Ny Times Posts Another Win for Satan

[juliann]

17 hours ago, Valentinus said:

And still transgender persons can still be fired for simply being trans. It's a totally level playing field.

Non sequitur. Nice dodge but this had to do with the hypocrisy of demanding word policing in one instance and not another. That is not a level playing field. It’s a field of double standards. Take your trans debate elsewhere. 

[Damien the Leper]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

Non sequitur. Nice dodge but this had to do with the hypocrisy of demanding word policing in one instance and not another. That is not a level playing field. It’s a field of double standards. Take your trans debate elsewhere. 

So we're not discussing gender identity? Good. No one wants to make the claim that people get fired for not using "correct" gender descriptors while those who have those alternate descriptors get fired from employment. That would be absolutely ridiculous. The hypocrisy would be staggering.

Furthermore, it was absolutely absurd to even bring trans persons and issues surrounding them into a Mormon "word policing" discussion. Attempting to use trans issues as an example is an epic failure.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Valentinus

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Attempting to use trans issues as an example is an epic failure.

Tell that to California Boy

[Ratbag]

On 3/27/2020 at 7:42 AM, JamesBYoung said:

Nonetheless, the members ignored the church's advice, the government's advice, and good common sense.

This is assuming that all members have common sense.  In my experience, often, this is not always the case.

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, juliann said:

Non sequitur. Nice dodge but this had to do with the hypocrisy of demanding word policing in one instance and not another. That is not a level playing field. It’s a field of double standards. Take your trans debate elsewhere. 

Oh, so you're the only one that's allowed to take debates up with people huh?

Edited April 19, 2020 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Ratbag said:

This is assuming that all members have common sense.  In my experience, often, this is not always the case.

It also assumes that in any given population, all members have common sense. That is not always the case either. 

[Dan McClellan]

On 3/27/2020 at 8:42 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s not the same thing as incessant public shaming and contempt. I think the message has been expressed loudly and clearly. Time to give it a rest. 

Well, evidently folks didn't get the message. 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/04/18/utah-group-protests-salt/

[JamesBYoung]

The people yelling about "we the people' don't get that they elect (democracy) 'the government', who makes the hard decisions that 'we the people' have to follow.

Protest: without guns.

Vote: without guns.

Start threatening people with guns, said threateners are going to be so unhappy with what will happen to them.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Well, evidently folks didn't get the message. 

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/04/18/utah-group-protests-salt/

Relevance?

Nothing here about relatives meeting returning missionary sons or daughters at the airport. 
 

Also, this post would seem to violate the “no politics” directive. I don’t know about others, but I’m still getting the red-orange banner at the top of my screen with the “No Politics” message. 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Dan McClellan]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Relevance?

Nothing here about relatives meeting returning missionary sons or daughters at the airport. 
 

Also, this post would seem to violate the “no politics” directive. I don’t know about others, but I’m still getting the red-orange banner at the top of my screen with the “No Politics” message. 

The relevance is that clearly the message was not expressed loudly and clearly enough, as a bunch of folks obviously didn't listen. I'm more addressing the OP, but your comment was the catalyst. Maybe if we made the message a little louder and a little clearer instead of whining about the use of a designation we no longer want to tolerate and throwing up rhetorical prophylaxis for all the folks who flouted the Church's instructions and the state's recommendations, fewer of the undoubtedly numerous members of the Church in attendance yesterday would have decided to go flout the Church's instructions and the state's recommendations. Calling the original article a "win for Satan" is just asinine (not to suggest you condone that). If we don't want members to come across as clueless and arrogant, we shouldn't be so quick to defend their cluelessness and arrogance, or to try to silence those who call out how dangerous it could be in a situation like the one we're in. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

The relevance is that clearly the message was not expressed loudly and clearly enough, as a bunch of folks obviously didn't listen. I'm more addressing the OP, but your comment was the catalyst. Maybe if we made the message a little louder and a little clearer instead of whining about the use of a designation we no longer want to tolerate and throwing up rhetorical prophylaxis for all the folks who flouted the Church's instructions and the state's recommendations, fewer of the undoubtedly numerous members of the Church in attendance yesterday would have decided to go flout the Church's instructions and the state's recommendations. Calling the original article a "win for Satan" is just asinine (not to suggest you condone that). If we don't want members to come across as clueless and arrogant, we shouldn't be so quick to defend their cluelessness and arrogance, or to try to silence those who call out how dangerous it could be in a situation like the one we're in. 

If your beef was with the OP,  maybe you should have responded to that instead of dragging me into it by linking your post to a comment I made that has nothing readily apparent to do with the point you were trying to make. 
 

And by the way, I’m not sure you and others grasp that the OP was probably meant as oblique mockery of President Nelson, whose words in general conference have been widely distorted. He was not saying that use of the name “Mormon” is a victory for Satan but that leaving the name of Jesus Christ out of the name of His Church is a victory for Satan. 
 

