california boy Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I reject this one too. Says the pot calling the kettle black.
Calm Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, california boy said: You have convinced me that I am wrong. I apologize and withdraw my comment. I admit I am a bit sensitive on these issues. I can understand why the sensitivity with such a high focus at times on a major part of your life; there are some comments here and there that are shocking, more that are probably wearying. But it is important to keep track of who says what so you don't start feeling like a Victim when you are not. Much better not to operate out of that mindset for so many reasons. Save it for the times it really happens. Edited July 15, 2017 by Calm
california boy Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: At the same time, judicial fiat does not negate what is right and proper. (See the quote from Elder (now President) Russell M. Nelson in my sig line below. See also the one from Elder Neil L. Andersen.) Quote California Boy Scott, you are not defending the church's position on gay marriage. You are attacking the right of others to practice gay marriage. That is the difference Quote Scott Lloyd I reject this accusation.. It took you less than a page to once again, attack the right of others to practice gay marriage. The courts have affirmed their right to be treated equally under the laws of this land. Your statement has NOTHING to do with the ability of Mormons to believe what they want to believe. It is an attack on gay relationships and not a defense of the rights to Mormon belief at all.
Calm Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) The program locked me out of my post for taking too long and I now have lost the add on content. Just making a note that my intent in my list of threads was to list all gay topic related threads I could see or remember from the first five pages with opening poster and topic and if locked why, that post was not meant to be selective. If it bothers someone, feel free to get the five or so more including at least one more on the first page. Edited July 15, 2017 by Calm
california boy Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, Calm said: I can understand why, there are some comments here and there that are shocking, more that are probably wearying. But it is important to keep track of who says what so you don't start feeling like a Victim when you are not. Much better not to operate out of that mindset for so many reasons. Save it for the times it really happens. You are right. Sometimes I just need to breath a bit. I hate misrepresenting something that is a fact on this board. When I do it myself, I deserve to be slammed. Thank you. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 54 minutes ago, california boy said: Says the pot calling the kettle black. Rejecting an accusation is "calling the kettle black"? That does not compute.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: It took you less than a page to once again, attack the right of others to practice gay marriage. The courts have affirmed their right to be treated equally under the laws of this land. Your statement has NOTHING to do with the ability of Mormons to believe what they want to believe. It is an attack on gay relationships and not a defense of the rights to Mormon belief at all. I reject this accusation too. Those who hold general leadership positions in the Church are duty-bound to teach the people the doctrines and and principles of the Church. And I am entitled to agree with them and to express such agreement in public. For you to style that as an attack strikes me as a contortion. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to agree with every SCOTUS decision that issues forth. I disagree with Dred Scott, for example, and that was an almost unanimous (7-2) ruling (unlike Obergefell). Edited July 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
california boy Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I reject this accusation too. Those who hold general leadership positions in the Church are duty-bound to teach the people the doctrines and and principles of the Church. And I am entitled to agree with them and to do it in public. For you to style that as an attack strikes me as a contortion. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to agree with every SCOTUS decision that issues forth. I disagree with Dred Scott, for example, and that was a unanimous ruling (unlike Obergefell). Of course you are entitled to agree with the position of the Church. No one disputes that. And of course you are entitled to disagree with a Supreme Court decision. No one disputes that. But that is not what you are doing. By calling the Supreme Court decision a "judicial fiat" you are not addressing the disagreement with the decision, you are attacking the validity of that decision and their right to rule on that decision. To take away the right of the Supreme Court to rule on law is an entirely different matter than disagreeing with their decision. It also has NOTHING to do with defending the church's right to believe what it wants concerning gay marriage. Edited July 15, 2017 by california boy
