california boy Posted December 30, 2017 Posted December 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Then why did she say in follow up, “I may concede that the constitution doesn't make churches accept people, but those churches shouldn't be tax exempt then, IMO”? It’s quite clear she wants to go after the Church’s tax-exempt status, if not having it prosecuted for allegedly violating the Constitution, all because she doesn’t like the November 2015 policy relative to the postponement in the baptism of children in gay households. It is apparent she doesn’t grasp that the federal government cannot legally dictate to a Church its criteria for conferring membership. That would be a blatant and egregious violation of the First Amendment. Sorry. I shouldn't have butted in.
smac97 Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) On 12/29/2017 at 7:20 PM, california boy said: You do realize that by critics and enemies of the Church, you are including many faithful members, including some bishops and stake presidents? Members of the Church are whipping other members into a frenzy? Against the leaders of the Church and the Church itself? Quote I don't think many members knew about how the church treats polygamous families. Then their protests about the current policy (patterned after the earlier one) are substantively borne of ignorance. Quote It doesn't make the treatment any better knowing that the church treats other children wish such harshness. It certainly helps provide context. It certainly helps clarify how the Brethren approached this issue. Context matters. A lot. Quote Well like I stated, I don't think many were aware of how harshly the church treats children of polygamist families. There is no "harsh" treatment. This is the sort of unseemly and misleading and fundamentally dishonest rhetoric I have been talking about. The children of polygamous families are treated with love and compassion and respect. They are not shamed. They are not shunned. They are not physically or verbally mistreated by the general or local leaders of the Church. They are not called out or publicly humiliated. They are welcome to attend LDS services and activities. They are welcome to join the Church, but are required to wait until they are 18, and are also required to disavow their parents' polygamous lifestyle (though not the parents themselves). This, according to you, his "harsh treatment." That is simply incorrect. Misleading. Overwrought and false rhetoric. Shameful, really. Yet again, it sure would be nice to have some good faith in discussions like these. Quote I do think you are right that there is much more vocal opposition against the harshness exhibited against gay families because it affects just about every member of the church in one way or another. Family brothers, fathers, sons, friends, school mates etc. But that's part of the point I have been making for some time now. Much of the unseemly behavior by members of the Church in this matter arises A) from ignorance (as they appear to be substantively unaware of the reasoning used by the Brethren, including using the Church's longstanding policy re: children in polygamous families as a blueprint for the newer policy), B) from enemies and critics of the Church, ginning up hysterics and ranting and raving and fomenting ill will against the Church and its members from the moment John Dehlin scooped the Church's roll-out; and C) from emotional reactions regarding friends and families, much more so than from reason or analysis ("it affects just about every member of the church in one way or another. Family brothers, fathers, sons, friends, school mates etc."). I do not doubt that some folks have dispassionately reviewed the policy and have come away with concerns about it. I can understand and respect that. But let's not kid ourselves. The Church has been raked over the coals about this policy. The Church's position on the policy has not been given a fair shake. At all. It has been critics and opponents of the Church ginning up hysterics and ranting and raving and fomenting ill will against the Church and its members from the moment John Dehlin scooped the Church's roll-out. In other words, emotions - negative, judgmental emotions - have predominated the popular discussion about the policy. Quote Polygamist are much more closed and far less people have any interaction with those families. Agreed. Hence the ignorance described above. And hence the generalized indifference (and corollary lack of vitriol) from enemies and critics of the Church. Polygamist kids, you see, just don't merit the same outrage. They get the same "harsh treatment" (your words), but you folks . . . just don't care about 'em. And hence the generalized lack of emotions reactions from members. Indifference. The funny thing is that I am pointing to these three factors as bugs in your position, and you are pointing to them as features. Quote They rarely even exist outside the state of Utah. Right. Out of sight, out of mind. Quote There is a little more to this issue. Polygamists are not born polygamists. They choose to marry multiple wives. Their children, however, had no say in the matter. Quote Gays are born gay and for most, their only option for marriage is someone of the same sex. Children of polygamous parents are "born that way" too. Quote I also think that the long history the church has in attacking gay families enters into it. There is no "long history." The concept of "gay families" is an innovation of only a few years' vintage. Quote The church statistically is just not that big of factor for the vast majority of people in the world. They let the church exercise any crazy belief it wants without concern. Except, it seems, for internal policies like the one under discussion. And then their fury is unleashed. Quote You act as if there is som concerted coordinated effort to attack the church. There is no evidence of that. "Concerted?" Perhaps not. But "effort to attack the church?" Certainly. Plenty of evidence of that. Quote Just a lot of people both within and outside the church that think the policy is totally misguided and not in keeping with their beliefs on how others should be treated. Would that the rhetoric against us could be so restrained. Alas . . . Quote Interesting that you are so willing to not think of the children. I never said that I don't think of the children. I do. My point is that I think folks on your side of the issue have, shall we say, some ambiguous motives about "the children." You see, I find it strange that your compatriots are at once proclaiming concern about and outrage over "the children" potentially affected by the policy under discussion, while simultaneously doing everything possible to whip of hatred and animosity, to foment anger and fear in "the children," to presume to tell "the children" how much the Mormons hate and despise them and their parents, to do everything possible to alienate and estrange children from the LDS milieu. The LDS Church has had a surprising number of children from polygamous families join in recent years. Fortunately, there is no particular contingent of society that is hell-bent on alienating these kids by telling them that the Mormons hate and despise them and their families. In contrast, folks on your side of the argument have been doing a bang up job doing precisely that with children of same-sex couples. Quote Why does this blanket policy even exist. The policy is two years old, and the explanations given for it are about that age as well. And we've discussed this a ton on this board. So either your feigning ignorance, or you outrage has been born of genuine ignorance. Not sure which. Quote Why not leave these decisions up the the parents of the children and the bishop that knows the situation of these families. Perhaps for the same reasons there is a church-wide policy regarding the children of polygamous households. Quote Why not treat these families that don't uphold all of the church's teachings JUST LIKE all the other families that have children that may want to be baptized in the church but parents are not married, or don't believe in other tenants of the church. Elder Christofferson addressed these points. Two years ago. Quote This is why this policy is viewed with such distain. It is a targeted policy against a very specific group. The Church has had a nearly identical policy regarding another "very specific group" (children of polygamous families) since, IIRC, the 1920s. And the Church's policy is narrowly tailored by design, apparently to keep its impact to a minimum. Have you paused to consider that? Quote Something that the church evidently has done also in the case of polygamist children. "Evidently?" So you're not informed about the policy, it seems. You are only demonstrating my point above (about the outrage about the policy stemming, in part, from ignorance). Quote It is the church that has lit the fuse continually to cause high tension between the gay community and the Church. Nope. The Church has had a nearly identical policy regarding children of polygamous families since the 1920s. Yet there is no "high tension," no "fuse" regarding those children. The tumult, the rancor, the anger, the hatred, has all (or overwhelmingly) been on your side of the argument. I invite you to real Elder Christofferson's remarks. And also Pres. Nelson's. You'll not detect an ounce of hatred or animosity anywhere in their words. All such negativity has been falsely imputed onto them. And us. By people like you. Quote Tell me all the problems the church was having with the children of gay couples before this policy that made this policy necessary. I am all ears. No, I don't think so. I'll pass. Quote Tell me exactly why a bishop could not sit down with the parents of these children and work out what would be in the best interest of the child. I'll defer to the remarks made by Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson. Quote Tell me the need for a blanket policy whose affect seems more to rile up members and critics than to solve a problem. You and yours are the ones doing the riling. Again, there is no corollary "problem" with the policy affecting children of polygamous households. But that's because there is no particular contingent of society that is hell-bent on alienating these kids by telling them that the Mormons hate and despise them and their families. In contrast, folks on your side of the argument have been doing a bang up job doing precisely that with children of same-sex couples. Quote Tell me what part the church played in creating this firestorm. The Church enacted an internal policy that people like you didn't like. People like you thereafter "creat{ed} this firestorm." Again, I invite you to real Elder Christofferson's remarks. And also Pres. Nelson's. You'll not detect an ounce of hatred or animosity anywhere in their words. All such negativity has been falsely imputed onto them. And us. By people like you. Quote Perhaps rather than only looking at those that oppose this policy you should be at least viewing the role the church has played in putting itself in the situation it finds itself. The Church enacted an internal policy. And you and your compatriots have been screaming about it for two years. That's the Church's "role." It has been the victim of false charges and calumnies and vitriol and mischaracterizations. By people like you. Quote So the intent of this policy is to keep gay families out of the church? No. Again, I invite you to real Elder Christofferson's remarks. And also Pres. Nelson's. Quote And what blanket policy has the church instituted against all those other families whose actions of the parents are not in keeping with LDS beliefs? That's a very broad question. Quote This is exactly why so many see this policy for what it actually is and was intended to be. An attack on gay families and their children to make it crystal clear exactly what place they have in the church that is suppose to represent Christ. This is a false charge. I reject it. You are only further demonstrating my point set forth above. The rhetoric of malice and ill-will is on your side of the discussion. From people like you. Quote Sorry, but you think critics have no leg to stand on when they rile against this policy. I disagree. You can continue to blame everyone but the Mormon church. The LDS Church has every right to decide who can join it and under what circumstances. So yes, I will defend it on that point. The policy is not, as you