I've ever introduced myself to Scott at FM conferences (I think he sits up front, I sit in back so I can get up and walk). Now if you said I was tight with Juliann, that would make sense to me. We pass notes to each other in class all the time. Add-on: This is not to mean that I don't have respect for Scott or Russell, but the relationship with either of them is as far as I can tell the same relationship they have with dozens of other posters. Yes, but you are the only one with "kindness" and "class" 1
mtomm Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 I always wanted to be a part of that UMW thing... Or at least know the real acronym meaning... Just saying.. Maybe that got revealed at one point and I missed it.
Calm Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 It was revealed, but then we killed everyone we told.
mtomm Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, Calm said: It was revealed, but then we killed everyone we told. Sounds like I'm fine not knowing..
consiglieri Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 13 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Did you know that Elder Christofferson wasn't actually denying the existence of such people? Stop the presses! Are you saying that, when Elder Bednar (not Christofferson) said there are no homosexual members of the church, he actually wasn't saying there are no homosexual members of the church? I am interested in hearing how you interpret Elder Bednar's words exactly opposite to their plain meaning. Is this what we should do with apostolic messages with which we disagree?
consiglieri Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 9 hours ago, mtomm said: I always wanted to be a part of that UMW thing... Or at least know the real acronym meaning... Just saying.. Maybe that got revealed at one point and I missed it. Forget UMW. SSCE is where it's at.
ALarson Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Forget UMW. SSCE is where it's at. Ok, I'll bite. What is "UMW" and "SSCE"?
consiglieri Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 36 minutes ago, ALarson said: Ok, I'll bite. What is "UMW" and "SSCE"? I will not speak to the former, though I believe it is something along the lines of United Mormon Women. As to the latter, I can speak with some authority. It is the Secret Society of Cavernous Evil. Admittance to membership permitted only through a stringent and often embarrassing initiatory ritual.
ALarson Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: I will not speak to the former, though I believe it is something along the lines of United Mormon Women. As to the latter, I can speak with some authority. It is the Secret Society of Cavernous Evil. Admittance to membership permitted only through a stringent and often embarrassing initiatory ritual. LOL Thanks!!
Calm Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Thankfully, there will be no need for any killing today.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 15 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Did you know that Elder Christofferson wasn't actually denying the existence of such people? Why, of course you did. That's why you are misrepresenting him. Actually it's Elder Bednar who is taking the bad rap on this. But your point stands nonetheless. Quote Of course we can't. I'm not trying to define anyone out of existence. I'm simply pointing out that those who market themselves as "New Order Mormons" aren't new, they're not very orderly, and they aren't Mormons in any meaningful sense. They are just old order apostates. But they still exist. It's just that their self-applied label doesn't have much truth in what it advertises. Perhaps if we re-assigned the initials "NOM" to Name-Only Mormons. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, salgare said: Using googles advanced search string Scott Lloyd site:NOM board you name only shows up once in association with mine and all I said was something like Russel, Scott Lloyd and calmoriah are pretty tight (calmoriah is the only one of the three who has class and kindness). There was a group including you, Happy Jack Wagon and some whose names I recognized as long-time exiles from this board. Others I didn't recognize by name, though it could be that they post here under aliases. Notwithstanding your personal endorsement, even gentle, sweet Calm (calmoriah) did not altogether escape the bile. Mola is the other one I can think of who got pummeled. It was like a coop-ful of chickens clucking away. It put me in mind of the gossips depicted in the "Pick-a-little, Talk-a-little" scene in "The Music Man." Quote I'm not sure what you are getting at here? We could head to social and I'd gladly share my feelings with you Scott. I'll pass. Edited April 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, Calm said: Thanks for the compliment, but am wondering what you mean by this. Russell and I have had some very significant disagreements over the years, but I do give him credit for being the one ZLMB poster I moderated who never debated about getting dinged.Scott and I have some significantly different views ... Not many that I recall, though it's possible, I suppose, that unbeknownst to me, you have restrained yourself from speaking up on occasion. Quote ... though I don't think I ever had to moderate him on ZLMB. Until last year, I don't think I had been moderated anywhere. I was inexplicably thread-banned last August. Ironically, it was just after I had mentioned in a post that I had never been thread-banned or called out for anything before; perhaps someone was trying to teach me a lesson. The other day, I was admonished after bringing up Bill Reel's quirky definition of tithing. I suspect I had been reported by one or more individuals