Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone"


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Combat ideas and beliefs?"

Combat:

If Elder Holland is prohibited from using purely metaphorical references to "muskets," why is it okay for you to use purely metaphorical references to "combat?"

Seems inconsinstent and unreasonable.

So are you.  And yet . . . "combat?"  Yeesh! ;) 

Thanks,

-Smac

Is this a serious response? Really?

Combat- "to contend with".   Is there something violent in that definition? Holland called people to arms, even if metaphorically, with his musket fire comment. I'm embarrassed that you think my use of "combat" is the same.

Also- I'm not an apostle of Jesus Christ. Should we expect more from an apostle than some average jackwagon on the interwebs? Yeah, I think we should.

Also- I was describing Holland's words so "combat" along with "musket fire" would tend to go well together.

 

So I'm just going to pretend you were making a joke, because that makes much more sense.

 

Edited by HappyJackWagon
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, hate to break it to you, but all around the internet I'm seeing people that want to resign over it, much like when Pres. Packer said what he did during general conference a few years ago. “Why would our heavenly father do that to anyone?” asked Elder Boyd K. Packer. “Remember, he is our father.”

Words are powerful, and both of them have caused and could cause the LGBTQ members to do something devastating over it. Trying not to use the "S" word here.

It's such a delicate subject and one that the church needs to lay very low on. Sure keep their doctrine, do their firing if need be at BYU but keep it quiet as to not affect those that would take it to mean that they aren't wanted or aren't okay just being who they are.

Elder Holland using Easton as an example was probably the lowest thing I've seen him do. And even mentioning muskets is another low. Christ like love is hard to find in that devotional.

The dam is broken, the LGBTQ crowd are able to say who they are and it's up to us to love them and not let them ever feel like they have to hide in a closet again.

Holland almost set this church back to the day the former BYU president, Wilkinson, said that homosexuals need to leave the campus, IMO. http://www.vihrearouva.net/m/kirjoitukset/private_pain_odonnell.shtml

You got a rep point from me as well.  Like I said earlier. The Church's constant volley against the LGBT community is an issue that many have had to just put on the shelf.  Elder Holland just made that a bit heavier for a lot of members.

And I see no one has responded to this post.

Quote

The Church and you (SMAC) build this fortress around a doctrine that has never actually been attributed to God.  Assumptions have been made by fallible men that God would never sanction any marriage between couples of the same gender.  Assumptions have been made that the Law of Chastity which clearly state that sex within a marriage is sanctified of God means.  Those fallible men have decided for themselves, that gay marriages don't count as real marriages.  It is a declaration that marriage is not all that good of idea if you are gay.  So what value is it to those that are straight if it is so disposable.  No revelation from God has ever been claimed on whether God agrees with this assumption.  Yet this is the sword the Church is willing to die on.  

Is there some revelation from God about the stance the Church has taken against the LGBT community that I don't know about?  Or is all of this just the opinion of fallible men.  The Church has gone through this before with the priesthood ban.  Did they not learn anything about assumptions?

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Rep Point!

I've seen/heard a lot of resignation talk as well.

I've also heard of a couple of people being called in to speak with their SP's in response to their social media push back of Holland's talk.

Another self-inflicted wound by the church and its leaders. So unnecessary, short-sighted, and foolish.

I’m immediately reminded of the portion of Elder Holland’s talk wherein he said the university could renounce what makes it unique and do all to make itself essentially identical to other institutions and compliant with this or that academic demand until it injured itself in the process, and the world would still say, “BYU who?”

I apply that by extension to the Church and say it could sacrifice all principal on the alter of political correctness and it would have no greater popularity than it does right now. 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't read this thread all the way through but my take away from all of this--and everything on social media--after reading the talk, is that we as a society are way further gone than I thought we were.  We are losing our ability to understand and work with nuance, we can no longer process metaphors accurately, we seek out ways to indulge in self-righteous indignation, and it's going to be the downfall of our society.