falsely accuse, "{a}n attack on gay families and their children." So yes, I will defend it on that point as well. Quote Before you continue to defend the church at all costs, I don't. Quote perhaps the mote/beam parable might be worth reviewing. I'm familiar with it. It generally applies to someone making accusations against another. That would be . . . you. Quote And no, I am not saying that the church shares all the blame for what is going on. Certainly there is emotion and overreaction from critics. But let's not forget for one minute where the outrage is rooted in. Yes, let's. The outrage is rooted in ignorance. And anger. And malice. And false and misleading characterizations. And overwrought emotional reactions. And a near-total disregard of the Church's position and reasoning. Quote And finally, let me be perfectly clear on where I stand and have always stood on this issue. I have no problem with the church instituting any policy it wants against gay families. Right. Your tolerance for the Church's rights of self-governance is crystal clear. Quote What I do have, is a problem with members like you who are willing to support absolutely any policy church leaders institute blaming those that disagree with those policies. Except . . . I don't support "absolutely any policy church leaders institute." For example, when was the last time you saw me defend the Priesthood Ban? Really, when? Chapter and verse, please. I'll wait. I'm a patient guy. Quote They did not institute the policies. They are only expressing their distain for what the church itself created. Is that clear enough? No. Not clear at all. Who is "they" (as in "they did not institute the policies")? And by "distain" do you mean "disdain?" And who is "they" as in "they are only expressing their dis{d}ain for that the church itself created"? And what are you saying has been "created" by the Church? Thanks, -Smac Edited December 31, 2017 by smac97 4
california boy Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 15 hours ago, smac97 said: Members of the Church are whipping other members into a frenzy? Against the leaders of the Church and the Church itself? Then their protests about the current policy (patterned after the earlier one) are substantively borne of ignorance. It certainly helps provide context. It certainly helps clarify how the Brethren approached this issue. Context matters. A lot. There is no "harsh" treatment. This is the sort of unseemly and misleading and fundamentally dishonest rhetoric I have been talking about. The children of polygamous families are treated with love and compassion and respect. They are not shamed. They are not shunned. They are not physically or verbally mistreated by the general or local leaders of the Church. They are not called out or publicly humiliated. They are welcome to attend LDS services and activities. They are welcome to join the Church, but are required to wait until they are 18, and are also required to disavow their parents' polygamous lifestyle (though not the parents themselves). This, according to you, his "harsh treatment." That is simply incorrect. Misleading. Overwrought and false rhetoric. Shameful, really. Yet again, it sure would be nice to have some good faith in discussions like these. But that's part of the point I have been making for some time now. Much of the unseemly behavior by members of the Church in this matter arises A) from ignorance (as they appear to be substantively unaware of the reasoning used by the Brethren, including using the Church's longstanding policy re: children in polygamous families as a blueprint for the newer policy), B) from enemies and critics of the Church, ginning up hysterics and ranting and raving and fomenting ill will against the Church and its members from the moment John Dehlin scooped the Church's roll-out; and C) from emotional reactions regarding friends and families, much more so than from reason or analysis ("it affects just about every member of the church in one way or another. Family brothers, fathers, sons, friends, school mates etc."). I do not doubt that some folks have dispassionately reviewed the policy and have come away with concerns about it. I can understand and respect that. But let's not kid ourselves. The Church has been raked over the coals about this policy. The Church's position on the policy has not been given a fair shake. At all. It has been critics and opponents of the Church ginning up hysterics and ranting and raving and fomenting ill will against the Church and its members from the moment John Dehlin scooped the Church's roll-out. In other words, emotions - negative, judgmental emotions - have predominated the popular discussion about the policy. Agreed. Hence the ignorance described above. And hence the generalized indifference (and corollary lack of vitriol) from enemies and critics of the Church. Polygamist kids, you see, just don't merit the same outrage. They get the same "harsh treatment" (your words), but you folks . . . just don't care about 'em. And hence the generalized lack of emotions reactions from members. Indifference. The funny thing is that I am pointing to these three factors as bugs in your position, and you are pointing to them as features. Right. Out of sight, out of mind. Their children, however, had no say in the matter. Children of polygamous parents are "born that way" too. There is no "long history." The concept of "gay families" is an innovation of only a few years' vintage. Except, it seems, for internal policies like the one under discussion. And then their fury is unleashed. "Concerted?" Perhaps not. But "effort to attack the church?" Certainly. Plenty of evidence of that. Would that the rhetoric against us could be so restrained. Alas . . . I never said that I don't think of the children. I do. My point is that I think folks on your side of the issue have, shall we say, some ambiguous motives about "the children." You see, I find it strange that your compatriots are at once proclaiming concern about and outrage over "the children" potentially affected by the policy under discussion, while simultaneously doing everything possible to whip of hatred and animosity, to foment anger and fear in "the children," to presume to tell "the children" how much the