who didn't like my criticizing his quirky definition of tithing. Not long thereafter, Reel started his infamous thread with the laundry list of 21 "questions" for the Brethren. As I recall, heading the list was (wait for it) why they don't endorse his quirky definition of tithing. Quote I don't have any relationship with either of them outside the public message board, not even sure if I've ever introduced myself to Scott at FM conferences (I think he sits up front, I sit in back so I can get up and walk). We've met at one of the conferences at least; there may have been others. Edited April 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Teancum Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Actually it's Elder Bednar who is taking the bad rap on this. But your point stands nonetheless. Perhaps if we re-assigned the initials "NOM" to Name-Only Mormons. My post to Russell would be good for you to consider. You don't get to define who is and is not Mormon. This is the case wherever they stand or how they define themselves. Even if they disagree with the orthodoxy. Even if they disagree with you or Russell, Even if they think some day the church will accept homosexual marriage. Even if they don't believe currently some of the orthodox doctrine. As long as they identify as some sort of Mormon, are still baptized and confirmed members, they are Mormons. If their local leaders consider them as members on the roles then they are still Mormons. The story of my father that I posted if you bothered to read it is a fine example of this. But let's make a deal. When the Church stops counting every member on the roles regardless of where they are and what their activity rate is as part of the 15.7 Million then you and Russell can start defining away those who don't see things as the two of you do. 1
Calm Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not many that I recall, though it's possible, I suppose, that unbeknownst to me, you have restrained yourself from speaking up on occasion..... We've met at one of the conferences at least; there may have been others. Yeah, my memory is pretty much a black hole these days it seems. I can't distinguish that well between thinking about something where I tend to vizualize it and the real thing. I often don't post when I disagree or agree with someone if someone else has made the same points already (and I read them before giving into the urge to respond). And "significant" is extremely subjective and overly broad of a term and would vary from day to day so probably is more confusing than clarifying to use that as a qualifier. There have been enough topics I have even had the chance to disagree with Juliann and Bluebell, who I am "tight" with if there is anyone who actually qualifies on the board for the term. I don't believe I have ever disagreed with Bluedreams yet, but she doesn't post enough yet to be sure I would never do so, lol.
Ahab Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Stop the presses! Are you saying that, when Elder Bednar (not Christofferson) said there are no homosexual members of the church, he actually wasn't saying there are no homosexual members of the church? I am interested in hearing how you interpret Elder Bednar's words exactly opposite to their plain meaning. Is this what we should do with apostolic messages with which we disagree? That's an easy one to decipher. He meant there are no "homosexual members" in the sense that there are no members who are inherently homosexual. That homosexuality is a choice and that any member can choose whether or not to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. That sexual attraction is as much a matter of the mind as any other attraction and that with the mind that attraction can be turned on just as well as turned off. That nobody has that attraction turned on automatically. That anybody can turn that attraction off, or on, with their own mind. Not that there is anything wrong with being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. It's just sexual relations that needs boundaries. It's perfectly acceptable and good to see anyone of any sex as a sexually attractive creature. We all are, in one way or another. And yes this is what you are supposed to do with any teaching from any apostle, or anybody else for that matter. It's called interpreting their words correctly, and correctly is the best way to interpret anyone's words.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 39 minutes ago, Teancum said: But let's make a deal. When the Church stops counting every member on the roles regardless of where they are and what their activity rate is as part of the 15.7 Million then you and Russell can start defining away those who don't see things as the two of you do. I don't make deals based on what you want the Church to do.
consiglieri Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 45 minutes ago, Ahab said: That's an easy one to decipher. He meant there are no "homosexual members" in the sense that there are no members who are inherently homosexual. That homosexuality is a choice and that any member can choose whether or not to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex. That sexual attraction is as much a matter of the mind as any other attraction and that with the mind that attraction can be turned on just as well as turned off. That nobody has that attraction turned on automatically. That anybody can turn that attraction off, or on, with their own mind. Are you sure this is the spin you want to put on Elder Bednar's words? I can't think of a worse interpretation. It is completely out of touch with reality. For example, Ahab, can you choose to be attracted to someone of the same sex? I can't, but maybe that's because I'm an apostate.