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, california boy said: Of course you are entitled to agree with the position of the Church. No one disputes that. And of course you are entitled to disagree with a Supreme Court decision. No one disputes that. But that is not what you are doing. By calling the Supreme Court decision a "judicial fiat" you are not addressing the disagreement with the decision, you are attacking the validity of that decision and their right to rule on that decision. To take away the right of the Supreme Court to rule on law is an entirely different matter than disagreeing with their decision. It also has NOTHING to do with defending the church's right to believe what it wants concerning gay marriage. An online dictionary defines fiat as "a legally binding command or decision entered on the court record (as if issued by a court or judge)" And I deny that, by calling it a fiat, I have attacked either the validity of the decision or the court's right to rule on the case. I can fervently disagree with a judicial fiat (or ruling) even as I recognize its legality and validity. A corollary to that is that I can argue against a judicial fiat even as I recognize its legality and validity. I think you don't understand what fiat means. Edited July 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
california boy Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: An online dictionary defines fiat as "a legally binding command or decision entered on the court record (as if issued by a court or judge)" And I deny that, by calling it a fiat, I have attacked either the validity of the decision or the court's right to rule on the case. I can fervently disagree with a judicial fiat (or ruling) even as I recognize its legality and validity. A corollary to that is that I can argue against a judicial fiat even as I recognize its legality and validity. I think you don't understand what fiat means. I understand fully that you are using one of your inflammatory words meant to demean the authority of their ruling. You never use the word ruling which is more customary on court decisions. You choose to use a word that can also mean to dictate and to be arbitrary. Word games by Scott. Definition of fiat 1: a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort According to the Bible, the world was created by fiat. 2: an authoritative determination : dictate a fiat of conscience 3: an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree government by fiat
USU78 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I thought I was one of the few still alive who remembered that terrible song. Though I never heard it. The title alone was enough to repel me. Yeah, but the point, about permissible bigotries,is well taken.
USU78 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 8 hours ago, Calm said: Misappropriation of the song for playing an inflammatory victim game, imo. It was never just about being targeted for mocking or even hate or just about treatment in the media. It was about oppression/subservience. As I said above, Mormons are not now being enslaved. Nor are we constantly mocked throughout the world. Gays have it much worse worldwide, we (Mormons) are hardly noticed outside of the US and here at worst it is ridicule we have to put up with. Gays are often still mocked and bullied in the US even if the mainstream media tends to remove it. And the mistreatment of blacks in our current national culture is hardly admirable as well. It is hard to continue to see your complaints as credible when you make such over the top comparisons. So Mormons get made fun of from time to time. When was the last time you heard of someone beating up or killing someone just for being Mormon? When are our churches burnt down, bombed, or vandalized on a regular basis? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/12/hate_in_america_a_list_of_racism_bigotry_and_abuse_since_the_election.html http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765635263/Sikhs-Mormons-Buddhists-others-added-to-hate-crime-stats.html https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2015/tables-and-data-declarations/1tabledatadecpdf 8 single biased hate crimes against Mormons compared to 1745 for blacks and 1044 for LGBT. Well, okay, I'll bite. The entire premise upon which this thread is based, and upon which the incessant attacks by homosexual advocates against the LDS are based is that LDS beliefs and practices, conducted largely behind closed doors, are dangerous and evil. If that is not a bigotry, just what does one look like? "Yeah, but," is the response, and which is the subtext here, "Mormon beliefs and practices impel suicides." I have taken the position before, and I still hold it, that that is a slander no less dangerous than the Protocols. 1
stemelbow Posted July 15, 2017 Author Posted July 15, 2017 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: Well, okay, I'll bite. The entire premise upon which this thread is based, and upon which the incessant attacks by homosexual advocates against the LDS are based is that LDS beliefs and practices, conducted largely behind closed doors, are dangerous and evil. That's not true. The entire premise is that leaders have been wrong in the past so it's possible they are wrong again. It's clear to me you've misunderstood. 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: If that is not a bigotry, just what does one look like? It cant possibly be bigotry. I threw out an example of defending note error and as a result harm by past church teaching which was corrected. 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: "Yeah, but," is the response, and which is the subtext here, "Mormon beliefs and practices impel suicides." I have taken the position before, and I still hold it, that that is a slander no less dangerous than the Protocols. I did not say anything about suicides to be clear. I haven't caught myself up on this thread but that was never the intent.