Mormons hate and despise them and their parents, to do everything possible to alienate and estrange children from the LDS milieu. The LDS Church has had a surprising number of children from polygamous families join in recent years. Fortunately, there is no particular contingent of society that is hell-bent on alienating these kids by telling them that the Mormons hate and despise them and their families. In contrast, folks on your side of the argument have been doing a bang up job doing precisely that with children of same-sex couples. The policy is two years old, and the explanations given for it are about that age as well. And we've discussed this a ton on this board. So either your feigning ignorance, or you outrage has been born of genuine ignorance. Not sure which. Perhaps for the same reasons there is a church-wide policy regarding the children of polygamous households. Elder Christofferson addressed these points. Two years ago. The Church has had a nearly identical policy regarding another "very specific group" (children of polygamous families) since, IIRC, the 1920s. And the Church's policy is narrowly tailored by design, apparently to keep its impact to a minimum. Have you paused to consider that? "Evidently?" So you're not informed about the policy, it seems. You are only demonstrating my point above (about the outrage about the policy stemming, in part, from ignorance). Nope. The Church has had a nearly identical policy regarding children of polygamous families since the 1920s. Yet there is no "high tension," no "fuse" regarding those children. The tumult, the rancor, the anger, the hatred, has all (or overwhelmingly) been on your side of the argument. I invite you to real Elder Christofferson's remarks. And also Pres. Nelson's. You'll not detect an ounce of hatred or animosity anywhere in their words. All such negativity has been falsely imputed onto them. And us. By people like you. No, I don't think so. I'll pass. I'll defer to the remarks made by Elder Christofferson and Pres. Nelson. You and yours are the ones doing the riling. Again, there is no corollary "problem" with the policy affecting children of polygamous households. But that's because there is no particular contingent of society that is hell-bent on alienating these kids by telling them that the Mormons hate and despise them and their families. In contrast, folks on your side of the argument have been doing a bang up job doing precisely that with children of same-sex couples. The Church enacted an internal policy that people like you didn't like. People like you thereafter "creat{ed} this firestorm." Again, I invite you to real Elder Christofferson's remarks. And also Pres. Nelson's. You'll not detect an ounce of hatred or animosity anywhere in their words. All such negativity has been falsely imputed onto them. And us. By people like you. The Church enacted an internal policy. And you and your compatriots have been screaming about it for two years. That's the Church's "role." It has been the victim of false charges and calumnies and vitriol and mischaracterizations. By people like you. No. Again, I invite you to real Elder Christofferson's remarks. And also Pres. Nelson's. That's a very broad question. This is a false charge. I reject it. You are only further demonstrating my point set forth above. The rhetoric of malice and ill-will is on your side of the discussion. From people like you. The LDS Church has every right to decide who can join it and under what circumstances. So yes, I will defend it on that point. The policy is not, as you falsely accuse, "{a}n attack on gay families and their children." So yes, I will defend it on that point as well. I don't. I'm familiar with it. It generally applies to someone making accusations against another. That would be . . . you. Yes, let's. The outrage is rooted in ignorance. And anger. And malice. And false and misleading characterizations. And overwrought emotional reactions. And a near-total disregard of the Church's position and reasoning. Right. Your tolerance for the Church's rights of self-governance is crystal clear. Except . . . I don't support "absolutely any policy church leaders institute." For example, when was the last time you saw me defend the Priesthood Ban? Really, when? Chapter and verse, please. I'll wait. I'm a patient guy. No. Not clear at all. Who is "they" (as in "they did not institute the policies")? And by "distain" do you mean "disdain?" And who is "they" as in "they are only expressing their dis{d}ain for that the church itself created"? And what are you saying has been "created" by the Church? Thanks, -Smac I think I will just leave it at that. Both of us have had the opportunity to explain our positions. If the church thinks that it's policy has been misunderstood, it has every opportunity to clarify that position. It chooses not to, which seems to indicate that there is nothing further they could say to clarify their position. Members of the church that reject this policy just don't accept the reasons that have been given so far. Personally, I don't think that the policy is sustainable over time. While I believe that the church may never accept gay marriage, I do believe that this "revelation" will be modified or changed in the future. It is fundamentally wrong to deny baptism to any child based on the sins of the parents when those parents see value in their child joining the church. I think that over time, the church will have a difficult time continuing to paint gay marriage as some evil that is out to destroy civilization and the institution of marriage. Members of the church will see more of their gay sons and daughters forming healthy families and having well adjusted children that desire to have a relationship with God just like other families. They will see the benefits of gay marriage to society as a whole as children are raised in a more stable environment. People will continue to see that just because a person is gay does not mean they are sentenced to a life that does not include having love ones surround their homes. The inherent good and fairness of how to treat someone who is gay has overcome irrational and prejudice views of the gay population. Poles continue to see more understanding of this issue with both the public and members of the church. If lack of support for this policy continues or increases the church leaders have no one to blame but themselves. Whatever happens is all in the hands of the church leaders and how they choose to run the church. 2
