conference today

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

The people I know personally offline who struggle with the FP do so because they love someone who is not heterosexual and they want everything for them that their other loved ones have the potential of having.

That could be true for any family member regardless of their situation whether they are gay, drug abusers, adulterers, alcoholics, or regular criminals.  We all want our loved one to be exalted but we have to be realistic that eternal laws are just that.  If exceptions are made for our loved ones and everyone else loved one, they are not really eternal laws.

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

As smac responded to the person who linked the wheatandtares blog which did not link to the facebook post.

 

 

So a blog post, with 46 comments is the basis to claim " there is a fairly popular notion in circulation that the proclamation is merely an expansion or adaptation of a legal brief written by attorneys."  I can not image any reasonable person using 46  comments out of estimated 4 billion internet users as being a "fairly popular notion in circulation."  Some people need a boogeyman, I guess.

We do live in a bubble when it comes to online Mormonland. So in that world, the idea most certainly is in circulation. Unless there is something I'm missing, I'd put it in the downright goofy corner, though. 

[Avatar4321]

President eyring's talk this evening was very enlightening. Sustaining local leaders as called by God even though they have weaknesses that may be very obvious to us is difficult to some

[provoman]

27 minutes ago, juliann said:

We do live in a bubble when it comes to online Mormonland. So in that world, the idea most certainly is in circulation. Unless there is something I'm missing, I'd put it in the downright goofy corner, though. 

Well if we move the goal post, yes, something mentioned and discussed on the internet is something in circulation. Our discussing the thing even makes it "in circulation". But since we are not moving the goal post, whether something has been discussed is not relevant. A blog post - with 46 comments that disagree, a random redditt post - with 28 - comments, do not support the claim that " there is a fairly popular notion in circulation".

Edited October 1, 2017 by provoman

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, provoman said:

As smac responded to the person who linked the wheatandtares blog which did not link to the facebook post.

 

So a blog post, with 46 comments is the basis to claim " there is a fairly popular notion in circulation that the proclamation is merely an expansion or adaptation of a legal brief written by attorneys."  I can not image any reasonable person using 46  comments on a random blog, 28 comments on reddit, out of estimated 4 billion internet users as being a "fairly popular notion in circulation."  Some people need a boogeyman, I guess.

How many references would satisfy you?  

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

That could be true for any family member regardless of their situation whether they are gay, drug abusers, adulterers, alcoholics, or regular criminals.  We all want our loved one to be exalted but we have to be realistic that eternal laws are just that.  If exceptions are made for our loved ones and everyone else loved one, they are not really eternal laws.

 Well, the Atonement is one big exception in one sense, no one is getting what they deserve according to most laws.  Thankfully the .Law of Mercy is at least as powerful as the Law of Justice (whatever those two principles stand for).

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

Well if we move the goal post, yes, something mentioned and discussed on the internet is something in circulation. Our discussing the thing even makes it "in circulation". But since we are not moving the goal post, whether something has been discussed is not relevant. A blog post - with 46 comments that are disagree, a random redditt post - with 28 - comments, support the claim that " there is a fairly popular notion in circulation".

Don't forget the board reference to a previous thread.  That makes three hits in about as many minutes effort.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This discusses it, the comments have a number of viewpoints:

https://wheatandtares.org/2014/10/30/proclamation-written-by-lawyers/

added...okra beat me!!!!

This is from the exmormon Reddit, so no link, but an easy google...the name was deleted, so it is impossible to check.

"In the early to mid-1990s my brother-in-law worked at Kirton McConkie, the LDS Church's law firm that helped the General Authorities draft the Proclamation on the Family. I can vouch that I have known for 20 years that the Proclamation was specifically created as part of an amicus brief that Kirton McConkie drafted in the Church's fight against marriage equality in Hawaii in the mid-1990s, and releasing it to the broader membership as a "proclamation" was needed to officially codify the document and give one-man one-woman marriage credence as an "official" doctrine of the church"

Here's another:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67354-should-the-family-a-proclamation-be-canonized-in-our-scriptures/?do=findComment&comment=1209610801

The Family Proclamation would make one of the worst amicus briefs in recorded history. Seriously, if a lawyer wrote the Proclamation for that purpose they should have been fired and their law career shortened.

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, provoman said:

As smac responded to the person who linked the wheatandtares blog which did not link to the facebook post.

