Colorado Nightclub Shooter is a (Nominal) Member of the Church

[smac97]

https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-shooter-links-mormon-church-explained-1760972Terrible:

Quote

Days after a gunman shot and killed five people inside a Colorado nightclub, officials with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints condemned the attack and the suspect.

Anderson Lee Aldrich, 22, faces murder and hate crime charges following the attack Saturday night at Club Q, a gay nightclub in Colorado Springs. Aldrich allegedly used an AR-15 style semiautomatic weapon during the shootings before he was subdued by two bystanders.

According to a church spokesperson, Aldrich was listed on roles of the Church, but had "not been active in some time."

“The senseless act of violence in Colorado Springs is of great sadness and concern to us. We are greatly troubled by any violence in our communities and condemn most especially violent acts that are the result of intolerance against any of God's children," the statement read. "We join with others in mourning the loss of those whose lives were taken and offer prayers of comfort and deepest condolences to their loved ones. We also pray for healing for the survivors of this shocking shooting and express our love to them."

In addition, the spokesperson said the jump to disparage "an entire faith" based on the alleged actions of Aldrich, who "did not exhibit signs of believing or associating with members of the Church," is "problematic."

And here:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints confirmed on Monday that the Club Q shooting suspect was a member of their church.

The shooter killed five people and injured nearly two dozen more at the LGBTQ club, which was celebrating Transgender Day of Remembrance -- a day devoted to those lost in the trans community to violence.
...
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has long opposed LGBTQ rights, released a statement saying that they don't condone the violence in Colorado over the weekend.

And here:

Quote

Anderson Lee Aldrich, 22, allegedly went into Club Q with an AR-15 style gun on Saturday night and opened fire before he was subdued by patrons. Five people were killed and many more were wounded.

On Twitter, many have suggested that Aldrich is a Mormon.

This has not been confirmed but his mother, Laura Voepel, appears to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to her social media accounts.
...

Voepel follows numerous accounts linked to the Mormon church on a Twitter account purportedly belonging to her.

In a group on Facebook for women in the church, she has made apparent references to her son several times.

Some of the more unfortunate remarks on Twitter:

Quote

Replying to

@calvinjburke

The shooter is a Mormon. The shooter is a Mormon. The shooter is a Mormon. My God, what have we done?

@Ch_JesusChrist

 

Dr. Frizzle @swilua@mastodon.world

@Swilua
20h

 

Replying to

@calvinjburke

tbh the church has been passively letting it’s queer people die for decades. I’m not surprised someone felt called to make it more active

 

Grandma Nora 💙🐈‍⬛🐈🇺🇦🌻😷
@noray115·20h
Replying to 
@calvinjburke
Oh no. Stay safe. All of you, do whatever you need to protect yourselves. Allies within the church, this is where the rubber meets the road. Denying that a Mormon upbringing contributed to this is not being a good ally.

 

Leap of Thought🌷💐
@leapofthought · 20h
Replying to 
@calvinjburke
I mean no disrespect, but perhaps, musketfire *really* was the wrong “analogy”. Who knows what his reasons were (however invalid), his level of affiliation, etc., but any stray ideological ventures into violence are always wrong. Always.

 

miss_m
@mabret_ · 19h
Replying to 
@calvinjburke
Not all that surprising honestly.  The General Authorities have been advocating violence against us for decades.

 

Jesus didnt say that.
@spyingforjesus · 19h
Replying to 
@calvinjburke
Almost like encouraging musket fire does in fact bring musket fire

 

spence
@spxnr · 20h
Replying to 
@calvinjburke
Blood is on @HollandJeffreyR  hands

 

Jay A.
@SuperboyCanFly · 21h
Replying to 
@calvinjburke
I feel like if you talk about musket fire, along with everything else they hear on fox - this can be the outcome.

 

carlos: a pac-12 enjoyer
@equitybruin · 19h
Replying to 
@calvinjburke
and they wonder why folks critique the church and its members

 

Jerry Falwell Jr’s ****
@JerryFalwellJrP · 18h
Replying to 
@calvinjburke
As were 1/3 of the Patriot Front members arrested going to Pride. 

The Mormons are creating violence against the #LGBTQIA. Apparently torturing gay guys to death for the past 45 years isn't as satisfying as it used to be.