california boy Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, smac97 said: You and yours are the ones doing the riling. Quote In contrast, folks on your side of the argument have been doing a bang up job doing precisely that with children of same-sex couples. Quote The Church enacted an internal policy that people like you didn't like. People like you thereafter "creat{ed} this firestorm." Quote The Church enacted an internal policy. And you and your compatriots have been screaming about it for two years. Quote That's the Church's "role." It has been the victim of false charges and calumnies and vitriol and mischaracterizations. By people like you. On a side note, I would appreciate if you could consider how you vilify my opinions by continuing to lump me in with the actions of people that I have no association with or control over what they say about the church. Don't you think that it is a bit unfair to continually lump me in with the actions of complete strangers? If I personally have made false charges and calumnies and vitriol and mischaracterizations of the church, please point them out specifically. Otherwise, would you consider not lumping me in with those that have? Edited December 31, 2017 by california boy
smac97 Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 2 hours ago, california boy said: I think I will just leave it at that. Both of us have had the opportunity to explain our positions. If the church thinks that it's policy has been misunderstood, it has every opportunity to clarify that position. It chooses not to, which seems to indicate that there is nothing further they could say to clarify their position. Members of the church that reject this policy just don't accept the reasons that have been given so far. I think things will calm down over time. There is only so much overheated rhetoric that can be spewed before folks get tired of it. It loses its potency. 2 hours ago, california boy said: Personally, I don't think that the policy is sustainable over time. I do. The Church has nearly a century's worth of experience with sustaining a similar policy relating to children from polygamous households. 2 hours ago, california boy said: While I believe that the church may never accept gay marriage, I do believe that this "revelation" will be modified or changed in the future. We'll see. 2 hours ago, california boy said: It is fundamentally wrong to deny baptism to any child based on the sins of the parents when those parents see value in their child joining the church. For the umpteenth time, baptism is being delayed, not denied. 2 hours ago, california boy said: I think that over time, the church will have a difficult time continuing to paint gay marriage as some evil that is out to destroy civilization and the institution of marriage. I don't think that is the aim or objective of the Church. The Church has done fine with keeping polygamy out of the Church, while also welcoming persons from polygamous households into the Church. I think the same thing will happen with people who are from same-sex parent households. 2 hours ago, california boy said: Members of the church will see more of their gay sons and daughters forming healthy families and having well adjusted children that desire to have a relationship with God just like other families. They will see the benefits of gay marriage to society as a whole as children are raised in a more stable environment. People will continue to see that just because a person is gay does not mean they are sentenced to a life that does not include having love ones surround their homes. Even more dishonest and misleading rhetoric. Very tiresome. Nobody is being "sentenced," and certainly not a life sentence. Baptism is being delayed, not denied. 2 hours ago, california boy said: The inherent good and fairness of how to treat someone who is gay has overcome irrational and prejudice views of the gay population. Even more vitriol. Ah well. 2 hours ago, california boy said: Poles continue to see more understanding of this issue with both the public and members of the church. Well, at the end of the day, the Church is not administered based on the preferences of the good people of Poland (or, for that matter, by the preferences expressed in polls ). 2 hours ago, california boy said: If lack of support for this policy continues or increases the church leaders have no one to blame but themselves. You speak as if the Church were a political construct. That's a fundamental misread, IMHO. 2 hours ago, california boy said: Whatever happens is all in the hands of the church leaders and how they choose to run the church. Right. Those enemies and critics of the Church who have been screaming at the Church, who have been slandering the Church and substantively misrepresenting its position on this issue, are as innocent as the day is long. Thanks, -Smac 4
Popular Post smac97 Posted December 31, 2017 Popular Post Posted December 31, 2017 2 hours ago, california boy said: On a side note, I would appreciate if you could consider how you vilify my opinions by continuing to lump me in with the actions of people that I have no association with or control over what they say about the church. Don't you think that it is a bit unfair to continually lump me in with the actions of complete strangers? You just finished publishing libelous statements against my faith. As you have done many times in the past. As you will apparently continue to do in the future. You just now publicly accused us of something pernicious and vile. So yes, I "lump" you in with your compatriots, because you are doing the same thing they are doing. If you want to disavow your compatriots, stop emulating their behavior. 