Finally your post is overtly political. You have no way of knowing the proportion of attendees at that rally who are members of the Church. And it doesn’t matter anyway. As with other groups, members of the Church are apt to comprise  an array of opinions in politics. So what?

So long as the moderation team chooses to be hard line on its “no politics” directive, you place others at a disadvantage who may have a contrary opinion, but don’t want to violate the directive. 

[Dan McClellan]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If your beef was with the OP,  maybe you should have responded to that instead of dragging me into it by linking your post to a comment I made that has nothing readily apparent to do with the point you were trying to make. 

Like I said, your post was the catalyst, and my response was a perfectly reasonable and legitimate disagreement with your concern.

Quote

And by the way, I’m not sure you and others grasp that the OP was probably meant as oblique mockery of President Nelson, whose words in general conference have been widely distorted. He was not saying that use of the name “Mormon” is a victory for Satan but that leaving the name of Jesus Christ out of the name of His Church is a victory for Satan. 

I'm quite well aware of what President Nelson said. 

Quote

Finally your post is overtly political.

It's no more political than the OP.

Quote

You have no way of knowing the proportion of attendees at that rally who are members of the Church.

Which is why I nowhere asserted any proportion of attendees who are members of the Church. I know numerous attendees were from my own community and are members, though, and it's indisputable that there were a number of Latter-day Saints in the crowd. 

Quote

And it doesn’t matter anyway. As with other groups, members of the Church are apt to comprise  an array of opinions in politics. So what?

Don't recall saying anything about politics. I recall commenting on Latter-day Saints not getting the message and still deciding to violate the Church's instructions and the state's guidelines by gathering in large groups.

Quote

So long as the moderation team chooses to be hard line on its “no politics” directive, you place others at a disadvantage who may have a contrary opinion, but don’t want to violate the directive. 

Don't see how disagreeing with my concern violates any directive. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Like I said, your post was the catalyst, and my response was a perfectly reasonable and legitimate disagreement with your concern.

I'm quite well aware of what President Nelson said. 

It's no more political than the OP.

Which is why I nowhere asserted any proportion of attendees who are members of the Church. I know numerous attendees were from my own community and are members, though, and it's indisputable that there were a number of Latter-day Saints in the crowd. 

Don't recall saying anything about politics. I recall commenting on Latter-day Saints not getting the message and still deciding to violate the Church's instructions and the state's guidelines by gathering in large groups.

Don't see how disagreeing with my concern violates any directive. 

What concern of mine are you disagreeing with? That there has been enough public shaming of parents who went to the airport to pick up their returning missionary sons of daughters? That has been what? Two or three months ago now? When is enough enough? And how do you know any of those at the rally were among those at the airport? 
 

The rally was a political statement opposing the way government is managing the pandemic (while perhaps neglecting the impact on the economy and civil liberties). Which makes your public condemnation of it political. Own it. Nothing wrong with having a political opinion except that the moderation team has decreed that expression of it can’t happen here. 

[Dan McClellan]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What concern of mine are you disagreeing with? 

That the message to not gather in large groups during a global pandemic has been loud and clear.

Quote

That there has been enough public shaming of parents who went to the airport to pick up their returning missionary sons of daughters? That has been what? Two or three months ago now? When is enough enough?

When the message has been received and Latter-day Saints heed the instructions of the Church and the guidelines of the state. 

Quote

And how do you know any of those at the rally were among those at the airport? 

Don't recall saying they were the same people. Just recall saying that the people who went to the rally evidently didn't get the message that you suggested was loud and clear. 

Quote

The rally was a political statement opposing the way government is managing the pandemic (while perhaps neglecting the impact on the economy and civil liberties). Which makes your public condemnation of it political. Own it. Nothing wrong with having a political opinion except that the moderation team has decreed that expression of it can’t happen here. 

Didn't say a single word about the purpose of the rally, just pointed out that there were Latter-day Saints gathering in large groups during a global pandemic, just like the Church, the state, and the message you insisted was loud and clear told them not to.

[Calm]

 

Quote

Didn't say a single word about the purpose of the rally, just pointed out that there were Latter-day Saints gathering in large groups during a global pandemic, just like the Church, the state, and the message you insisted was loud and clear told them not to.

Doesn’t this assume that every Saint will listen and follow any message the Church sends out that they understand?

Since when has membership ever been so obedient?  There always seem to me to have been groups that think they know better than Salt Lake.

Good chance any Saints at the rally ‘got the message’ in my view and they just don’t care. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Calm

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Doesn’t this assume that every Saint will listen and follow any message the Church sends out that they understand?

