stemelbow Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That's because people who have made a conscious decision to follow Satan have no sense of humor. I thought loud laughter was proof of someone following satan.
rockpond Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: And that, arguably, is what makes the family proclamation prescient and, well, prophetic. Two decades ago, I never would have imagined there would come a time when even a significant minority of Church members would seriously entertain the thought that the Church of Jesus Christ would one day embrace what it now deems as abominable: homosexual behavior. With the proclamation having been in place for the past two decades, such individuals must come to terms with the fact that they are out of harmony with the doctrines, teachings, beliefs and position of the Church, that they are in effect straddling a fence. Societal trends were in motion back then; of course they were. What many us did not anticipate was the steamroller, the juggernaut that would roll forth with such intensity that those who sustained traditional beliefs and values would be widely branded as bigots. I think that's what Dan was saying in his blog post, and it's certainly what I say. Woe is you, Scott. Someone, somewhere called you a bigot for not supporting gay marriage, eh? I'm so sorry. You might want to review the definitions of bigot and intolerance. This next point, I haven't brought up in this thread but with your continued claims, it seems needed. The POTF establishes the doctrinal importance and significance of man-woman marriage in LDS theology. It, however, says absolutely nothing about gay marriage. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted May 18, 2016 Author Posted May 18, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well one day, it'll be looked back in such a way. Just give it time, about the time gay marriages are conducted in temples, dotting the land. I think rockpond was holding forth on this a couple of years ago. Since then, the Church, if anything, has moved further away from such a thing ever becoming a reality, to the point that rockpond has threatened to leave the Church and to pull his family along with him. His response has been that as things evolve toward what he anticipates, he doesn't expect it will happen in "linear" fashion. I suppose by that he means that it will happen in fits and starts; a two-steps-forward- and-one-step-back sort of thing. So much for the applicability of historic timelines, eh? By the way, I haven't given a countdown reading on his prediction for a while. Here's a current one: 38 years, 8 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes and 12 seconds. Edited May 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 It occurred to me back in the days of Prop 8 that eventually gay people would win the right to marry nationwide. That doesn't mean I could literally see the future, it just means I could look at the trajectory of the civil rights movement and project it forward. If church leaders could literally see the future, we wouldn't need pilot programs. I'm fine calling anything prophets do "prophetic" but I don't think that should be confused with an ability to see future events in any supernaturalish way. 4
stemelbow Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: Poor you. All up for fun and nobody'll play. Wanna play "Which Marvel Superhero Movie is your favorite" or something? I ain't into them, but sure. Superman III
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gray said: It occurred to me back in the days of Prop 8 that eventually gay people would win the right to marry nationwide. That doesn't mean I could literally see the future, it just means I could look at the trajectory of the civil rights movement and project it forward. If church leaders could literally see the future, we wouldn't need pilot programs. I'm fine calling anything prophets do "prophetic" but I don't think that should be confused with an ability to see future events in any supernaturalish way. Arguably it was Prop 8 that triggered the right to marry nationwide. Was that then a prophetic misfire? 2
stemelbow Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think rockpond was holding forth on this a couple of years ago. Since then, the Church, if anything, has moved further away from such a thing ever becoming a reality, to the point that rockpond has threatened to leave the Church and to pull his family along with him. His response has been that as things evolve toward what he anticipates, he doesn't expect it will happen in "linear" fashion. I suppose by that he means that it will happen in fits and starts; a two-steps-forward- and-one-step-back sort of thing. So much for the applicability of historic timelines, eh? By the way, I haven't given a countdown reading on his prediction for a while. Here's a current one: 38 years, 8 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes and 12 seconds. I wouldn't get too excited if I were you. He's got plenty of time with plenty of treks up and down the roller coaster to go with it. 1
USU78 Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: No, not really. I misunderstood your terse comments, and was merely offering a reductio ad absurdum. Ignore it. Nature of the boards, ol' buddy. We quite rarely disagree.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 18, 2016 Author Posted May 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, rockpond said: Woe is you, Scott. Someone, somewhere called you a bigot for not supporting gay marriage, eh? I'm so sorry. You might want to review the definitions of bigot and intolerance. This next point, I haven't brought up in this thread but with your continued claims, it seems needed. The POTF establishes the doctrinal importance and significance of man-woman marriage in LDS theology. It, however, says absolutely nothing about gay marriage. It defines marriage as between a man and a woman, thus setting that boundary. The implied need to draw that distinction is what makes the document revelatory and prophetic. As Dan pointed out, two decades ago, the principles in the document seemed so self-evident many of us wondered what the point of it was. Not anymore. 1
USU78 Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I ain't into them, but sure. Superman III I saw what you did there.
