smac97 Posted August 25, 2021 Author Posted August 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: These arguments are getting zanier by the moment. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Apparently saying “I’m a gay Latter-day Saint” qualifies as unjustified rancor in Elder Holland’s mind. He didn’t call it that, no. What he did do is question the propriety and wisdom of it, coming as it did from one who ostensibly represented his entire graduating class. He was right to do so. Edited August 25, 2021 by Scott Lloyd 2
Amulek Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 12 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? Correct. Now, I would probably object to characterizing the church as having an "anti-LGBTQ agenda," assuming it wasn't clear that they were being hyperbolic about that particular point, but no - I wouldn't have any problem with someone saying they want to grab their muskets (or guns or spears or whatever) in the fight against the church's teachings on morality. Feel free to rally the troops and fight the good fight. As an ardent defender of free speech I'm totally fine with all of that. 1
Amulek Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) 30 minutes ago, smac97 said: Also, the reference to "metaphorical muskets" was a reference to scholars at BYU defending the faith. Seriously. I know some people have a fair amount of contempt for BYU, but honestly, how thick do they think the professors there really are? Edited August 25, 2021 by Amulek 1
ttribe Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) [Note to self next time smac97 accuses anyone of engaging in juvenile, bad faith discussions, link back to this page.] Edited August 25, 2021 by ttribe 1
smac97 Posted August 25, 2021 Author Posted August 25, 2021 4 minutes ago, ttribe said: [Note to self next time smac97 accuses anyone of engaging in juvenile, bad faith discussions, link back to this page.] Yes, well, the discussion here is unserious and absurd. Might as well have a little fun. I'm all for serious and substantive discussion. But HJW took us into La La Land as soon as he insisted that the phrase "metaphorical musket" is an immoral incitement to commit literal violence. Thanks, -Smac 1
ttribe Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 Just now, smac97 said: Yes, well, the discussion here is unserious and absurd. Might as well have a little fun. I'm all for serious and substantive discussion. But HJW took us into La La Land as soon as he insisted that the phrase "metaphorical musket" is an immoral incitement to commit literal violence. Thanks, -Smac It doesn't work for you when you are so grimly humorless 99% of the time. This kind of use of parody just comes off as petty and childish. YMMV.
Duncan Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, well, the discussion here is unserious and absurd. Might as well have a little fun. I'm all for serious and substantive discussion. But HJW took us into La La Land as soon as he insisted that the phrase "metaphorical musket" is an immoral incitement to commit literal violence. Thanks, -Smac Do you think that there will be folks in the church who won't get the difference between metaphorical and literal? God forbid someone gets hurt 2
Calm Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Duncan said: Do you think that there will be folks in the church who won't get the difference between metaphorical and literal? God forbid someone gets hurt If someone is going to take it literal, then we are talking muskets. Is it likely anyone would suggest muskets as an actual weapons for self defense or even to attack? If someone doesn’t get the difference, I suspect they have much greater issues than Elder Holland using a way out of date firearm as a metaphor. How many people actually have workable muskets in their gun safe? Edited August 25, 2021 by Calm 4
Popular Post Amulek Posted August 25, 2021 Popular Post Posted August 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, Duncan said: Do you think that there will be folks in the church who won't get the difference between metaphorical and literal? Sure. But most of them are in Primary still and don't have access to muskets, so I think we'll be okay. 7
HappyJackWagon Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 33 minutes ago, Amulek said: Correct. Now, I would probably object to characterizing the church as having an "anti-LGBTQ agenda," assuming it wasn't clear that they were being hyperbolic about that particular point, but no - I wouldn't have any problem with someone saying they want to grab their muskets (or guns or spears or whatever) in the fight against the church's teachings on morality. Feel free to rally the troops and fight the good fight. As an ardent defender of free speech I'm totally fine with all of that. First- I don't believe that any reasonable person would be ok with anyone calling people to arms to fight against the church. Nor should they be. Second- I have ZERO desire to "rally troops" to "fight". I have no problem with arguing though SMAC is out of his ever loving mind but you seem more reasonable. Just wrong. For the record, I'm also opposed to politicians (on any side) urging people to violent action, even if it is hyperbole. IMO it is classless for politicians to do it. But it is even worse for a "man of God" to do it. But you're good with it...so ... cool, cool, cool.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, Calm said: If someone is going to take it literal, then we are talking muskets. Is it likely anyone would suggest muskets as an actual weapons for self defense or even to attack? If someone doesn’t get the difference, I suspect they have much greater issues than Elder Holland using a way out of date firearm as a metaphor. How many people actually have workable muskets in their gun safe? We're talking a firearm. If he said, "grab your bazooka" would that be ok because no one really has access to a bazooka. Or is the general idea of grabbing a firearm to defend ones religious beliefs generally a bad idea?