2 hours ago, california boy said: If I personally have made false charges and calumnies and vitriol and mischaracterizations of the church, please point them out specifically. "The church treats other children wish such harshness." "I don't think many were aware of how harshly the church treats children of polygamist families." "The harshness exhibited against gay families..." "The long history the church has in attacking gay families..." "They let the church exercise any crazy belief it wants..." "Interesting that you are so willing to not think of the children..." "It is the church that has lit the fuse continually to cause high tension..." "An attack on gay families and their children..." "People will continue to see that just because a person is gay does not mean they are sentenced to a life..." "The inherent good and fairness of how to treat someone who is gay has overcome irrational and prejudice views..." 2 hours ago, california boy said: Otherwise, would you consider not lumping me in with those that have? Your posts are frequently full of vitriol against me and mine. I'd much rather have mutually tolerant and respectful discussions, but the above (and worse) is what you bring to the table. Pretty much every time. There have been times when I have gone overboard, too. I'm trying to improve. Thanks, -Smac 5
california boy Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I think things will calm down over time. There is only so much overheated rhetoric that can be spewed before folks get tired of it. It loses its potency. I do. The Church has nearly a century's worth of experience with sustaining a similar policy relating to children from polygamous households. We'll see. For the umpteenth time, baptism is being delayed, not denied. I don't think that is the aim or objective of the Church. The Church has done fine with keeping polygamy out of the Church, while also welcoming persons from polygamous households into the Church. I think the same thing will happen with people who are from same-sex parent households. Even more dishonest and misleading rhetoric. Very tiresome. Nobody is being "sentenced," and certainly not a life sentence. Baptism is being delayed, not denied. Even more vitriol. Ah well. Well, at the end of the day, the Church is not administered based on the preferences of the good people of Poland (or, for that matter, by the preferences expressed in polls ). You speak as if the Church were a political construct. That's a fundamental misread, IMHO. Right. Those enemies and critics of the Church who have been screaming at the Church, who have been slandering the Church and substantively misrepresenting its position on this issue, are as innocent as the day is long. Thanks, -Smac Well obviously you believe that everything I state is some as you say "vitriol" attack on the church. It is pretty obvious that we are no longe having a discussion nor are you intersted in my point of view.. That is unfortunate. But I will respect your wishes.
california boy Posted December 31, 2017 Posted December 31, 2017 2 hours ago, smac97 said: You just finished publishing libelous statements against my faith. As you have done many times in the past. As you will apparently continue to do in the future. You just now publicly accused us of something pernicious and vile. So yes, I "lump" you in with your compatriots, because you are doing the same thing they are doing. If you want to disavow your compatriots, stop emulating their behavior. "The church treats other children wish such harshness." "I don't think many were aware of how harshly the church treats children of polygamist families." "The harshness exhibited against gay families..." "The long history the church has in attacking gay families..." "They let the church exercise any crazy belief it wants..." "Interesting that you are so willing to not think of the children..." "It is the church that has lit the fuse continually to cause high tension..." "An attack on gay families and their children..." "People will continue to see that just because a person is gay does not mean they are sentenced to a life..." "The inherent good and fairness of how to treat someone who is gay has overcome irrational and prejudice views..." Your posts are frequently full of vitriol against me and mine. I'd much rather have mutually tolerant and respectful discussions, but the above (and worse) is what you bring to the table. Pretty much every time. There have been times when I have gone overboard, too. I'm trying to improve. Thanks, -Smac Well it was worth a try. Yes I am of the opinion that the church has instituted harsh policies and continues to attack gay families. If having a different opinion than you requires you to vilify me, then so be it. How you treat me and how you distort my opinions to equate them with vitriol attacks against the church says more about you than it does me. 1
Anijen Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 Can we just ban california boy once and for all. He is a constant critic of the Church and his arguments never changes. He uses vitriol and ad hominems, but he constantly whines and complains that it is others and he is the victim. There is respectful dialogue and discussion and then there is contention, nay saying, and baiting. There are plenty of visitors to this site who are not LDS and and strongly disagree with the church, but they remain civil and polite. Or perhaps I just need to suffer through his tirades and learn more patience.
smac97 Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Anijen said: Can we just ban california boy once and for all. He is a constant critic of the Church and his arguments never changes. He uses vitriol and ad hominems, but he constantly whines and complains that it is others and he is the victim. There is respectful dialogue and discussion and then there is contention, nay saying, and baiting. There are plenty of visitors to this site who are not LDS and and strongly disagree with the church, but they remain civil and polite. Or perhaps I just need to suffer through his tirades and learn more patience. As much as I disagree with him, I think he is a valuable contributor to the community overall. I think he should stay. I hope he stays. 4
california boy Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 I think it is time for me to take a break from this board for a while. It is clear my point of view is not welcomed. Thanks for giving me such insight into how Mormons feel about those of us that are gay. I really sincerely have enjoyed many of our conversations.
