Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Elder Holland: BYU may need to "stand alone"


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

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.

Even if the context were something like colonialism? Or perhaps environmentalism? Because I've seen rape metaphors used in those contexts before and have not found them to be beyond the pale. YMMV.

 

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The musket metaphor implies that members should be "willing to defend the faith" with violence.

And HappyJackWagon's "combat" metaphor implies that he is advocating "violence."

Right?  Right?

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Unacceptable. Accepting violence as a way to defend a person's religious views IS a moral issue. I'm surprised you don't agree.

This is one of the best strawmen I have ever seen in my 17 years on this board.  Well done!

Also, are you still torturing puppies for fun and profit?  That's a moral issue, after all.  I'm surprised you don't agree.

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The US has a strong gun culture and so does the church.

The US has a strong militaristic culture, and so - apparently - does HappyJackWagon.  He actually used the word "combat!" 

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Using a gun metaphor within such a culture, and implying it has nothing to do with violence is naïve.

Right.  He was talking about "scholars" and "metaphorical muskets" and defending the faith.  That's as obvious a call for violence as is your use of the word "combat."

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At the very least Holland is appealing to people to defend the religion by talking about muskets and musket fire.

And you were appealing to literal armed conflict, to people actually taking up weapons to shoot and kill each other, when you used the word "combat."

Right?  Right?

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I am stating unequivocally that it is immoral to incite people to violence.

Then why did you do it?  Why did you incite people to violence by using the word "combat?"

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Unless your online handle is "HappyJackWagon," in which case you are exempt from the absurd standard he imposes on everyone else.

See, when he uses a word like "combat" in a purely metaphorical sense, that's perfectly okay.  But if anyone else uses a word ("musket," for example) in a purely metaphorical sense, then that's different.  That's "immoral."  That's advocating "violence."  That's "incit{ing} people to violence."

When using metaphor, there is one absurd and banal standard for Elder Holland, and another, separate, altogether reasonable standard for HappyJackWagon.

I'm glad we can clear that up.

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Hopefully no one will actually grab a musket

I actually laughed out loud when I read this.  Who in the United States in 2021 has a "musket" to grab, dude?

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and defend the church against someone waving a pride flag but it's not the craziest idea I've ever heard.

Oh.  So your reasoning is based on anything outside of "the craziest idea {you've} ever heard."

Got it.

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At the very least what should a member of the LGBTQ community or ally think?

The same thing that I thought when you used "combat" in a purely metaphorical sense.  (Hint: I did not think you were inciting others to violence.)

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is not political correctness run amok.

Ya know, I think it kinda is.

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suppose non-violence could be considered an "agenda" but shouldn't we all want that?

Asks the guy who used the word "combat."

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is the denouncing of violence and violent rhetoric.

Does "violent rhetoric" include purely metaphorical use of the word "combat?"  

Asking for a friend. ;) 

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

"HappyJackWagon talking about combat is bad enough, but having him pretend like that shouldn't matter is pretty disgusting."

Would you accept that line of reasoning?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Here’s the reference:

 

 

Golly!  DezNat yahoos misappropriating wording and imagery to advocate ideas rejected by the Church.  Therefore the Church is at fault.

I think . . . not.

If and when you publicly condemn HappyJackWagon for his deplorable incitement to violence, I'll begin to take this seriously.  

But I won't be holding my breath.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

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.

I said nothing about a “policy” or “the handbook.”

A valedictory is, by definition, a bidding of a fond farewell (look it up), implying a collective “farewell” from the graduating class to the institution. Thus, by implication, the valedictorian is speaking for the class. It is self-centered to make of it an ideological or political speech. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

It is definitely not him. I am now on my iPad and can make out the Gregforcouncil now.  Iirc, I have even talked about this on MDDB or elsewhere and this guy lives in Ogden iirc.  I am going to delete my comment and following posts to prevent any confusion, could you delete any of yours to mine please as well since they are now irrelevant.

added:  deleted other two, I will also delete this one after you have deleted yours, leaving this up in case yours aren’t deleted immediately. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Just now, smac97 said:

Golly!  DezNat yahoos misappropriating wording and imagery to advocate ideas rejected by the Church.  Therefore the Church is at fault.

I think . . . not.

If and when you publicly condemn HappyJackWagon for his deplorable incitement to violence, I'll begin to take this seriously.  

But I won't be holding my breath.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do we combat an illness?

I can think of plenty of non-violent meanings of combat. Should HappyJackWagon bring guns into the metaphor, and sides which are firing and ‘friendly-firing’ then we’ll talk.

 

You play Whataboutism but you ignore how the cases differ. 
 

So be it:

Funny, weren’t you the guy that got his clock cleaned on the debate regarding the the San-Francisco men’s choir.

I seem to recall that you were quite traumatized by the piece.

 

You lack reciprocity. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Do we combat an illness?

Yes.  

Do we have "muskets" to "grab" these days?

10 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I can think of plenty of non-violent meanings of combat.

So can I.

I can think of plenty of non-violent metaphorical references to "muskets" too.  Can you?

The idea that Elder Holland was calling on the faculty at BYU to commit literal acts of violence against other people with - in his words - "metaphorical muskets" is astronomically stupid.  

10 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Should HappyJackWagon bring guns into the metaphor, and sides which are firing and ‘friendly-firing’ then we’ll talk.

Special pleading.  Classic stuff.

He used the word "combat" in a purely metaphorical sense.  Let's talk about that, shall we?

If someone read HappyJackWagon's "combat" reference, and then construed that as a call to commit actual violence, and if that person thereafter went out and killed someone, would you blame HJW for that?  I sure wouldn't.