Mormon_brew 
@mormon_brew · 15h
@HollandJeffreyR
 Is this what you had in mind when you called for more musket fire?!?! You have blood on your hands … again.

My condolences to the victims and their families.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

This is big news here in Colorado Springs.  It's the second mass killing event at an LGBT venue (Pulse in Florida was the first).   And it's the second mass killing in Colorado Springs, the first one being the Planned Parenthood shooting in 2015 that killed 3 and wounded 9. 

Lots of folks hurting right now.

[The Nehor]

Hopefully some pointed questions are asked as to why this violent maniac was still allowed to have a gun and had previous charges against him for taking hostages and being involved in a standoff with police suddenly dropped.

Maybe this was one of those avoidable things.

[smac97]

Deseret News: Latter-day Saint leaders condemn Colorado Springs LGBTQ club shooting

Quote

Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement Monday about the Colorado Springs LGBTQ club shooting, saying they “condemn most especially violent acts that are the result of intolerance against any of God’s children.”

Five people died and 17 were wounded Saturday when police say 22-year-old Anderson Lee Aldrich entered Club Q and began shooting, the Associated Press reported based on police reports.

Church leaders said they join the mourning for those killed and wounded in the attack.

“The senseless act of violence in Colorado Springs is of great sadness and concern to us,” said the statement released by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “We are greatly troubled by any violence in our communities and condemn most especially violent acts that are the result of intolerance against any of God’s children. We join with others in mourning the loss of those whose lives were taken and offer prayers of comfort and deepest condolences to their loved ones. We also pray for healing for the survivors of this shocking shooting and express our love to them.”

A church spokesperson confirmed reports that showed Aldrich’s mother’s past Facebook posts about the family’s membership in the church.

“I can confirm that the suspect is listed on the rolls of the church but he has not been involved in church services for some time, a decade or more,” the spokesperson said.

...

Police identified the deceased victims as Daniel Aston, Raymond Green Vance, Kelly Loving, Ashley Paugh and Derrick Rump, CNN reported.

...

President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met with the Pulse club’s owner during a 2019 visit to Orlando and expressed his sadness over the tragedy.

...

Since 2006, there have been 523 mass killings and 2,727 deaths as of Nov. 19, according to The Associated Press/USA Today database on mass killings in the U.S.

Rought.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

The title of this thread is laughable.

As long as the shooter was only a "nominal" member of the church, then all is well. Maybe church affiliation had ZERO to do with this guy's belief system, but then again, maybe some of the teachings he grew up did play a role. Regardless, the church as a whole shouldn't be blamed for every bad actor. Yet, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. 

Just last week in my little neck of the woods the former Bishop (released last month) pulled his children from our local schools. The reason he stated publicly was because the school district allowed for a school club to be organized by students at the high school. The club is a Gay/Straight Alliance with the stated purpose of providing a safe place for individuals in the LGBTQ community and allies to gather without fear of bullying or intimidation. To this bishop the GSA's stated purpose was just too immoral and he felt like he needed to make a stand against the moral decay of the schools by the LGBTQ community. 

This man led a congregation and still holds sway with the LDS population in the area. He didn't do anything like the violence perpetrated at the nightclub BUT he does perpetuate the belief that the LGBTQ community should be stopped from corrupting the community. As long as the LGBTQ community is held up as villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped, then some people will choose to stop them. Some will publicly ridicule, some will remove kids from schools, others will get violent. This doesn't happen in a vacuum.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As long as the LGBTQ community is held up as villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped, then some people will choose to stop them. Some will publicly ridicule, some will remove kids from schools, others will get violent. This doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Can  you provide some examples of the church holding up the lgtbq community as "villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped"?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The title of this thread is laughable.

As long as the shooter was only a "nominal" member of the church, then all is well. Maybe church affiliation had ZERO to do with this guy's belief system, but then again, maybe some of the teachings he grew up did play a role. Regardless, the church as a whole shouldn't be blamed for every bad actor. Yet, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. 

Just last week in my little neck of the woods the former Bishop (released last month) pulled his children from our local schools. The reason he stated publicly was because the school district allowed for a school club to be organized by students at the high school. The club is a Gay/Straight Alliance with the stated purpose of providing a safe place for individuals in the LGBTQ community and allies to gather without fear of bullying or intimidation. To this bishop the GSA's stated purpose was just too immoral and he felt like he needed to make a stand against the moral decay of the schools by the LGBTQ community. 