JulieM Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, Anijen said: Can we just ban california boy once and for all. He is a constant critic of the Church and his arguments never changes. What a nasty post. Do your arguments opposing his views ever change? He’s a welcome voice here (who does represent a portion of even active members of the church). I have found the great majority of his comments to be respectful of other’s views even if they disagree with his. Edited January 1, 2018 by JulieM 2
JulieM Posted January 1, 2018 Posted January 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, california boy said: I think it is time for me to take a break from this board for a while. It is clear my point of view is not welcomed. Thanks for giving me such insight into how Mormons feel about those of us that are gay. I really sincerely have enjoyed many of our conversations. Don’t leave because of one unkind comment, california boy! I always like to hear your input on this topic since it’s one that you’ve experienced in your own life (and continue to have it personally affect you). Please only leave if you need to for your own mental or emotional health. That I understand.
Anijen Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 8 hours ago, JulieM said: What a nasty post. Just a disclaimer and some self- defense. I have found when california boy has answered my posts, he has been mean, nasty, full of vitriol, and disrespect. It is easy to take sides and disagree with people. SSA is a natural polarizing issue. California boys' nasty criticism of me (when he replies to my posts) and with constant nasty criticism of the church and/or its leaders is acceptable to you, and then you call my post "a nasty post." feels a bit double standard, it is alright when he does it, but heaven forbid if I do it. I also wrote; Quote Or perhaps I just need to suffer through his tirades and learn more patience. Admittingly I do need to suffer through his tirades and obviously I need to learn more patience. But your hurt feelings do not change the facts that he too, has been highly critical of me in his replies, or his many, many, criticisms of the Church or its leaders. In fact, I would be willing to bet if you read his last 25 posts they almost all of them will be critical of the Church or its leaders, or critical of someone defending the church or its leaders. Sorry that I hurt your tender feelings on the subject, but you too might want to consider the hurt feelings of others not just with the ones who you relate with. Quote Do your arguments opposing his views ever change? Not yet. His arguments are crystal clear about how he feels about the Church regarding its policies on SSA. His arguments have not changed. I am in polar opposite of his arguments and I side with the Church regarding these issues. I am absolutely positive that we have many things we can agree on. However, policies concerning SSA and the policies the Church have taken, on them, I take the side of the Church, every single time and I have yet to change my mind. Quote He’s a welcome voice here (who does represent a portion of even active members of the church). I have found the great majority of his comments to be respectful of other’s views even if they disagree with his. Yes, I agree he is a welcome member here on this site. I do not agree (at all) with you that; "the great majority of his comments to be respectful of other’s views even if they disagree with his." On 12/31/2017 at 7:20 PM, smac97 said: As much as I disagree with him, I think he is a valuable contributor to the community overall. I think he should stay. I hope he stays. You have a higher degree of tolerance and patience than I presently have, but I am a work in progress. I did write in my post the following; "Or perhaps I just need to suffer through his tirades and learn more patience." Which I obviously need to learn and grow. I too, think he is a valuable contributor and feel this issue needs to be discussed often because it is such an important topic in these last days. I feel his manner of criticism of the Church and its leaders are, how should I put it, well just "nasty." Thus the reason for my post. There are many critics of the church who post here on this site. Most of those critics do so in a very respectful manner, those in the past who have criticised the church and/or its leaders in the same manner as california boy have been banned or admonished (warned). Just pointing it out.
JulieM Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, Anijen said: Just a disclaimer and some self- defense. I have found when california boy has answered my posts, he has been mean, nasty, full of vitriol, and disrespect. I honestly haven’t seen that, but of course I haven’t read every one of his posts. Maybe put him on ignore if you no longer want to read what he writes? I don’t have anyone on ignore, but I do have a few that I no longer read or respond if I feel I just end up frustrated or can tell they’re not really interested in a back and forth discussion.