No, I wouldn't say it assumes it, but there is a good contingent of members of the Church who will vehemently and dogmatically assert the necessity of a given directive if it adequately functions as a credibility enhancing display or means of boundary maintenance. The proper name of the Church is a convenient example directly from the OP. How many earrings a Latter-day Saint should have, or the recent "DesNat" idiocy are other examples of how counsel can be weaponized for purposes of boundary maintenance. Take a directive that directly relates to protecting human life, though, and because it does not serve their identity politics––it actually complicates it––those same folks flout it. There's a degree to which this kind of identity politics is inevitable for anyone with a human brain, but it strikes me as particularly problematic when it so blithely prioritizes petty boundary maintenance over the protection of the very lives of the people all around us.

Quote

Since when has membership ever been so obedient?  There always seem to me to have been groups that think they know better than Salt Lake.

And there are many in the crowds at the airport and at the capital who have spent a lot of time denouncing folks they have perceived to think they know better than Salt Lake. Everyone gets a turn at this to one degree or another. 

Quote

Good chance any Saints at the rally ‘got the message’ in my view and they just don’t care. 

Agreed. I might argue the chance is much greater than good.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/27/2020 at 3:22 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you for the agreement, but I thought it was carbon dioxide whom I was quoting and responding to. 

Uh, "to whom I was responding". 😜

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, "to whom I was responding". 😜

Once, when a woman criticized Winston Churchill for ending a sentence with a preposition, he said, "Madam, that is something up with which we should not put."   She simply turned and walked away. That was some quick thinking on his feet, right there. 

It's good not to be too slavish about English grammar, because it's a two-edged sword that will snare even the most fanatical of grammarians. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by rongo

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Doesn’t this assume that every Saint will listen and follow any message the Church sends out that they understand?

Since when has membership ever been so obedient?  There always seem to me to have been groups that think they know better than Salt Lake.

Good chance any Saints at the rally ‘got the message’ in my view and they just don’t care. 

 

5 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, I wouldn't say it assumes it, but there is a good contingent of members of the Church who will vehemently and dogmatically assert the necessity of a given directive if it adequately functions as a credibility enhancing display or means of boundary maintenance. The proper name of the Church is a convenient example directly from the OP. How many earrings a Latter-day Saint should have, or the recent "DesNat" idiocy are other examples of how counsel can be weaponized for purposes of boundary maintenance. Take a directive that directly relates to protecting human life, though, and because it does not serve their identity politics––it actually complicates it––those same folks flout it. There's a degree to which this kind of identity politics is inevitable for anyone with a human brain, but it strikes me as particularly problematic when it so blithely prioritizes petty boundary maintenance over the protection of the very lives of the people all around us.

And there are many in the crowds at the airport and at the capital who have spent a lot of time denouncing folks they have perceived to think they know better than Salt Lake. Everyone gets a turn at this to one degree or another. 

Agreed. I might argue the chance is much greater than good.

I agree with Calm that it may be a different issue than the message from the Church not being “loud and clear” enough. 

Across America, protests and civil disobedience are emerging as people lose patience with heavy-handed government intrusion into personal lives, not all of it fully justified by pandemic concerns, as this Wall Street Journal piece reflects:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-lockdown-protests-begin-11587079670
 

To try to turn this phenomenon into an issue pertaining to the Church or its members just because one assumes there was substantial involvement by Church members in one particular such protest at Utah’s capital city strikes me as an absurd stretch. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Across America, protests and civil disobedience are emerging as people lose patience with heavy-handed government intrusion into personal lives,

And some never had patience for being told anything, even relatively mild self directed suggestions from what I have seen. (As in ‘please, no hugs with the residents at our assisted living facilities as you visit’ being ignored completely by a few...leading to no more visits except with a window between for anyone.)

Edited April 20, 2020 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

And some never had patience for being told anything, even relatively mild self directed suggestions from what I have seen. (As in ‘please, no hugs with the residents at our assisted living facilities as you visit’ being ignored completely by a few...leading to no more visits except with a window between for anyone.)

True. 
 

Again, not a condition indigenous to the Church or its members but, to the extent any Church members are doing this, an indication that, in some respects at least, we are part of the broader society. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

6 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

And there are many in the crowds at the airport and at the capital who have spent a lot of time denouncing folks they have perceived to think they know better than Salt Lake.

This right here is a problem all on its own. That anyone would entertain the thought to even the slightest degree that no one can know better than Salt Lake shows a sycophant form of idolatry that should be purged. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Valentinus said:

This right here is a problem all on its own. That anyone would entertain the thought to even the slightest degree that no one can know better than Salt Lake shows a sycophant form of idolatry that should be purged. 

By all means, let us rid ourselves of such dogmatism. Hunt them down and kill them!

[poptart]

Since I like a lot of the posters here I thought of the most polite, Christian response to this I could and here it is.

What would Jesus do?

[Damien the Leper]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By all means, let us rid ourselves of such dogmatism. Hunt them down and kill them!

No. We embrace St. Nicholas's example and slap these heretics like he did Arius and condemn their falsehoods vehemently.