This man led a congregation and still holds sway with the LDS population in the area. He didn't do anything like the violence perpetrated at the nightclub BUT he does perpetuate the belief that the LGBTQ community should be stopped from corrupting the community. As long as the LGBTQ community is held up as villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped, then some people will choose to stop them. Some will publicly ridicule, some will remove kids from schools, others will get violent. This doesn't happen in a vacuum.

All of this will bring the Church closer to the inevitable revelation allowing same sex relationships.

I'd be surprised if we don't begin to hear stories of Church Presidents praying to allow them in the next few decades.

Enough bad publicity and the precedent that has been set multiple times in Church history all but guarantee it.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can  you provide some examples of the church holding up the lgtbq community as "villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped"?

I think he just did give an example of a church leader sowing fear of the LGBT community corrupting the school his children attend by starting a club.  I also think Elder Holland's musket remark was not helpful.  People draw conclusions believing they are dog whistles for calls they should literally act upon.   I still have no idea why Elder Holland made such remarks given the issue with gun violence we live with in this country.  Do I think he literally meant to pick up a rifle and go after the LGBT community?  NO.  Do I think that it was a message some people may have misinterpeted?  That is possible.  Church leaders need to  be really careful how they address these issues.  I think what Elder Holland said was reckless and put very badly.

[BlueDreams]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Hopefully some pointed questions are asked as to why this violent maniac was still allowed to have a gun and had previous charges against him for taking hostages and being involved in a standoff with police suddenly dropped.

Maybe this was one of those avoidable things.

I was reading that it may be tied to poorly enforced red flag laws there. They have one of the lowest seizure of weapons in the country (see here) 

 

With luv,

BD

[LoudmouthMormon]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I was reading that it may be tied to poorly enforced red flag laws there. They have one of the lowest seizure of weapons in the country (see here)

Colorado Springs resident here. I remember when red flag laws were being debated. I was part of the vocal opposition to those laws, and the opposition gave two main reasons.

First, we were worried that they would be used against innocent people. Red flag laws = the cops come and take stuff belonging to innocent people. It is a government intrusion against someone based on what they might do, not what they have done.

Second, we didn’t think it would work. And it didn’t work here. It also didn’t work in an earlier shooting at a grocery store in Boulder Colorado, where we had family members running around screaming “for the love of Pete won’t someone do something this guy is a ticking time bomb about to go off“.

Red flag laws are an emotional response to the “we need to do something so this never happens again“ crowd. Red flag laws are a way that politicians get votes. Red flag laws are not a way to make communities safer, or prevent harm. As evidenced by what happened in Colorado Springs. And Boulder.

The definition of lawbreaker is “someone who breaks laws“. As long as the legislators refuse to deal with this basic fact, as long as the voting base refuses to deal with it, nothing they do is going to help.

Edited November 22, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[HappyJackWagon]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can  you provide some examples of the church holding up the lgtbq community as "villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped"?

As California Boy mentioned the "musket Fire" talk was the first thing that popped to mind.

But think of the constant fight against SSM.

Counterfeit families.

Bednar claiming there are no gay mormons.

Knocking out a missionary companion perceived to be making a pass.

Prop 8 etc.

I think an exhaustive search would yield many talks, comments, statements etc. Why the constant fight against LGBTQ issues if not due to a belief that they must be stopped. Isn't it kind of a doctrinal requirement to stand up against perceived unrighteousness? Think of all the war imagery/allegories/stories in LDS tradition and Christianity in general. Onward Christian Soldiers!

 

[BlueDreams]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think he just did give an example of a church leader sowing fear of the LGBT community corrupting the school his children attend by starting a club.  I also think Elder Holland's musket remark was not helpful.  People draw conclusions believing they are dog whistles for calls they should literally act upon.   I still have no idea why Elder Holland made such remarks given the issue with gun violence we live with in this country.  Do I think he literally meant to pick up a rifle and go after the LGBT community?  NO.  Do I think that it was a message some people may have misinterpeted?  That is possible.  Church leaders need to  be really careful how they address these issues.  I think what Elder Holland said was reckless and put very badly.

I think there's a difference between "There's a possibility that he received or took in a message from church settings that he used to validate his hatred" v. some that's shown on the twitter feed of a certainty that this guy was absolutely influenced by messages like holland's that most active members didn't see, let alone an inactive one.  

