Fair Conference - Ally Isom

[stemelbow]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 3:35 PM, Darren10 said:

After the Libertarian presidential candidate, former New Nexico Governor Gary Johnson, made the follwing statement to the Washington Examiner:

 

I publicly called him and idiot. Was that bad? 

 

NOTE: Johnson has since corrected his statement which I am glad he did. But how could a former governor of New Mexico get so wrong what is arguably the most significant religious organization in the Rocky Mountain area? 

Sounds like his following explanation settles it.  I don't see the point of belaboring it.  Mormonism is very small.  We're not near as big as we like to think we are.  It's easy to understand how someone out there doesn't know much about the most significant religious organization in the Rocky MOuntain area. 

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Talk about "sloppy," HappyJack.  Have you ever considered what it might mean to place quotations in context?  Do you understand why that might be fair and impartial?  Of course, if you have it in for someone or some organization, naturally you wouldn't want to be fair, right?  That is the real dilemma here.  If the context shows someone to be sloppy, dismissive, etc., so be it, but that does not appear to have been what we face herewith.

 

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Good job. You totally side stepped the issue I raised. You didn't even attempt to answer. I provided a hypothetical which mirrors his comments on h0mosxuals. Would you like to attempt to address my point or are you only interested in attacking the messenger?

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Johnson utterly failed to grasp what freedom of religion is. It has nothing to do with shooting people because God told sone to and thus getting away with the shooting without punishment. And using Mormons as an example of this? When did Mormons ever shoot someone because God told them to (and then expect to avoid legal prosecution under the guise of freedom of religion)? 

Also, I miswrote my original post. I actually called Johnson an imbecile, not an idiot. 

Did Mormons at Mountain Meadows feel they were doing their religious duty?

Do Islamic suicide bombers feel that they are doing the will of Allah?

Did the Laffertys feel justified in murder in the name of God?

The answer to these questions is Yes. There is plenty of precedence for people doing terrible things in the name of God. I don't know how this is even debatable. So Johnson was exactly right, claiming that religious belief and liberty is sometimes used as a justification to hurt others. He is opposed to that. Aren't you? 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Good point.  Let's not paint with too broad a brush.  But I do feel like Church members are often leading the charge when it comes to derision and divisiveness. 

Remember also that the General Authorities are members as well, it is also their Church as well, their belief as well, their God as well. 

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Remember also that the General Authorities are members as well, it is also their Church as well, their belief as well, their God as well. 

Will do, Pa Pa.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good job. You totally side stepped the issue I raised. You didn't even attempt to answer. I provided a hypothetical which mirrors his comments on h0mosxuals. Would you like to attempt to address my point or are you only interested in attacking the messenger?

Sorry, HappyJack, in the course of correcting you I have lost track of the original question.  Was it related to the OP?

[ERMD]

On 8/8/2016 at 10:58 AM, hope_for_things said:

 

Perhaps the best way of measuring the moral value of someone's love would be to measure the outcomes of their actions.  

So what does this say about parents who love their 30 year-old son so much that they let him live in their home and play video games?

[salgare]

How many here believe that Ally Isom could have given that presentation if her opinion/presentation differed from the desires of her employer?

The history of the FAIR board -> MAD board -> MDDB seems to be one of FAIR Mormon trying to stay out of the lime light of negativism.  I assume the majority of moderators/administrators on this board are members of FAIR Mormon, some possibly from the very beginning of the history.  I saw mentioned elsewhere that one of these long term main players has an Abel and Cain sibling situation in the us verses them war which it appears Ally/Church is calling for an end of.

In combination with the Hardy affair it appears there is a division within the FAIR Mormon ranks where this division is one of the "us verses them" and the newer, enlighten members.  It seems from one of Dan's recent blog posts that even he is starting to see the light.

So what about this board?  Can the wounds of a long war ever mend?  Can the pettiness of bans here for even mentioning "the board that shall not be named" ever be overcome?  How long will this board be content with an endless cycle of ad hominem intellectually stated insults one side to the other?  Are deep underlying Abel/Cain emotions effecting bad decisions here?  Will running a a fear based censure management system here continue to give the Church a black eye?

 

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, salgare said:

How many here believe that Ally Isom could have given that presentation if her opinion/presentation differed from the desires of her employer?

The history of the FAIR board -> MAD board -> MDDB seems to be one of FAIR Mormon trying to stay out of the lime light of negativism.  I assume the majority of moderators/administrators on this board are members of FAIR Mormon, some possibly from the very beginning of the history.  I saw mentioned elsewhere that one of these long term main players has an Abel and Cain sibling situation in the us verses them war which it appears Ally/Church is calling for an end of.