 

So a blog post, with 46 comments is the basis to claim " there is a fairly popular notion in circulation that the proclamation is merely an expansion or adaptation of a legal brief written by attorneys."  I can not image any reasonable person using 46  comments on a random blog, 28 comments on reddit, out of estimated 4 billion internet users as being a "fairly popular notion in circulation."  Some people need a boogeyman, I guess.

Here's another post about this theory: http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

And another reference: http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/02/19/who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/#comment-80039

And another: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60404-who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/?do=findComment&comment=1209238652

And another: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60404-who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/?do=findComment&comment=1209239412

 

And another: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1884911,1884911

I think "fairly popular notion in circulation" fits the bill.  I've heard this claim several times.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Except the brief was dated two years after the Proc was released. I really don't get why claiming lawyers wrote it would be a compelling position. Why would lawyers have to write it? They certainly used it but just because something is in a brief doesn't mean the lawyer who drew it up composed every letter himself. Where does that idea even come from?  And why anybody would think that the Brethren couldn't do an adequate job is just so very odd. 

I don't think anyone here in this thread is claiming (and not saying you are saying this, just adding to the conversation) it is credible (though Johnnie Cake appeared to believe it), just that the idea has been discussed quite a bit online at least....or so google suggests as I haven't visited all the hits or even looked much past the first page this time around.

Of course there are endless rumors out there.  Most likely very few are that widespread when we are talking about a global collection of communities, including the millions on record (of the LDS Church) and the likely thousands who have taken themselves off; they just appear to be because of the communities people are aware of.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Well, the Atonement is one big exception in one sense, no one is getting what they deserve according to most laws.  Thankfully the .Law of Mercy is at least as powerful as the Law of Justice (whatever those two principles stand for).

Yes.  The atonement fixes everything.  However some apparently would want to see some of God's laws changed so that atonement is not applied in these instances. 

[provoman]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's another post about this theory: http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

And another reference: http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/02/19/who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/#comment-80039

And another: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60404-who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/?do=findComment&comment=1209238652

And another: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60404-who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/?do=findComment&comment=1209239412

 

And another: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1884911,1884911

I think "fairly popular notion in circulation" fits the bill.  I've heard this claim several times.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

This is just pathetic. 

It is not reasonable to claim  that there is ""fairly popular notion in circulation".  And as I expected Scott would not defend his ridiculous claim.  You are welcome to swallow the jagged pill that a few blog posts and about 200 or so comments that disagree support the notion that something is ""fairly popular notion in circulation". Goodness the absurdities that are defended on the internet simply because a poster must be defended at any cost.

Edited October 1, 2017 by provoman

[Calm]

So you aren't going to give a number of hits that would qualify, but just continue to say "not enough"?

You may have forgotten, but Scott is a Church News reporter and may be occupied with his work for the last three hours since you issued the CFR (I am not and am just trying to distract myself until bedtime, so why not?).  If he posts again and ignores it, then your assumption he will refuse to answer might have merit (might because he answers somethings and doesn't others...like we all do, I could claim you are refusing to answer my question of how many references you would need to satisfy your cfr, though I am not...yet).

PS:  I find you suggesting that "fairly popular" should be applied to all Internet users as opposed to those interested in discussing things Mormon to be ridiculous.

PPS:  I am not suggesting it is fairly popular, btw, I don't care enough to take a survey.  It has been discussed, I have seen it discussed probably around 20 times in the past few years in the communities I pay attention to, which makes it about average.  I was providing the context, had to add a few more when I got showed up by Okra.

I don't know if Okra was defending in providing the first link, perhaps he was providing information as well.

I find the level of your rejection of Scott's opinion on this minor issue to be rather imbalanced to its importance.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Calm

[Button Gwinnett]

11 minutes ago, provoman said:

This is just pathetic. 

It is not reasonable to claim  that there is ""fairly popular notion in circulation".  And as I expected Scott would not defend his ridiculous claim.  You are welcome to swallow the jagged pill that a few blog posts and about 200 or so comments that disagree support the notion that something is ""fairly popular notion in circulation". Goodness the absurdities that are defended on the internet simply because a poster must be defended at any cost.

Your motivation for pursuing this is lost on me.

[provoman]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you aren't going to give a number of hits that would qualify, but just continue to say "not enough"?