Anijen Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 13 minutes ago, JulieM said: I honestly haven’t seen that, but of course I haven’t read every one of his posts. Maybe put him on ignore if you no longer want to read what he writes? I don’t have anyone on ignore, but I do have a few that I no longer read or respond if I feel I just end up frustrated or can tell they’re not really interested in a back and forth discussion. I truly and sincerely apologize for any offense. I have many friends and relatives who are gay and I love them very much. I have found that I am a very opinionated, impulsive, direct person, and sometimes I blurt out things that could have not been said at all (even the statements that I still believe in). As far as putting someone on ignore... I posted a topic a little while back on the differences between substantive due process and procedural due process regarding the Masterpiece Cake Supreme Court case. In that post california boy wrote some very vindictive things regarding me, my knowledge of the law, and was just generally disrespectful mainly from what I could tell because I did not take the same side as he did. I posted my thoughts on the issue, it was my created thread, I did not invite his opinion even though I welcomed it, I did not bait anyone, but I was taken aback at the responses I got. I put him on ignore, but I think MDDB had some glitches and they repaired some things and now I still can see his posts and his replies. Besides ignoring someone really doesn't help the dialogue process so I have not re-ignored him. I will at your request bow out of this thread if you would like me to, but I can't promise that I will not participate and add my opinion in the future. This issue seems to be a reoccurring one and one I am highly interested in mainly because of the legal implications I see.
JulieM Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, Anijen said: I truly and sincerely apologize for any offense. I have many friends and relatives who are gay and I love them very much. I have found that I am a very opinionated, impulsive, direct person, and sometimes I blurt out things that could have not been said at all (even the statements that I still believe in). As far as putting someone on ignore... I posted a topic a little while back on the differences between substantive due process and procedural due process regarding the Masterpiece Cake Supreme Court case. In that post california boy wrote some very vindictive things regarding me, my knowledge of the law, and was just generally disrespectful mainly from what I could tell because I did not take the same side as he did. I posted my thoughts on the issue, it was my created thread, I did not invite his opinion even though I welcomed it, I did not bait anyone, but I was taken aback at the responses I got. I put him on ignore, but I think MDDB had some glitches and they repaired some things and now I still can see his posts and his replies. Besides ignoring someone really doesn't help the dialogue process so I have not re-ignored him. I will at your request bow out of this thread if you would like me to, but I can't promise that I will not participate and add my opinion in the future. This issue seems to be a reoccurring one and one I am highly interested in mainly because of the legal implications I see. Oh, I don’t want you to bow out. Your opinions are just as welcome here as his. I understand lashing out or blurting things out in frustration (I did that when I called your post “nasty”....sorry). You haven’t offended me, so no worries there. It sounds like you’ve tried the “ignore” route. Maybe just don’t read or respond to his posts anymore (if you don’t put him back on “ignore”)? But still participate in the thread if it interests you. I’ve always enjoyed California boy’s perspective so I was just taken aback when I saw what you posted. You’re right this is a reoccurring topic (and a highly emotional one for many too).
Kenngo1969 Posted January 2, 2018 Posted January 2, 2018 California Boy: For whatever my opinion on the matter might be worth to you, you may be surprised to learn that I certainly don't want you to cease participation here even though we have disagreed many times in the past and, likely, will continue to do so, often pointedly (but hopefully civilly) in the future. There are, however, a couple of things you might want to consider: Everyone (which, shockingly, includes you ) sees the world, not as it is, but, rather, as he is. Often, I have found in your attempts at discourse on matters such as the one under discussion here that you proceed on the assumption that since such issues (e.g., gay marriage) have been settled legally, they have been settled in every other way that matters, as well. Not so. One's perspective depends almost entirely upon where he sits: Sit somewhere else, get a different perspective. It's difficult to have meaningful dialogue with someone who believes that his is the only tenable perspective. (I'm not necessarily calling you out or singling you out, here, but if the shoe fits ...) If you want to deny, to diminish, or to discount the very real consequences court decisions in recent years are likely to have on free exercise of religion, that's certainly your prerogative (but, see my previous bullet point) Condescenscion, even unwitting condescenscion, doesn't play well. If you disagree, you disagree: That doesn't mean your interlocutors necessarily are unprincipled, unintelligent, uncaring, and so on. Too often, as I see it, you impute (whether explicitly or implicitly) bad faith, evil motives, lack of intelligence, lack of compassion, and other undesirable traits to members and leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather than resorting to the tactics described in my previous two bullet points, above, perhaps you could make at least a minimal effort to imagine at least one possible universe in an infinite number of possible universes in which the world as those who disagree with you see it might actually exist. My thoughts. I'm sure they're of little concern to you, and that's fine. I certainly wish you no ill-will. 2
Recommended Posts