Our inability to interpret what people are saying correctly, and then how quickly we react to our bad interpretations, is what is going to hurt us the most.  Not metaphors about muskets.

It doesn't matter what the topic is, who is involved, who thinks they are the moral players in the conversation, the outcome will be the same.  A society that can no longer communicate effectively (and is addicted to moral outrage) is a society that is on it's way out.

If someone made a rape metaphor I assure you, no amount of context could redeem that manner of speech, in your eyes, my eyes or in the eyes of most of the board.

Why are metaphors of violence acceptably directed at my community??

 

There’s a reason why I didn’t join the <chat forum that shall not be named>

-and that is because as much as I disagree with apologists and apologetics, I could not bring myself to rub elbows with men who use violently abusive language towards women, even in metaphor.

Hanna Seariac doesn’t deserve that. I don’t deserve that. My community doesn’t deserve that either.

Debate and disagree with my community fine, but leave talk of muskets out of it.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is there some revelation from God about the stance the Church has taken against the LGBT community that I don't know about?  Or is all of this just the opinion of fallible men.  The Church has gone through this before with the priesthood ban.  Did they not learn anything about assumptions?

What would you expect such a revelation to look like?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Why are metaphors of violence acceptably directed at my community??

I don’t see it as being directed against your community unless that community is one that directs hostile and unjustified rancor against the Church of Jesus Christ and His anointed servants, rancor against which the Church is justified in defending itself. 
 

And there have been times when the Lord has justified His people in defending themselves against the enmity with which they are afflicted, up to and including withstanding it physically. The metaphor to which Elder Holland referred pertains to the Nauvoo Saints defending themselves as they were engaged in building the temple. But it stems originally to the ancient Israelites who held a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is this a serious response? Really?

Completely.  I am applying the same absurd and unreasonable criticism to your use of "combat" that you are applying to Elder Holland's use of "muskets."

If purely metaphorical references to "muskets" are "a very inappropriate and hurtful way ... to speak," then so are purely metaphorical references to "combat."  And yet . . . here you are.  

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Combat- "to contend with".   Is there something violent in that definition?

No.

Scholars at BYU using "metaphorical muskets."  Is there something violent in that definition?

Also no.

And yet . . . here you are.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Holland called people to arms, even if metaphorically, with his musket fire comment.

"HappyJackWagon called people to arms, even if metaphorically, with his combat comment."

I guess it's okay when you do it, though?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm embarrassed that you think my use of "combat" is the same.

Right back atcha.  You are apparently oblivious to the double standard you are using here.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Also- I'm not an apostle of Jesus Christ.

So what?  Are you an intelligent, well-educated adult who just used the word "combat" in a purely metaphorical sense?  Yes.  Should you be faulted for it?  No.

And yet . . . here you are, faulting Elder Holland for using "musket" in a purely metaphorical sense.  Seems pretty inconsistent and unreasonable.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Should we expect more from an apostle than some average jackwagon on the interwebs? Yeah, I think we should.

I see nothing wrong with his purely metaphorical reference to "musket."

I also see nothing wrong with your purely metaphorical reference to "combat."

The only thing I see wrong is a culture that is increasingly trying to make good and decent people like Elder Holland an "offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21).

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Also- I was describing Holland's words so "combat" along with "musket fire" would tend to go well together.

You used the word.  Own it.  If Elder Holland's purely metaphorical use of "musket" was wrong (your position, not mine), then so is your purely metaphorical use of "combat."

And yet . . . here you are.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So I'm just going to pretend you were making a joke, because that makes much more sense.

I was noting the absurdity of your inconsistent approach to pure metaphor.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Rape is illegal and immoral.  Standing guard with a weapon against a real threat on your own property is not.

That's why I reject the idea that the musket metaphor is a metaphor of violence and also why I do believe that context does matter with this issue.  When you have to completely change the context to get the result you want, then that's a good sign that you know that context matters too.T

I don't know what forum you are talking about or who Hanna Seariac is, but I believe what you've said about them.  And I agree that you should not have to have any discussion or debate that you don't want to.