jbarm Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 It would be nice if California Boy, his apparent alter ego Canadiandude and HappyJackWagon and the like would quit quibbling around the edges with these attacks on semantics of a speech by a GA and state what they really want, which is... Unequivocal moral endorsement of gay sexual relations sanctioned by the Church. Just say that is what you want and that you will not be satisfied until it happens. Anything else you say is just obfuscation of your real intent. Be up front and honest about your strategy and goals. Everything else is just noise. I can respect your opinion if you are at least honest about your real objectives. Sheesh. Jb 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 26 minutes ago, ttribe said: [Note to self next time smac97 accuses anyone of engaging in juvenile, bad faith discussions, link back to this page.] 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, well, the discussion here is unserious and absurd. Might as well have a little fun. I'm all for serious and substantive discussion. But HJW took us into La La Land as soon as he insisted that the phrase "metaphorical musket" is an immoral incitement to commit literal violence. Thanks, -Smac I’ve had ttribe on ignore for quite a while now and hence haven’t seen his posts lately, but if memory serves, isn’t he wont to use silly memes in lieu of articulated argument? Pot meet kettle.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 1 minute ago, jbarm said: It would be nice if California Boy, his apparent alter ego Canadiandude and HappyJackWagon and the like would quit quibbling around the edges with these attacks on semantics of a speech by a GA and state what they really want, which is... Unequivocal moral endorsement of gay sexual relations sanctioned by the Church. Just say that is what you want and that you will not be satisfied until it happens. Anything else you say is just obfuscation of your real intent. Be up front and honest about your strategy and goals. Everything else is just noise. I can respect your opinion if you are at least honest about your real objectives. Sheesh. Jb It's sad that you can't accept that some people really want a church where leaders don't attack a vulnerable community and enflame divisiveness. I can accept your inability to understand but I don't appreciate you calling me a liar because you can't understand. It's very juvenile. Personally, I just prefer that the church and its leaders stop harming the LGBTQ community by enflaming the DezNat types (of which there seem to be plenty in the church) with dog whistles of "musket fire".
Popular Post Calm Posted August 25, 2021 Popular Post Posted August 25, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: We're talking a firearm. If he said, "grab your bazooka" would that be ok because no one really has access to a bazooka. Or is the general idea of grabbing a firearm to defend ones religious beliefs generally a bad idea? Well, if I start seeing kids wearing bullet proof vests and carrying knives and such after a lesson on the armor of God, I promise I will start to take this concern seriously. I don’t like using war metaphors, but they are so ubiquitous I have a hard time believing someone will take them literally and think Elder Holland is telling them to defend the Church and Faith with guns. Edited August 25, 2021 by Calm 5
smac97 Posted August 25, 2021 Author Posted August 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: It doesn't work for you when you are so grimly humorless 99% of the time. I am a serious student of my faith and beliefs. I think they are important and worth defending. I have a pretty good sense of humor, but most of the time the discussions on this board are about serious topics, and also involve strongly-held sentiments, so generally I try to avoid levity. But this thread has just gone off the deep end. The accusation that Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (!) made a reference to "scholars" at BYU using "[metaphorical] muskets" to "defend" the "the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman" as an incitement to actual physical violence is, as I said before, astronomically stupid. 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: This kind of use of parody just comes off as petty and childish. YMMV. I generally give you critics a pretty broad latitude to have your say. You and yours come to this board and say all sorts of offensive and awful, and often materially false or misleading or unfair, things about things that I hold be sacred and important. But hey, it's a message board. Free speech and all that. And perhaps sometimes all the nastiness you guys bring here is part of a process of spleen-venting. Well, okay. And sometimes the points made about us, the criticisms and such, are fairly made. I'll own that. Your presence is a big part of why I have been on this board since 2004. If I wanted to hang out in an echo chamber, there are plenty of places. So this board is a pretty decent testing ground. You and yours express your grievances and complaints and criticisms, and we analyze them. Hash them out. Parse out the legitimate points from the not-quite-legitimate ones. But every once in a while I find myself involved in a discussion that devolves to the point of absurdity. To the point of unseriousness. To the point where there is no substance, just stupidity. This thread has become just such a discussion. I have a pretty decent track record of addressing the substance of criticisms of my faith. Of being willing to have a good faith debate or discussion. Of generally backing up my position with evidence, argument, reasoning, logic, while also acknowledging that, in the end, we are often discussing unproven and unprovable matters of faith. But here, this discussion has devolved into rank stupidity and unreasonableness. So a few memes seemed to be in order. Thanks, -Smac 4
Kenngo1969 Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 I hope nobody minds if I ask a [purely rhetorical] question here: Aside From the Most Ardent, Die-Hard [Using That Phrase in a Purely METAPHORICAL Sense ] Collector of Vintage Firearms, Who the Hell Even OWNS a Musket These Days?!! Never mind me. Carry on!
Duncan Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 15 minutes ago, Calm said: If someone is going to take it literal, then we are talking muskets. Is it likely anyone would suggest muskets as an actual weapons for self defense or even to attack? If someone doesn’t get the difference, I suspect they have much greater issues than Elder Holland using a way out of date firearm as a metaphor. How many people actually have workable muskets in their gun safe? gun collectors, I mean you never know who is out there. If they can't tell the difference metaphorical and literal, maybe they won't be so picky when it comes to hurting someone
Calm Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 Just now, Duncan said: If they can't tell the difference metaphorical and literal, maybe they won't be so picky when it comes to hurting someone Like I said, other issues….
Duncan Posted August 25, 2021 Posted August 25, 2021 15 minutes ago, Amulek said: Sure. But most of them are in Primary still and don't have access to muskets, so I think we'll be okay. ever go to Duchesne Utah?!
Recommended Posts