To me these still come off as a major stretch. Particularly since the few details given about his family indicates generational issues that likely went ignored and fueled beliefs/behaviors the majority of practicing Latter-day saints would find repugnant or at the very least problematic. The question then is, do I judge the teachings by the people on the extremes? Personally, I think no. I've seen so many distort even things that seem fairly innocuous into  validation for their problems. For example just this weekend I heard yet another poor interpretation of the idea of "losing oneself" to mean completely ignoring and removing one's own goals and desires to focus almost solely on their spouse and children. To do otherwise is deemed "selfish." But it's fairly common for those in codependent or abusive relationships. The full scripture doesn't support this view, IMHO, but the pre-existing biases and problems create the lens to filter information. Which is what could happen at best for this guy. After all the most recent gay related news was the church proactively supporting a bill codifying SSM into law and proclaiming views that support tolerance and building bridges even if one disagrees with certain views. If church was a major factor, you'd think these messages would have altered his calculus at least a little.   

Don't get me wrong, there are other things I found wrong with Holland's views. Same with the HJW's former Bishop's overdramatic steps. There's plenty to critique there. But unless you have a series of leaders both showing and proclaiming consistent disdain for LGBT folk in generalized/large audience settings and promoting violent/murderous responses to them, this isn't going to be a major factor in what pushes a mass murderer to do a hate crime IMHO. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Navidad]

Does a person stay on the LDS church rolls even if they haven't been "active" for years? If so, doesn't that in some way contribute to this kind of connectedness? In my experience, it is not more than two or three years of non-participation (unless extenuating circumstances) and someone is removed from the church rolls. Someone once told me in our ward that folks stay on the membership roll until they are 105 years old! I thought it was a joke! Maybe not?
 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Colorado Springs resident here. I remember when red flag laws were being debated. I was part of the vocal opposition to those laws, and the opposition gave two main reasons.

First, we were worried that they would be used against innocent people. Red flag laws = the cops come and take stuff belonging to innocent people. It is a government intrusion against someone based on what they might do, not what they have done.

Second, we didn’t think it would work. And it didn’t work here. It also didn’t work in an earlier shooting at a grocery store in Boulder Colorado, where we had family members running around screaming “for the love of Pete won’t someone do something this guy is a ticking time bomb about to go off“.

Red flag laws are an emotional response to the “we need to do something so this never happens again“ crowd. Red flag laws are a way that politicians get votes. Red flag laws are not a way to make communities safer, or prevent harm. As evidenced by what happened in Colorado Springs. And Boulder.

The definition of lawbreaker is “someone who breaks laws“. As long as the legislators refuse to deal with this basic fact, as long as the voting base refuses to deal with it, nothing they do is going to help.

I find your entire post confusing. Deal with basic facts like Some people shouldn't have access to AR-15s

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think he just did give an example of a church leader sowing fear of the LGBT community corrupting the school his children attend by starting a club.  I also think Elder Holland's musket remark was not helpful.  People draw conclusions believing they are dog whistles for calls they should literally act upon.   I still have no idea why Elder Holland made such remarks given the issue with gun violence we live with in this country.  Do I think he literally meant to pick up a rifle and go after the LGBT community?  NO.  Do I think that it was a message some people may have misinterpeted?  That is possible.  Church leaders need to  be really careful how they address these issues.  I think what Elder Holland said was reckless and put very badly.

HJW seemed to imply that this leader (and others) is behaving like he is because the church is "holding up the lgtbq community as villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped".  That's a serious accusation and asking for examples to support it isn't unreasonable.

Elder Holland's musket fire comment doesn't fit the accusation.

[bsjkki]

Club Q shooting suspect's mother has criminal past | 9news.com

This was an unstable individual from an unstable family. I think it a stretch to blame the church for what happened. It would be nice to wait to find out what his motive was before jumping to conclusions. He made bomb threats and was suicidal because his grandparents were moving.

 

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo — The mother of Anderson Lee Aldrich, the suspect in the Club Q shooting, has three outstanding warrants for her arrest out of California and an arson charge out of Bexar County, Texas (San Antonio). 

That arson charge was reduced to a lesser charge. 

Laura Lea Voepel, 45, was sentenced to five years of probation in Aug. 2013 and did not complete the probation terms, which were set to expire Aug. 2018, according to court records obtained by The Gazette.     