But I don't agree that you get to define for everyone else what constitutes a violent metaphor and what doesn't.  On that we'll have to disagree.

And what makes your pronouncements as to what is illegal or immoral better??

Reread the address, Elder Holland was absolutely implying through the metaphor that there were enemies and acceptable targets of the metaphorical muskets.

I also seem to recall a certain user taking great offense at another user referring to a BYU woman and whistleblower as a girl .

Again, it’s funny who gets to be outraged and over what.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see it as being directed against your community unless that community is one that directs hostile and unjustified rancor against the Church of Jesus Christ and his anointed servants, rancor against which the Church is justified in defending itself. 
 

And there have been times when the Lord has justified His people in defending themselves against the enmity with which they are afflicted, up to and including withstanding it physically. The metaphor to which Elder Holland referred pertains to the Nauvoo Saints defending themselves as they were engaged in building the temple. But it stems originally to the ancient Israelites who held a trowel in one hand and a sword in the other. 

So a Valedictorian coming out in his valedictorian speech constitutes as part of that community eh?

Nope. Not buying it. The institution of the church has been persecuting intellectuals, feminists and my 2SLGBTQ+ community for quite some time now, and apparently still using language of violence to rally members against those that disagree and seek for change.

Just as they did towards those within the church contending for the extension of saving ordinances to Black saints. 

 

 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, california boy said:

And I see no one has responded to this post.

Quote

The Church and you (SMAC) build this fortress around a doctrine that has never actually been attributed to God.  Assumptions have been made by fallible men that God would never sanction any marriage between couples of the same gender.  Assumptions have been made that the Law of Chastity which clearly state that sex within a marriage is sanctified of God means.  Those fallible men have decided for themselves, that gay marriages don't count as real marriages.  It is a declaration that marriage is not all that good of idea if you are gay.  So what value is it to those that are straight if it is so disposable.  No revelation from God has ever been claimed on whether God agrees with this assumption.  Yet this is the sword the Church is willing to die on.  

 

I did not respond because it came across as a rant.  You offer no substance, no evidence, no argument, no attempt to persuade.  Just sheer, unadulterated, because-I-say-so assertion of personal opinion as fact.  About matters that are almost entirely within the realm of subjective faith.  There's not much point in responding to such things.

Out of curiosity, what sort of response were you expecting?  

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is there some revelation from God about the stance the Church has taken against the LGBT community that I don't know about?  

I don't know what you do and do not know.

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or is all of this just the opinion of fallible men.  

No, I don't believe it is.

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, though.  Do you concur?

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Church has gone through this before with the priesthood ban.  Did they not learn anything about assumptions?

I think the priesthood ban lacked revelatory provenance.  

I think the Church's teachings about marriage and the Law of Chastity have huge amounts of revelatory provenance.

You can, of course, dismiss it all as "just the opinion of fallible men."  Boy, what a miracle solvent that is.  Any doctrine or teaching you personally dislike or don't want to accept?  Just characterize it as "the opinion of fallible men" and voila!  It's gone.

Jesus Christ taught many things that were difficult to accept.  In John 6 many of his followers did as you are doing here: 

Quote

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
...
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
...
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

If the Brethren were to present a revelation to the Church that unequivocally and definitively codified marriage as between a man and a woman, that categorically rejected same-sex marriage, and that categorically prohibited homosexual behavior, you . . . would not accept it, right?  You would call it "just the opinion of fallible men" or something similar, right?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

What would you expect such a revelation to look like?

Really?  How about God has revealed that sex within all legal marriages is acceptable.  Or God has revealed that marriage between same sex couples is a sin.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did not respond because it came across as a rant.  You offer no substance, no evidence, no argument, no attempt to persuade.  Just sheer, unadulterated, because-I-say-so assertion of personal opinion as fact.  About matters that are almost entirely within the realm of subjective faith.  There's not much point in responding to such things.

Nice dodge.  My post wasn't a rant.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Out of curiosity, what sort of response were you expecting?  