USU78 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: That's not true. The entire premise is that leaders have been wrong in the past so it's possible they are wrong again. It's clear to me you've misunderstood. It cant possibly be bigotry. I threw out an example of defending note error and as a result harm by past church teaching which was corrected. I did not say anything about suicides to be clear. I haven't caught myself up on this thread but that was never the intent. Sure
ttribe Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Well, okay, I'll bite. The entire premise upon which this thread is based, and upon which the incessant attacks by homosexual advocates against the LDS are based is that LDS beliefs and practices, conducted largely behind closed doors, are dangerous and evil. If that is not a bigotry, just what does one look like? "Yeah, but," is the response, and which is the subtext here, "Mormon beliefs and practices impel suicides." I have taken the position before, and I still hold it, that that is a slander no less dangerous than the Protocols. I'll give you credit for one thing - you've made hyperbole an art form. 2
USU78 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: That's not true. The entire premise is that leaders have been wrong in the past so it's possible they are wrong again. It's clear to me you've misunderstood. It cant possibly be bigotry. I threw out an example of defending note error and as a result harm by past church teaching which was corrected. I did not say anything about suicides to be clear. I haven't caught myself up on this thread but that was never the intent. The error, thank you very much, was in trying through reason and tortured scriptural wresting, to give a reason for the priesthood ban. That is all. "Harm" therefrom would be impossible to measure. Speculation would be the only basis for asserting harm. You use an inapposite paradigm to analyze things you plainly don't know much about. Revelation is planted in minds and hearts. Thence it is communicated to 3rd parties in imperfect language,whereupon those 3rd parties seek replication of the revelatory process. You, moreover, employ loaded language with secondary meaning. Any attempt by you to distance yourself from the secondary meaning, which necessarily creates obvious subtext, falls flat and appears disingenuous. There exists a straight line from XIXth Century screeds, Penny Dreadfuls, and hyperbolic flickers to your OP. It screams: Danger!!! Mormons!!!!!" 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 22 hours ago, stemelbow said: Well aren't some beliefs harmful? I'd say that's part of the question of this thread. I'd say the Church's position on SSM is harmful. Harmful to families and all that. if so, is it a good idea to hold that position? Should the Church change it? If the harm caused is less than the harm that would result if the Church didn't hold a position then the Church might be justified. If the Church is harming people and families against God's will, as it seems happened back in the pre-lifting the ban days, then what do we do as members? Sit idly by and hope for change? If you happen to believe in magical miniature flying pink elephants. It may hurt you at some unknown future date. However as long as you don't do anything to others because of that belief. Who cares? No! The Church considering SSM a sin is not harmful to families. The Church is not requiring non-members to believe or act in any way. If you or they don't agree with the Church. Who cares? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, california boy said: I understand fully that you are using one of your inflammatory words meant to demean the authority of their ruling. You never use the word ruling which is more customary on court decisions. You choose to use a word that can also mean to dictate and to be arbitrary. Word games by Scott. Definition of fiat 1: a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort According to the Bible, the world was created by fiat. 2: an authoritative determination : dictate a fiat of conscience 3: an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree government by fiat I understand fully and saw those definitions probably before you did as well as others you didn't cite, including the one I already gave. That you are doubling down on saying my use of the word is inflammatory reaffirms my belief that you don't really grasp its meaning and that you are looking for opportunity to take offense. Edited July 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: At the same time, judicial fiat does not negate what is right and proper. (See the quote from Elder (now President) Russell M. Nelson in my sig line below. See also the one from Elder Neil L. Andersen.) For purposes of preaching the Gospel, that is certainly true, but it should go without saying. What is concerning to many is the attempt to coerce obedience to the Gospel (or some other system of morality). The most important question is whether we believe in free choice. Do we really believe in that basic principle? 2