stemelbow Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: It defines marriage as between a man and a woman, thus setting that boundary. The implied need to draw that distinction is what makes the document revelatory and prophetic. As Dan pointed out, two decades ago, the principles in the document seemed so self-evident many of us wondered what the point of it was. Not anymore. Are you seriously claiming the document doesn't seem self-evident to you anymore? Wow...you have come a long way, Scott.
rockpond Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think rockpond as holding forth on this a couple of years ago. Since then, the Church, if anything, has moved further away from such a thing ever becoming a reality, to the point that rockpond has threatened to leave the Church and to pull his family along with him. His response has been that as things evolve toward what he anticipates, he doesn't expect it will happen in "linear" fashion. I suppose by that he means that it will happen in fits and starts; a two-steps-forward- and-one-step-back sort of thing. So much for the applicability of historic timelines, eh? By the way, I haven't given a countdown reading on his prediction for a while. Here's a current one: 38 years, 8 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 7 hours, 18 minutes and 12 seconds. Thanks for the countdown update, Scott. Yes, the Lord works in mysterious ways. Who would have thought that the Church's work on Prop 8 would eventually lead to nationwide legal recognition of gay marriage. I know you feel the Church is moving further away from the "Dehlin prediction". I imagine you would cite last November's policy change as an example. What's interesting, however, is that the policy change seems to show the fear the Brethren have of what exposure to happily married gay couples and their children could do to the hearts and minds of church members. Or, alternatively, if it was motivated by tort liability, then it shows that we could be on a path similar to the ending of polygamy and banning blacks from temples and priesthood. Last November was also critical in your countdown because of the galvanization it created... the impacts of which, I believe, will be felt for years to come. 1
rockpond Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It defines marriage as between a man and a woman, thus setting that boundary. The implied need to draw that distinction is what makes the document revelatory and prophetic. As Dan pointed out, two decades ago, the principles in the document seemed so self-evident many of us wondered what the point of it was. Not anymore. Except it doesn't actually define marriage. If you want to continue to claim that it does make such a definition, please provide the quote.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 18, 2016 Author Posted May 18, 2016 18 minutes ago, Gray said: It occurred to me back in the days of Prop 8 that eventually gay people would win the right to marry nationwide. That doesn't mean I could literally see the future, it just means I could look at the trajectory of the civil rights movement and project it forward. If church leaders could literally see the future, we wouldn't need pilot programs. I'm fine calling anything prophets do "prophetic" but I don't think that should be confused with an ability to see future events in any supernaturalish way. Some have questioned the supernatural character of the "miracle of the gulls" when the Mormon pioneers were saved from starvation that would have resulted from a cricket infestation when flocks of seagulls swooped in and devoured the crickets. Cyclical insect infestations were common in the Salt Lake Valley back then, they say, and the seagulls were doing what seagulls do. Do I doubt that the Almighty blessed the pioneers and answered their prayers in this manner and that it was thus a miracle? Not for a moment.
CV75 Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 1 hour ago, cinepro said: I'm not sure what you heard, but Prop 8 campaigning was dropped because there was an election and Prop 8 passed. Precisely. Not sure what you read from my post!
stemelbow Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Some have questioned the supernatural character of the "miracle of the gulls" when the Mormon pioneers were saved from starvation that would have resulted from a cricket infestation when flocks of seagulls swooped in and devoured the crickets. Cyclical insect infestations were common in the Salt Lake Valley back then, they say, and the seagulls were doing what seagulls do. Do I doubt that the Almighty blessed the pioneers and answered their prayers in this manner and that it was thus a miracle? Not for a moment. Sure, anything's possible, so we might as well believe it.