An answer to my question.  Where is a revelation from God about same sex marriage?

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you do and do not know.

Another dodge.  

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't believe it is.

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, though.  Do you concur?

Why not?  revelation.  Just fallible men deciding for themselves what God believes about what a valid marriage is.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the priesthood ban lacked revelatory provenance.  

And where is the revelatory provenance on how His gay children should marry and whether that is acceptable to Him

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church's teachings about marriage and the Law of Chastity have huge amounts of revelatory provenance.

Where?

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You can, of course, dismiss it all as "just the opinion of fallible men."  Boy, what a miracle solvent that is.  Any doctrine or teaching you personally dislike or don't want to accept?  Just characterize it as "the opinion of fallible men" and voila!  It's gone.

You are willing to dismiss Brigham Youngs personal belief's on Blacks but not current apostles?  What is the difference?

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Jesus Christ taught many things that were difficult to accept.  In John 6 many of his followers did as you are doing here: 

Yet he was SILENT on any homosexual issues. Maybe the hard thing about this issue is that God has NOT given a revelation on gay marriage, yet the members are once again suppose to trust fallible men.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If the Brethren were to present a revelation to the Church that unequivocally and definitively codified marriage as between a man and a woman, that categorically rejected same-sex marriage, and that categorically prohibited homosexual behavior, you . . . would not accept it, right?  You would call it "just the opinion of fallible men" or something similar, right?

Thanks,

-Smac

This is not about what I believe.  This is about the Church taking a stance that they are willing to fall on the sword over even though there is no revelation on this subject.  Perhaps a revelation should be asked for and received before driving all these members out that the Spirit is telling them something entirely different.  

If asked, What is Gods position on same sex marriage, the truthful answer is "WE DON'T KNOW, but we are going with our opinion."  

Priesthood Ban all over again.  How many years did that take to fix?  Is this one going to take just as long?

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

So a Valedictorian coming out in his valedictorian speech constitutes as part of that community eh?

Elder Holland in his comment expressed what many of us felt at the time: that a valedictory speech is for the purpose of uniting the graduating class behind noble and shared values, not drawing ideological battle lines. 

Link to comment

 

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

Priesthood Ban all over again.  How many years did that take to fix?  Is this one going to take just as long?

Yeah, I’m not too worried about the future of the church youth. When I look at the responses of our rising generation of members to the issue, they really do seem to understand and act accordingly.

The kids are gonna be alright.

Link to comment
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Holland in his comment expressed what many of us felt at the time: that a valedictory speech is for the purpose of uniting the graduating class behind noble and shared values, not drawing ideological battle lines. 

I’d like to see the reference to that policy?

The handbook might say that about testimony meetings but as has already been stated, that does not necessarily hold for a valedictorian speech.

In any case, Easton’s speech did not deserve a metaphor about muskets directed at him.

There is nothing stating that coming out is wrong or antithetical to church membership.

If identifying as 2SLGBTQ+ is controversial, it is only because you’ve made it so.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's either appropriate or inappropriate in an of itself.  I think that metaphors are a tool and sometimes they work well and sometimes they don't.  For me it works fine.  For others it apparently doesn't. 

That people have turned that into a moral issue is where I think we have lost our collective minds.  

I personally don't find a metaphor teaching that we have to be as willing to defend the faith as we are to be a part of it, to be in any way inappropriate.  The statement is true.  Clearly--clearly--Elder Holland is not advocating any kind of violence against the lgtbq+ community.

What I am lamenting is that we live in a society where 1), we can know that someone is not saying something immoral and we will still launch into moral outrage about them having said it because we have become addicted to indignation and 2), we have become slaves to our agendas and biases to the point that we don't even care anymore if we are misunderstanding or misconstruing something, as long as we can use it as a weapon against what we don't agree with.

The musket metaphor implies that members should be "willing to defend the faith" with violence. Unacceptable. Accepting violence as a way to defend a person's religious views IS a moral issue. I'm surprised you don't agree.