10 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Funny, weren’t you the guy that got his clock cleaned on the debate regarding the the San-Francisco men’s choir.

Huh?

There were many hundreds of people - including many homosexuals - who publicly shared their disgust with that song.  Did you clean their clocks too?

10 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I seem to recall that you were quite traumatized by the piece.

Not "traumatized."  I was fairly disturbed at the sexualized double entendre of grown men singing about "coming" for our "children."

Thanks,

-Smac

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

I said nothing about a “policy” or “the handbook.”

A valedictory is, by definition, a bidding of a fond farewell (look it up), implying a collective “farewell” from the graduating class to the institution. Thus, by implication, the valedictorian is speaking for the class. It is self-centered to make of it an ideological or political speech. 

I’m afraid you have much less to attack Easton with using a definition from a dictionary than you do the handbook.

social constructs often fail to match what a dictionary describes them as and valedictorian speeches of the past often are replete with sentiments and experiences that not all classmates can relate to equally.

just read one guy on Twitter who told of a story of a previous valedictorian going off on he and his wife’s bonding experience of pretend driving a car in their living room.

There is nothing selfish about his coming out during the speech.

Again it’s only controversial because you make it so.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

How do I do that?

I mean just edit them so they are blank.  Thank you.  I think I will stop posting now while I digest my breakfast and hope my brain wakes up some.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know it's been cleared up but I wondered the same thing. But I don't believe the FairMormon Gregory lives in Utah. 

Here's the other one:

https://www.standard.net/news/2021/aug/24/ex-north-ogden-council-hopeful-draws-fire-from-gay-rights-group/

Thanks Tacenda, he is definitely Canadian. 
 

I knew it had been talked about before:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73888-alaska-assistant-attorney-general-in-deznat-trouble/?do=findComment&comment=1210046958

 

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

Yes.  

Do we have "muskets" to "grab" these days?

So can I.

I can think of plenty of non-violent metaphorical references to "muskets" too.  Can you?

The idea that Elder Holland was calling on the faculty at BYU to go "grab" their "metaphorical muskets" and commit literal acts of violence against other people is astronomically stupid.  

Special pleading.  Classic stuff.

He used the word "combat" in a purely metaphorical sense.  Let's talk about that, shall we?

Huh?

There were many hundreds of people - including many homosexuals - who publicly shared their disgust with that song.  Did you clean their clocks too?

Not "traumatized."  I was fairly disturbed at the sexualized double entendre of grown men singing about "coming" for our "children."

Thanks,

-Smac

So if you can be traumatized by a that song, then why is it so hard for you to understand the hundreds of people problematizing the reference to musket-firing in reference to their community and a valedictorian coming out of the closet.

Again the song (which was in bad taste) was being figurative.

If you are gonna take that song literally don’t expect anyone to take your “it’s just a metaphor” talk seriously in response to metaphors about shooting people in reference to critics of the church.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I disagree. The musket metaphor was about meeting force with force. The early Saint were faced with mob violence and had to be prepared to defend themselves in-kind.

In modern academia, faithful Saints are seeing their beliefs come under a different kind of attack - in a battle of words, thoughts, and ideals - and they should be prepared to pick up their "metaphorical muskets" and defend themselves in-kind.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. My ten year old can identify a metaphor with ease. I imagine most adults are capable of doing the same.

 

Well, on the (honestly beyond plausible) chance that they do, hopefully they will grab an actual musket. Those things are frighteningly inaccurate. ;)

 

So I assume that if someone was crass enough to suggest that people pick up a musket to fight against the church's anti-LGBTQ agenda, you'd probably find that to be totally appropriate, right?

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I’m afraid you have much less to attack Easton with using a definition from a dictionary than you do the handbook.

 

I have nothing less than the normative definition of the word. I can’t help that it offends your sense of propriety. 
 

And I’m not attacking Easton, I’m defending Elder Holland (who apparently has a clear and accurate understanding of “valedictory”). 
 

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

So if you can be traumatized by a that song,

I was not traumatized.  Perhaps you missed the part when I said I was "{n}ot 'traumatized.'"

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

then why is it so hard for you to understand the hundreds of people problematizing the reference to musket-firing in reference to their community and a valedictorian coming out of the closet.

It's not that I don't "understand" this.  I don't accept it as a reasonable or fair interpretation of Elder Holland's remarks.

Also, the reference to "metaphorical muskets" was a reference to scholars at BYU defending the faith.  There was no connection between it and Easton.

And the metaphor was one of defense of religious belief.

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

Again the song (which was in bad taste) was being figurative.

As I said in that thread:

Quote

I have issues with the themes of

A) parental subversion,

B) arrogantly and gloatingly bragging about usurping the teaching of other people's children,

C) sexual euphemism and double entendre pertaining to children,

D) broad accusations of bigotry/hate against anyone who disagrees with them, and

E) insinuations that there is nothing parents can do about any of the above.

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" ;) 

See entry (C) above.  

3 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

If you are gonna take that song literally

What is your understanding of the phrase "sexual euphemism?"

What do you understand a "double entendre" to be?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So I assume that if someone was crass enough to suggest that people pick up a musket to fight against the church's anti-LGBTQ agenda, you'd probably find that to be totally appropriate, right?

 

These arguments are getting zanier by the moment. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So I assume that if someone was crass enough to suggest that people pick up a musket to fight against the church's anti-LGBTQ agenda, you'd probably find that to be totally appropriate, right?

"So I assume that if someone was crass enough to suggest that people pick up actual weapons and go into literal 'combat'  to attack the members of an unpopular religious minority, you'd probably find that to be totally appropriate, right?"

Boy, these loaded questions are fun!

Thanks,

-Smac

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

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