CV75 Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 15 minutes ago, rockpond said: Except it doesn't actually define marriage. If you want to continue to claim that it does make such a definition, please provide the quote. It defines marriage in this way: the first commandment is legitimately fulfilled only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 18, 2016 Author Posted May 18, 2016 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: This was a few years before the proclamation. I'm not sure why it would be called a "fiasco," though. I wasn't upset with them, just happened to be the proverbial "messenger" in their line of fire. 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: Well, they were pioneers then. I realize you were just the person on the other end hearing and/or dealing with their frustration. Tried to be a little cheeky. Taking out one's frustration/anger/vengeance/whatever on one who is not to blame for it is an instance of unrighteous dominion. And, alas, women are just as prone to that as men. "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men" should be read as almost all mankind. (For the record, I'm speaking theoretically here. I wasn't present to experience what jkwiliams recounts, and thus I can't speak to that specifically.)
Scott Lloyd Posted May 18, 2016 Author Posted May 18, 2016 11 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Sure, anything's possible, so we might as well believe it. Do you only regard something as a blessing or a miracle if it is unexplainable?
stemelbow Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Do you only regard something as a blessing or a miracle if it is unexplainable? No. You? Sorry to turn it back at you but I'm struggling to see where this question comes from (out of left field?) so I'm curious where you plan on taking it.
jkwilliams Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Taking out one's frustration/anger/vengeance/whatever on one who is not to blame for it is an instance of unrighteous dominion. And, alas, women are just as prone to that as men. "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men" should be read as almost all mankind. (For the record, I'm speaking theoretically here. I wasn't present to experience what jkwiliams recounts, and thus I can't speak to that specifically.) They didn't take anything out on me, and I apologize if I left that impression. They were definitely unhappy about what had happened, and they were quite, well, forceful in what they wanted. The guy I worked with in Public Affairs--the guy they should have been dealing with--told me he was terrified of them, which is why he told them I was the responsible person. So, if I were to complain, it would be about that guy's cowardice. Sisters Jack and Grassli were just doing their job. Though my boss did say of Sister Grassli, "When you're dealing with the Primary, you're playing hardball!" 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 18, 2016 Author Posted May 18, 2016 24 minutes ago, rockpond said: Thanks for the countdown update, Scott. Yes, the Lord works in mysterious ways. Who would have thought that the Church's work on Prop 8 would eventually lead to nationwide legal recognition of gay marriage. I know you feel the Church is moving further away from the "Dehlin prediction". I imagine you would cite last November's policy change as an example. What's interesting, however, is that the policy change seems to show the fear the Brethren have of what exposure to happily married gay couples and their children could do to the hearts and minds of church members. Or, alternatively, if it was motivated by tort liability, then it shows that we could be on a path similar to the ending of polygamy and banning blacks from temples and priesthood. Last November was also critical in your countdown because of the galvanization it created... the impacts of which, I believe, will be felt for years to come. Such "galvanization" and the implied effects it will have on the Church is yet another vain prediction. This is getting to be a habit with you. 1
Gray Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Arguably it was Prop 8 that triggered the right to marry nationwide. Was that then a prophetic misfire? It's really a subjective judgement call. Everything turned out for the best, but the intention was wrong-headed, in my opinion.
stemelbow Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Such "galvanization" and the implied effects it will have on the Church is yet another vain prediction. This is getting to be a habit with you. Your prediction of his predictions being vain is vain. A habit can be formed if you do something once and then repeat it again and again. You're on a slippery slope, Scott. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 18, 2016 Author Posted May 18, 2016 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Sure, anything's possible, so we might as well believe it. 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Do you only regard something as a blessing or a miracle if it is unexplainable? 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: No. You? Sorry to turn it back at you but I'm struggling to see where this question comes from (out of left field?) so I'm curious where you plan on taking it. Your remark seemed cynical and sarcastic to me. I was responding accordingly. If I misread you, I beg your pardon.
Recommended Posts