The US has a strong gun culture and so does the church. Using a gun metaphor within such a culture, and implying it has nothing to do with violence is naïve. At the very least Holland is appealing to people to defend the religion by talking about muskets and musket fire. There have already been online/social media responses championing this call to "grab your muskets". Perhaps you think they are mis-hearing/reading Holland by enthusiastically wanting to defend their religion with violence (even if hyperbolic) but they really aren't. That's what he said. It's somewhat similar to what a recent president did in stoking certain fires prior to a catastrophe and then acting like he was misunderstood. 

I am stating unequivocally that it is immoral to incite people to violence. One can always argue that the person didn't mean it that way, yet a person's words matter and they are culpable if someone listens and acts on it. Hopefully no one will actually grab a musket and defend the church against someone waving a pride flag but it's not the craziest idea I've ever heard. At the very least what should a member of the LGBTQ community or ally think? They should think that Holland has declared them an enemy to the church to the point that Holland urged people to grab a musket.

This is not political correctness run amok. I suppose non-violence could be considered an "agenda" but shouldn't we all want that? This is the denouncing of violence and violent rhetoric. I would fully expect all Christians to get on board with that. Obviously that is not the case and we wonder why things are getting worse.

Holland talking about musket fire is bad enough, but having members bend over backwards to pretend like that shouldn't matter is pretty disgusting.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:
Quote

I did not respond because it came across as a rant.  You offer no substance, no evidence, no argument, no attempt to persuade.  Just sheer, unadulterated, because-I-say-so assertion of personal opinion as fact.  About matters that are almost entirely within the realm of subjective faith.  There's not much point in responding to such things.

Nice dodge.  My post wasn't a rant.

Yes, I think it was.  

Rant: "to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave."

You didn't speak "violently," but "extravagantly?"  Yep.  "Wild or vehement?"  Big time.  "Rav{ing}?"  Nothing but.

No substance.  No evidence.  No argument.  No reasoning.  No attempt to persuade.  Just anger.  Vituperation.  Your personal opinion dressed up as fact.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

An answer to my question.  Where is a revelation from God about same sex marriage?

I invite you to do some research on this topic.  And try to avoid the inevitable "No True Scotsman" fallacy that is pretty obviously on its way.

1 hour ago, california boy said:
Quote
Quote

Or is all of this just the opinion of fallible men.  

No, I don't believe it is.

Reasonable minds can disagree about that, though.  Do you concur?

Why not?  revelation.  Just fallible men deciding for themselves what God believes about what a valid marriage is.

And even more because-I-say-so assertion of personal opinion as fact.

Reasonable minds can disagree about this.  Do you concur?

1 hour ago, california boy said:
Quote

I think the priesthood ban lacked revelatory provenance.  

And where is the revelatory provenance on how His gay children should marry and whether that is acceptable to Him

Sigh.  I'm not particularly interested in playing the No True Scotsman game with you today.

You have preemptively rejected anything I could say by way of substantive response.

1 hour ago, california boy said:
Quote

You can, of course, dismiss it all as "just the opinion of fallible men."  Boy, what a miracle solvent that is.  Any doctrine or teaching you personally dislike or don't want to accept?  Just characterize it as "the opinion of fallible men" and voila!  It's gone.

You are willing to dismiss Brigham Youngs personal belief's on Blacks but not current apostles?  What is the difference?

What "personal beliefs on Blacks" from "current apostles" do you find problematic?

1 hour ago, california boy said:
Quote

Jesus Christ taught many things that were difficult to accept.  In John 6 many of his followers did as you are doing here: 

Yet he was SILENT on any homosexual issues.

No, he wasn't.  

For the average fundamentalist (yep, you seem to be one), a red-letter approach to the bible might work.  But that's not how things work for the Latter-day Saints.  The New Testament is hardly the definitive source of what Jesus Christ taught, so I reject the notion that He was, or is, "silent on any homosexual issues."

