Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: It's not a non-sequitur... You defend Holland's biased portrayals but decry CB's. Be consistent. We should tell the truth. Does that apply to Holland or just those whose opinions differ from yours? I defended no one's biased portrayals of anything, but roundly attacked them, as I always do. If that discomfits you, then cease and desist.
sjdawg Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are a prime example of my point: You and california boy feel that lying about the overall LDS Church position is O.K. because they do so much else that is "bad." And that is maddening. In your anger and spite, it seems all right to bear false witness about the Mormon Church. Why not, if it salves your hurt and pain. Merely opposing LGBT marriage in LDS exoteric and esoteric rituals, or opposing active homosexual conduct means to you that any lie about what other policies or beliefs the Mormons have is O.K. That seems justified to you. How does that differ from any other tendentious set of notions used in propaganda against an organization? Hitler and Stalin used the same big lie approach to smashing their enemies. Civility is the real victim, and you are a perpetrator of that harsh mistreatment. I think you might have misunderstood CO2's comment.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 20 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yes, let's meet in the middle. Could you share with us some of the things that you feel the church has gotten wrong with respect to its LGBT members and policies? You agreed we ought to meet in the middle: So how about the truth about the strong and official LDS positon on LGBT access to public accommodations, employment, housing, and other civil liberties, which CB deliberately failed to mention? Does that deserve to be part of a balanced appraisal? All we have heard from CB so far is the negative, and all you want me to do is add to the negativity? Is that your idea of the middle, or the continuing muddle? 4
Russell C McGregor Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 59 minutes ago, rockpond said: I wish my statements were false. I really do. Then your wish has been granted. Because they are. 59 minutes ago, rockpond said: You might wish to discuss whether or not the church is hostile with gay people. You already have one witness here with CB. CB, like so many "gay people," appears to have bought into the claim that anything other than complete and unreserved approval for same sex "marriage" and non "marital" relationships is "hostility." 59 minutes ago, rockpond said: The desire of many members for our statements and policies to be interpreted as loving and righteous rather than shunning doesn't make them so. Sorry. Doubling down on a brazenly, barefacedly false accusation of "shunning" doesn't make it true. Sorry. The accusation of "shunning" has no basis. 59 minutes ago, rockpond said: For someone of your ideology to consider mine as apostate is a compliment. You don't give me much reason to conclude otherwise. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 23 minutes ago, sjdawg said: I don't recall him mentioning anything about housing, jobs, and public access. He was quite clear when describing the hostility he was referring to. He was clear all right, about his level of hatred and contempt for Mormons. So much so that (as you yourself observe) he had no time for a balanced appraisal. Maybe we should just round up them Mormons and put them in special camps . . . 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, sjdawg said: I think you might have misunderstood CO2's comment. I sure hope so. Otherwise there isn't much hope for meaningful communication.
rockpond Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are a prime example of my point: You and california boy feel that lying about the overall LDS Church position is O.K. because they do so much else that is "bad." And that is maddening. In your anger and spite, it seems all right to bear false witness about the Mormon Church. Why not, if it salves your hurt and pain. Merely opposing LGBT marriage in LDS exoteric and esoteric rituals, or opposing active homosexual conduct means to you that any lie about what other policies or beliefs the Mormons have is O.K. That seems justified to you. How does that differ from any other tendentious set of notions used in propaganda against an organization? Hitler and Stalin used the same big lie approach to smashing their enemies. Civility is the real victim, and you are a perpetrator of that harsh mistreatment. Ha. I think you missed carbon's point.
rockpond Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I defended no one's biased portrayals of anything, but roundly attacked them, as I always do. If that discomfits you, then cease and desist. So are you willing to say that Elder Holland is also not giving a fair portrayal of those who have left the church? Or are you only reserving that type of judgment for CB?
rockpond Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You agreed we ought to meet in the middle: So how about the truth about the strong and official LDS positon on LGBT access to public accommodations, employment, housing, and other civil liberties, which CB deliberately failed to mention? Does that deserve to be part of a balanced appraisal? All we have heard from CB so far is the negative, and all you want me to do is add to the negativity? Is that your idea of the middle, or the continuing muddle? I asked my question first. And I won't dialogue with you if you aren't willing to answer me. Edited May 1, 2016 by rockpond
Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 Just now, rockpond said: So are you willing to say that Elder Holland is also not giving a fair portrayal of those who have left the church? Or are you only reserving that type of judgment for CB? I don't care who is biased, I don't like it, and I don't have any truck with it. Unlike CB, I condemn such regardless of source. Provide me with Holland's biased quotes in context.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: Ha. I think you missed carbon's point. Yeh, people keep telling me that.
rockpond Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: CB, like so many "gay people," appears to have bought into the claim that anything other than complete and unreserved approval for same sex "marriage" and non "marital" relationships is "hostility." I believe you are completely misrepresenting CB's opinion. p.s. You don't need to describe gay people with quotes. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: The policy change which I am referring to is not really the Church itself but the BSA allowing gay scouts as being boy scouts and the Church followed the BSA without too much of a fight. The Church was already doing it anyway. It wasn't a matter of following 2
Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: I asked my question first. And I won't dialogue with you if you aren't willing to answer me. So if I don't jump into your sea of negativity, you are going to take your marbles and go home? Actually, I can't think of anything in the LDS position on homosexuality which I consider negative and which needs to be changed, but I stand ready to be taught and instructed. Apparently you have nothing to contribute to that issue? Is that right?
Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: .......................................................... p.s. You don't need to describe gay people with quotes. Perhaps he regards the phrase as an oxymoron. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 1 hour ago, sjdawg said: perhaps this would be a concern if the church were true. I was under the impression rockpond still believes the Church is true. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. I hope not.
sjdawg Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: He was clear all right, about his level of hatred and contempt for Mormons. So much so that (as you yourself observe) he had no time for a balanced appraisal. Maybe we should just round up them Mormons and put them in special camps . . . He was very specific in what he was discussing. I don't believe the positions on housing, employment etc had any bearing on the topic
sjdawg Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I was under the impression rockpond still believes the Church is true. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. I hope not. I assume that if he chooses to leave the Church he will do so because he does not believe in its truth. If so, then I suspect he won' be too worried about any eternal consequences of leaving it behind.
Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 1 minute ago, sjdawg said: He was very specific in what he was discussing. I don't believe the positions on housing, employment etc had any bearing on the topic Of course not. Them Mormons is too evil to be given a moment's consideration. No different than those horrible Scientologists.
rockpond Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Perhaps he regards the phrase as an oxymoron. Are you still wondering why California Boys sees hostility coming from the church? Cause I've for a little hint for you ^^^ 2
rockpond Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 4 minutes ago, sjdawg said: I assume that if he chooses to leave the Church he will do so because he does not believe in its truth. If so, then I suspect he won' be too worried about any eternal consequences of leaving it behind. Correct.
sjdawg Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Of course not. Them Mormons is too evil to be given a moment's consideration. No different than those horrible Scientologists. Evil isn't the word I would choose but if you like it I won't protest
Robert F. Smith Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: Are you still wondering why California Boys sees hostility coming from the church? Cause I've for a little hint for you ^^^ People my age can recall when the word "gay" had a very different meaning. Having lived among a lot of homosexuals and gotten to know them well, I can say that they have not always been so "gay" in the old sense, which is why someone might put scare quotes around the phrase. You should respect their right to do so, rather than applying a totalitarian rule that they must comply with PC. For CB everything is evidence of hostility, including kindness and civility from active, faithful Mormons who believe that homosexual practice is immoral. 1
california boy Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: You call it taking away rights. I call it simply maintaining the status quo. One can't take away something that did not exist to begin with. The concept of gay marriage is a foreign one that did not exist in the minds of most people who have lived on this planet since the beginning of time. It was not even given serious thought 20 years ago among the majority of Americans. The Church was just against redefining marriage to something it never was before. I would agree that the Church policy regarding children of SSM couples to be inconsistent and I do not defend it. But is also a policy that affects very few people. I wonder if the policy has even affected on child since it was initiated. One that point I think the Church addressed a problem that really did not exist however the Church policy from what they said was to create less problems between gay couples and their kids. So I don't know how creating less of a problem would constitute an attack. The Church has always not allowed gays to be scout leaders but has changed its policy on the scouts themselves. So the Church has moved towards more acceptance on the scout issue as they reversed one component recently.. Yes there is going to be tensions between gays and the Church because LBGT issues extend far beyond orientation but the church has soften its position on some things. Well I am not going to derail this thread about gay issues but to pretend that the church has not instituted policies and actions against gays is sticking your head in the sand about as far as you can get it. Perhaps on this thread we can talk more about the effect these actions have had on members of the church and the perception people outside the church have about the church. While you may want to pretend that the church has not become pretty toxic towards gays, it would be pretty difficult to also pretend that these policies have not caused many in the church both gay and straight to question these policies and feel they are very unChrisr like. Is all you have to do is read the endless threads over these issues. Heck, read the thread on Tyler Glen. He seems pretty betrayed by these policies Ask Rockponds and others on this very thread if this is not a big issue leading to them walking away you think those policies effect very few people? Really? You haven't been paying attention and neither are the leaders It would also be pretty difficult to not know the number of people outside the church who think the church is a toxic place for gays and are not interested in becoming a part of such an organization. You wonder why people are leaving the church? It is because of the actions of the church itself. If you are not getting that message from those posting their reasons for walking away then you are not paying attention. I would never work my way back to the church given the tonic environment the church has created against gays. You think patty cake and taffy pull comments are offensive? Try understanding the policies and actions against gays. If the church created that negative of environment against straight couples, there wouldn't even be a church left. 2
california boy Posted May 1, 2016 Posted May 1, 2016 4 hours ago, sdc999 said: The onus would only be on him if, in the end, you are correct and he is wrong. In this, the LDS church would have to be the ONLY way back to Christ. I'm betting not. But, that's just my opinion. If the only way back to God is by membership in the church then 99% of Gods children are doomed. If once you become a member and you falter because of imperfect leaders then the worse thing a person could do in life is to join the church and put their salvation at risk. Message here? Stay away from the church at all costs.
Recommended Posts