Teancum Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't make deals based on what you want the Church to do. Nice dodge You do this often. Your comment above is a straw man. I did not say I wanted the Church to report membership in a different way. I said I would find the nonsense you and Russell think you have a right to employee in defining who is and is not Mormon based on your parameters acceptable when the Church excluded such from the count. I don't care how the Church reports its membership. Not an issue I worry about. I just know they count everybody regardless of belief or activity level as long as they are on the roles. Thus those you think are Mormon in name only, the Church must view in a different way. It is a simple concept. Please don't put words in my mouth. You don't like it when you think I am doing that to you.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, Teancum said: Nice dodge You do this often. Your comment above is a straw man. I did not say I wanted the Church to report membership in a different way. I said I would find the nonsense you and Russell think you have a right to employee in defining who is and is not Mormon based on your parameters acceptable when the Church excluded such from the count. I don't care how the Church reports its membership. Not an issue I worry about. I just know they count everybody regardless of belief or activity level as long as they are on the roles. Thus those you think are Mormon in name only, the Church must view in a different way. It is a simple concept. Please don't put words in my mouth. You don't like it when you think I am doing that to you. I didn't put words in your mouth. I responded to your offer of a "deal" by saying I don't make deals conditioned on what you want the Church to do.
Teancum Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I didn't put words in your mouth. I responded to your offer of a "deal" by saying I don't make deals conditioned on what you want the Church to do. See you are still doing it. How obtuse. Read carefully. I never said I wanted the Church to do this. You are saying you don't make deals on what I WANT THE CHURCH TO DO. But I never said that. Got it yet? And I will take the rest of your second non response as a concession that my entire post about you and Russell having no right to define who is and is a Mormon,.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Teancum said: See you are still doing it. How obtuse. Read carefully. I never said I wanted the Church to do this. You are saying you don't make deals on what I WANT THE CHURCH TO DO. But I never said that. Got it yet? This is what you said: Quote But let's make a deal. When the Church stops counting every member on the roles regardless of where they are and what their activity rate is as part of the 15.7 Million then you and Russell can start defining away those who don't see things as the two of you do. That's when I responded that I don't make deals based on what you want the Church to do. If it's not what you want the Church to do, why do make it an element of a deal you want to cut? Quote And I will take the rest of your second non response as a concession that my entire post about you and Russell having no right to define who is and is a Mormon. You can draw whatever fatuous and self-serving conclusions you like; they are not binding on me or anyone else. Edited April 12, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Teancum Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: This is what you said: That's when I responded that I don't make deals based on what you want the Church to do. You can draw whatever fatuous and self-serving conclusions you like; they are not binding on me or anyone else. Nor is what you are dishonesty posting about what I said. This is a waste of time really. Bye.
Ahab Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 45 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Are you sure this is the spin you want to put on Elder Bednar's words? I can't think of a worse interpretation. It is completely out of touch with reality. For example, Ahab, can you choose to be attracted to someone of the same sex? I can't, but maybe that's because I'm an apostate. Spin meaning interpretation, yes that is correct, and yes I can also choose to be sexually attracted to anybody, any gender, any time, anywhere. I'm sure you could also choose to do that if you wanted to simply put your mind to it.
Gray Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, Ahab said: Spin meaning interpretation, yes that is correct, and yes I can also choose to be sexually attracted to anybody, any gender, any time, anywhere. I'm sure you could also choose to do that if you wanted to simply put your mind to it. This is a totally alien concept to me.
Recommended Posts