In combination with the Hardy affair it appears there is a division within the FAIR Mormon ranks where this division is one of the "us verses them" and the newer, enlighten members.  It seems from one of Dan's recent blog posts that even he is starting to see the light.

So what about this board?  Can the wounds of a long war ever mend?  Can the pettiness of bans here for even mentioning "the board that shall not be named" ever be overcome?  How long will this board be content with an endless cycle of ad hominem intellectually stated insults one side to the other?  Are deep underlying Abel/Cain emotions effecting bad decisions here?  Will running a a fear based censure management system here continue to give the Church a black eye?

 

hm....I'm confused.  it feels like you are wanting to see us vs them mentality gone but seem to harbor deep-seeded us vs them feelings.  I'm not sure I get your complaints about FAIRMormon listed above.  I dont' get why you are trying to talk about someone's sibling situation.  Isn't that a personal affair and has nothing to do with us vs them? 

Is the board that can't be named Mormon Discussions?  I thought we could name it just not link to it.  Let me review the rules...I might come back and edit. 

 

Edited to add:  That's quite a list of rules.  I dont' see anything about naming Mormon Discussions though.  And...now I see on another thread it sounds like you are just upset and want to get banned?  If so, nevermind the above.  If I misunderstand, then I'm all ears. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by stemelbow

[salgare]

21 hours ago, stemelbow said:

hm....I'm confused.  it feels like you are wanting to see us vs them mentality gone but seem to harbor deep-seeded us vs them feelings.  I'm not sure I get your complaints about FAIRMormon listed above.  I dont' get why you are trying to talk about someone's sibling situation.  Isn't that a personal affair and has nothing to do with us vs them? 

Is the board that can't be named Mormon Discussions?  I thought we could name it just not link to it.  Let me review the rules...I might come back and edit. 

 

Edited to add:  That's quite a list of rules.  I dont' see anything about naming Mormon Discussions though.  And...now I see on another thread it sounds like you are just upset and want to get banned?  If so, nevermind the above.  If I misunderstand, then I'm all ears. 

I have been perma-banned two times here for no other reason than MDB association.  For the two times I have come back, I was totally honest with who I am.  I have had a week suspension and ended up on limited, on this user, for hounding MWB for answers to what he believes.

I have every reason to believe CountryBoy and myself were banned last Thursday for merely "cross posting" from MDB (no quotes were given, like Scott presented us today in another thread).  The problem is, the reasons for banning can only be guesses based on what one was posting right before the ban.  It would be nice if one was actually banned for rule violation verses being banned because you have upset the wrong person.

When I came back this third time as Salgare I was clear to the moderation/admins in asking for the courtesy and respect to simply contact me and let me know I'm not welcome here and that I would quietly leave.  When they banned me for being persistent with MWB over Nuanced Mormonism, I was given no reason, there was no contact.  Of course this is historically the purpose of this administration style to maintain fear of banning to censor individual posting.

I would have silently left as I promised if they would have asked me to.  That was not the cause.  The reason I brought up the sibling situation was questioning if one so biased should have as much sway in Ally's brave new world?

The board that can't be named is the Trailer Park, MDB, Mormon Dialog and Discussion.  Cowboy and I were suspended last Thursday because I called for a public apology from him here and we carried on for a bit.  Or maybe it was just because someone does not like either of us?

Also note that Robert has accused me of being a name caller in another thread this morning.  You got high praise from me there.

What I'm being vocal about here and now is a call for, a hope for, a change in management style, losing the constant threat of limited and banning for users that do want to be regulars but their messages must be censored based on the fear.

I've also been very vocal on MDB about how those here on limited and those getting banned are the ones that this board needs to survive.  This place would be dead without the critics, whom have been privileged to stay, some with limited status by the seemingly forgiving but silent gods that rule here.

You need to put down the conspiracy magazines and chill. Take this to your other board. Your post demonstrates why we do not allow cross-posting.

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, ERMD said:

So what does this say about parents who love their 30 year-old son so much that they let him live in their home and play video games?

I would say those parents aren't loving their 30 yr old properly.  Of course there could be lots of complicating situations, but just assuming that this is a perfectly capable 30 yr old without disabilities and or other complications at play.  