1 hour ago, california boy said:
Quote

Jesus Christ taught many things that were difficult to accept.  In John 6 many of his followers did as you are doing here: 

Maybe the hard thing about this issue is that God has NOT given a revelation on gay marriage, yet the members are once again suppose to trust fallible men.

Meh.  You have preemptively rejected any "revelation on gay marriage."  Anything you don't like you can just characterize as "just the opinion of fallible men."  

You have the ultimate cop-out.  

Look, if there was a way to reconcile homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage with the Restored Gospel, I really think the Brethren would do it.  And I would be fine with it.  I dislike all the hatred and venom spewed at me and mine because we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and because sexual behavior is, in the eyes of God, only authorized between a husband and wife.

Instead, the Lord has revealed things that are, these days, increasingly unpopular.  The Law of Chastity prohibits not only homosexual behavior, but also fornication and adultery (and pornography, and so on).  It's a pretty stringent standard of sexual ethics, particularly in a world that is becoming increasingly sexualized.  And yet I really believe these things come from God.  Not because, as you and yours so frequently and falsely and nastily insist, because we hate gay people, far from it.  We don't hate people who commit fornication either.  We just believe that God has prohibited forms of sexual behavior, and people like you can't stand that we believe that.

It would be easier to capitulate.  It would be easier to do as you do and just selectively disregard the tenets of our faith that are unpopular in the moment.  But I don't think we will.  As in John 6, we are called upon to accept and follow teachings that are unpopular, but right.

Again, I don't like all the vitriol being spewed about.  I don't like you coming to this board and endlessly disparaging me and mine and what we believe.  But I'll put up with it.  That's part of the gig of being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  It ain't a popularity contest.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This is not about what I believe.  

Boy, that's rich.  Coming from the guy who said this:

Quote

The Church and you (SMAC) build this fortress around a doctrine that has never actually been attributed to God.  Assumptions have been made by fallible men that God would never sanction any marriage between couples of the same gender.  Assumptions have been made that the Law of Chastity which clearly state that sex within a marriage is sanctified of God means.  Those fallible men have decided for themselves, that gay marriages don't count as real marriages.  It is a declaration that marriage is not all that good of idea if you are gay.  So what value is it to those that are straight if it is so disposable.  No revelation from God has ever been claimed on whether God agrees with this assumption. 

You didn't cite anything here, CB.  This is all you.  You and your beliefs.  You endlessly inject you and your personal life and personal sentiments into the discussion, and then say silly stuff like "this is not about what I believe."

If that's so, then why do you keep telling us what you believe?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This is about the Church taking a stance that they are willing to fall on the sword over even though there is no revelation on this subject.  Perhaps a revelation should be asked for and received before driving all these members out that the Spirit is telling them something entirely different.  

Again: If the Brethren were to present a revelation to the Church that unequivocally and definitively codified marriage as between a man and a woman, that categorically rejected same-sex marriage, and that categorically prohibited homosexual behavior, you . . . would not accept it, right?  You would call it "just the opinion of fallible men" or something similar, right?

Yawn.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:
Quote

So a Valedictorian coming out in his valedictorian speech constitutes as part of that community eh?

Elder Holland in his comment expressed what many of us felt at the time: that a valedictory speech is for the purpose of uniting the graduating class behind noble and shared values, not drawing ideological battle lines. 

Yep.  If he had said "I stand before you a proud Trump supporter," or "I am happy to come here today and tell you why I think abortion is a grave sin," I would have had the same reaction.

Not the time or place, dude.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know Gregory Smith. At least a Gregory Smith…probably should check to see if he did the retweet or not. 
 

The Gregory Smith I know has been discussing the talk including the muskets and has no intention of violence or inciting violence or hatred by his adoption of the musket analogy. He reads the analogy as one of preparedness.

So far every faithful member I have talked to or heard speaking about it is coming from the same interpretation.

Can I DM you? I have some pics. He’s deleted the tweet I’m referring to since

Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Hanna Seariac is

Member of FAIR, one of the younger ones. She is doing a lot of stuff for us, but is also vocal in her own self in defending the Church and other topics online. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...