Tacenda Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: For purposes of preaching the Gospel, that is certainly true, but it should go without saying. What is concerning to many is the attempt to coerce obedience to the Gospel (or some other system of morality). The most important question is whether we believe in free choice. Do we really believe in that basic principle? Excellent post Robert! I worry that the church is controlling a little much. But you probably aren't purporting that, I just added it. I long for the old days a little too much.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: For purposes of preaching the Gospel, that is certainly true, but it should go without saying. But obviously with some it doesn't go without saying, or we wouldn't have the misguided agitation currently going on to invalidate within the Church some of the clearly enunciated doctrine in the family proclamation. So even if you think it goes without saying, it must be repeated from time to time as there apparently are some who would ignore it. Quote What is concerning to many is the attempt to coerce obedience to the Gospel (or some other system of morality). The most important question is whether we believe in free choice. Do we really believe in that basic principle?[\quote] it is not coercive to resist public policy that would fundamentally redefine an institution such as marriage or family, eventually stripping it of any meaning that gave it value. Edited July 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
sunstoned Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I reject this one too. The LDS church took a hard stand on this. That's within their rights to do so. This is a free county and a private religious organization has the right to decide on their own path and their own rules. If they decide there is no place in the church for gay couples, or if they don't want the innocent children of Gay parents to be part of their organization, they can exclude them, regardless of what Jesus taught. That's their right. That is religious freedom. However, just like everyone else in this world, the church is free to choose its actions, but it cannot choose the consequences of those actions. Right now those consequences seem to be a PR nightmare and a hemorrhaging of members leaving. Especially, young members. It seems that what Dallin Oaks is having a problem with is not religious freedom, but the consequences of exercising that religious freedom. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 No one will be denied any blessing from God based on what their parents did. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: The LDS church took a hard stand on this. That's within their rights to do so. This is a free county and a private religious organization has the right to decide on their own path and their own rules. If they decide there is no place in the church for gay couples, or if they don't want the innocent children of Gay parents to be part of their organization, they can exclude them, regardless of what Jesus taught. That's their right. That is religious freedom. However, just like everyone else in this world, the church is free to choose its actions, but it cannot choose the consequences of those actions. Right now those consequences seem to be a PR nightmare and a hemorrhaging of members leaving. Especially, young members. It seems that what Dallin Oaks is having a problem with is not religious freedom, but the consequences of exercising that religious freedom. It's true that every choice carries consequences, including choices that are right and proper. The challenge is to determine the acceptable cost/benefit ratio. I trust the Church leaders to have considered that carefully already without the need for outside ark steadying. Those who choose to apostatize because the position of the Church leadership conflicts with their political views incur consequences too. Some of those consequences might not be readily apparent right away. Oh, and there is a place for gay people in the Church who obey the laws and commandments of God, just as there is for anyone else. And "innocent children" are not excluded from the program of the Church. They are, however, in theory required to delay baptism due to the circumstances that beset them in being in a household where adults choose not to obey the commandments of God, just as would "innocent children" in households where adults choose to practice polygamy. Edited July 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
stemelbow Posted July 15, 2017 Author Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, USU78 said: The error, thank you very much, was in trying through reason and tortured scriptural wresting, to give a reason for the priesthood ban. That is all. "Harm" therefrom would be impossible to measure. Speculation would be the only basis for asserting harm. You use an inapposite paradigm to analyze things you plainly don't know much about. Revelation is planted in minds and hearts. Thence it is communicated to 3rd parties in imperfect language,whereupon those 3rd parties seek replication of the revelatory process. You, moreover, employ loaded language with secondary meaning. Any attempt by you to distance yourself from the secondary meaning, which necessarily creates obvious subtext, falls flat and appears disingenuous. There exists a straight line from XIXth Century screeds, Penny Dreadfuls, and hyperbolic flickers to your OP. It screams: Danger!!! Mormons!!!!!" I don't think you're being reasonable nor responsive to the thread's purpose. I did not indicate what you feel I might have meant so there's really no where to go with this. Peace to you Edited July 15, 2017 by stemelbow
Recommended Posts