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, salgare said:

I have been perma-banned two times here for no other reason than MDB association.  For the two times I have come back, I was totally honest with who I am.  I have had a week suspension and ended up on limited, on this user, for hounding MWB for answers to what he believes.

I have every reason to believe CountryBoy and myself were banned last Thursday for merely "cross posting" from MDB (no quotes were given, like Scott presented us today in another thread).  The problem is, the reasons for banning can only be guesses based on what one was posting right before the ban.  It would be nice if one was actually banned for rule violation verses being banned because you have upset the wrong person.

When I came back this third time as Salgare I was clear to the moderation/admins in asking for the courtesy and respect to simply contact me and let me know I'm not welcome here and that I would quietly leave.  When they banned me for being persistent with MWB over Nuanced Mormonism, I was given no reason, there was no contact.  Of course this is historically the purpose of this administration style to maintain fear of banning to censor individual posting.

I would have silently left as I promised if they would have asked me to.  That was not the cause.  The reason I brought up the sibling situation was questioning if one so biased should have as much sway in Ally's brave new world?

The board that can't be named is the Trailer Park, MDB, Mormon Dialog and Discussion.  Cowboy and I were suspended last Thursday because I called for a public apology from him here and we carried on for a bit.  Or maybe it was just because someone does not like either of us?

Also note that Robert has accused me of being a name caller in another thread this morning.  You got high praise from me there.

What I'm being vocal about here and now is a call for, a hope for, a change in management style, losing the constant threat of limited and banning for users that do want to be regulars but their messages must be censored based on the fear.

I've also been very vocal on MDB about how those here on limited and those getting banned are the ones that this board needs to survive.  This place would be dead without the critics, whom have been privileged to stay, some with limited status by the seemingly forgiving but silent gods that rule here.

Well I wish ya well. I'm obviously not a part of this and thus, should just stay out. Best wishes.

[salgare]

20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well I wish ya well. I'm obviously not a part of this and thus, should just stay out. Best wishes.

lol, you are a good man (and a wise one) stem ... god bless

Oh and all those MWB should be MFB's.  It must irritate him to no end.  It was not intentional, Age, on top of chemo really messed me up.

eta:

Blixa (an incredible woman) has pointed out in another place that I have my siblings mixed up.  I apologize for that.  I was wrong in my assertions of bias here based on that.

You will be removed from the thread if you keep this up.

[Calm]

Assuming the mods are mainly members of FM is probably a bad idea.  The one I know for sure is not.  Another poster I guess is one is not either.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Calm

[Darren10]

On August 9, 2016 at 9:47 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Did Mormons at Mountain Meadows feel they were doing their religious duty?

Do Islamic suicide bombers feel that they are doing the will of Allah?

Did the Laffertys feel justified in murder in the name of God?

The answer to these questions is Yes. There is plenty of precedence for people doing terrible things in the name of God. I don't know how this is even debatable. So Johnson was exactly right, claiming that religious belief and liberty is sometimes used as a justification to hurt others. He is opposed to that. Aren't you? 

As I recall, John D. lee was executed by handing for the massacre. President/Governor Brigham Young, as soon as the feds would allow him, lead the investigation into the matter which lead in Lee's hanging. That's hardly a reason to say religious freedom is a "black hole" and use Mormonism as an example 

[Darren10]

Happy;

 

Religious freedom has *nothing to do* with shooting people because god told you to and not expecting legal consequences because of your religion. When has that EVERY been part of the American shstem? Furthermore, Mountain Meadows had nothing to do with shooting the Baker-Fancher Party because God told some Mormons to shoot them. 

 

What are you talking about? 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Darren10

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

As I recall, John D. lee was executed by handing for the massacre. President/Governor Brigham Young, as soon as the feds would allow him, lead the investigation into the matter which lead in Lee's hanging. That's hardly a reason to say religious freedom is a "black hole" and use Mormonism as an example 

Lee was the designated sacrificial scapegoat.  He was shot, not hug.

[Darren10]

On August 13, 2016 at 6:56 AM, sunstoned said:

Lee was the designated sacrificial scapegoat.  He was shot, not hug.

Hardly a scapegoat. He lead the attack.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Darren10

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Hardly a scapegoat. He lead the attack.

William Dame (head of the the Nauvoo Legion in Ceder city) and  Isaac Haight ( Stake President, Cedar City Stake) were in charge.  They gave Lee his orders.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

William Dame (head of the the Nauvoo Legion in Ceder city) and  Isaac Haight ( Stake President, Cedar City Stake) were in charge.  They gave Lee his orders.

Sounds right.