To make something "fairly popular" it certainly needs more quite a bit more than a 6 blog/reddit posts

Edited October 1, 2017 by provoman

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

President eyring's talk this evening was very enlightening. Sustaining local leaders as called by God even though they have weaknesses that may be very obvious to us is difficult to some

Not sure why.  We all have weaknesses and a calling can help people overcome their weaknesses. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, provoman said:

This is just pathetic. 

It is not reasonable to claim  that there is ""fairly popular notion in circulation". 

Then disregard it. 

20 minutes ago, provoman said:

And as I expected Scott would not defend his ridiculous claim.  You are welcome to swallow the jagged pill that a few blog posts and about 200 or so comments that disagree support the notion that something is ""fairly popular notion in circulation". Goodness the absurdities that are defended on the internet simply because a poster must be defended at any cost.

No need for the histrionics.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

It is good to know how low the bar is set by several on this board.

Okay, now I am going to point out you are refusing to answer my question.  How is this different from what you are anticipating Scott will do?

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Your motivation for pursuing this is lost on me.

It is rather different, isn't it?  That this is his focus for the need for accuracy in speech....and he won't even provide a number that will satisfy him too!?!  

I can think of so many more meaningful topics to invest his desire for precision in.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Calm

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you aren't going to give a number of hits that would qualify, but just continue to say "not enough"?

You may have forgotten, but Scott is a Church News reporter and may be occupied with his work for the last three hours since you issued the CFR (I am not and am just trying to distract myself until bedtime, so why not?).  If he posts again and ignores it, then your assumption he will refuse to answer might have merit (might because he answers somethings and doesn't others...like we all do, I could claim you are refusing to answer my question of how many references you would need to satisfy your cfr, though I am not).

PS:  I find you suggesting that "fairly popular" should be applied to all Internet users as opposed to those interested in discussing things Mormon to be ridiculous.

PPS:  I am not suggesting it is fairly popular, btw, I don't care enough to take a survey.  It has been discussed, I have seen it discussed probably around 20 times in the past few years in the communities I pay attention to, which makes it about average.  I was providing the context, had to add a few more when I got showed up by Okra.

I don't know if Okra was defending in providing the first link, perhaps he was providing information as well.

I find the level of your rejection of Scott's opinion on this minor issue to be rather imbalanced to its importance.

We can move the goal post and agree it has been discussed. I appreciate the clarification that you are not suggesting that it is "fairly popular".

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here's another post about this theory: http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

And another reference: http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/02/19/who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/#comment-80039

And another: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60404-who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/?do=findComment&comment=1209238652

And another: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60404-who-wrote-the-proclamation-on-the-family/?do=findComment&comment=1209239412

 

And another: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1884911,1884911

I think "fairly popular notion in circulation" fits the bill.  I've heard this claim several times.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

A friend of mine made a fairly innocuous Facebook post about the family proclamation the other day. This drew the antagonists out of the woodwork, and predictably, one popped up with the narrative about the proclamation having been written by Kirton and McConkie.

So yeah, it's a fairly standard talking point among those who hate the family proclamation.  

Edited to add:  Others here have answered the CFR quite well, saving me the trouble. (Thanks, Calm and Smac and Okra, pardon if I'm missing anybody). "Fairly popular notion" was my own subjective assessment based on personal observation. Reject it if you like. The evidence is what it is. 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

We can move the goal post and agree it has been discussed. I appreciate the clarification that you are not suggesting that it is "fairly popular".

So still no number that will serve as a goal post?  You have gotten me wondering why you are so reluctant to give one now.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A friend of mine made a fairly innocuous Facebook post about the family proclamation the other day. This drew the antagonists out of the woodwork, and predictably, one popped up with the narrative about the proclamation having been written by Kirton and McConkie.

So yeah, it's a fairly standard talking point among those who hate the family proclamation.  

Yes, I've seen it quite a few times as well.

But . . . you're ridiculous.

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I've seen it quite a few times as well.

But . . . you're ridiculous.

-Smac

Not to mention dethpicable. 

(My avatar was inspired by occasions such as this.)

[Calm]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

To make something "fairly popular" it certainly needs more quite a bit more than a 6 blog/reddit posts

Quite a bit more than 6 doesn't qualify as a "number" last I heard.