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by bsjkki

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

HJW seemed to imply that this leader (and others) is behaving like he is because the church is "holding up the lgtbq community as villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped".  That's a serious accusation and asking for examples to support it isn't unreasonable.

Elder Holland's musket fire comment doesn't fit the accusation.

I gave a few examples. Just curious, do you think the church is hospitable to the LGBTQ community? Would you be more likely to describe the relationship of the church toward the LGBTQ community as "friendly" or "adversarial"?

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As California Boy mentioned the "musket Fire" talk was the first thing that popped to mind.

But think of the constant fight against SSM.

Counterfeit families.

Bednar claiming there are no gay mormons.

Knocking out a missionary companion perceived to be making a pass.

Prop 8 etc.

I think an exhaustive search would yield many talks, comments, statements etc. Why the constant fight against LGBTQ issues if not due to a belief that they must be stopped. Isn't it kind of a doctrinal requirement to stand up against perceived unrighteousness? Think of all the war imagery/allegories/stories in LDS tradition and Christianity in general. Onward Christian Soldiers!

 

I'm not seeing anything in that list that comes close to treating the lgtbq community as "villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped."

But the bolded part of your post does make me think of all the teachings of loving our brothers/loving our enemies/turning the other cheeks/pleas from the pulpit for kindness/the church going out of it's way to support legislation that protects the lgtbq community that have happened in the last decade.  And it makes me wonder why is it that you always ignore those examples in these discussions.

If your examples are evidence of how church members view the lgtbq community, why aren't the more loving examples evidence as well?  Why are you never asking anyone to think of those?  

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Red flag laws = the cops come and take stuff belonging to innocent people. It is a government intrusion against someone based on what they might do, not what they have done.

Red flag laws = cops come and take deadly weapons from people with known "red-flag" risks .  The red flags are based on what they have done.   It is common practice in our judicial system to be more stringent with greater measures of restrictive caution with people who are deemed to be a greater risk to society based on their histories - and therefore what they might do in the future.

49 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Second, we didn’t think it would work. And it didn’t work here. It also didn’t work in an earlier shooting at a grocery store in Boulder Colorado, where we had family members running around screaming “for the love of Pete won’t someone do something this guy is a ticking time bomb about to go off“.

Because red flag laws are not "bullet proof" (pardon the pun) you can't dismiss them as being ineffective because of isolated incidents.  The difficult part about assessing efficacy is that there is no way to show data for what might have been...  You are just assuming it didn't work, but there very well may be 'would be' victims alive and well today because of it.  If the risk factors are well known and documented, then reason can only lead one to conclude that red-flag laws will be preventative.  I can understand other arguments, but to conclude that "it doesn't work" cannot be supported.   

49 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Red flag laws are an emotional response to the “we need to do something so this never happens again“ crowd. Red flag laws are a way that politicians get votes. Red flag laws are not a way to make communities safer, or prevent harm. As evidenced by what happened in Colorado Springs. And Boulder.

Again, you can't use Boulder as proof that it doesn't work.  That data is too limited.  

49 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The definition of lawbreaker is “someone who breaks laws“. As long as the legislators refuse to deal with this basic fact, as long as the voting base refuses to deal with it, nothing they do is going to help.

There is plenty of precedent with even more extreme measures to be taken to protect life.  Being a risk to self or others is enough for someone to be detained in emergency hospitalization against their will.  Are you going to argue that this hasn't saved lives because people still commit suicide? 

Edited November 22, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The title of this thread is laughable.

The title of the thread was an attempt to be both candid and accurate.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As long as the shooter was only a "nominal" member of the church, then all is well.

Utter crapola.  I neither said nor implied that "all is well."

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe church affiliation had ZERO to do with this guy's belief system,

And yet people predisposed against the Latter-day Saints are suggesting the contrary.  Publicly.  Without evidence.  

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but then again, maybe some of the teachings he grew up did play a role.

Perhaps it might be wise to refrain from such conjecture, as this sort of ugliness is neither informed nor fair.  Correlation and causation, and all that.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Regardless, the church as a whole shouldn't be blamed for every bad actor.

I sense a "but" or a "having said that" on the way.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet,

There it is!

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Some years ago I came across this blog article which purports to show that "11 out of the top 25 most prolific serial killers {in the U.S.} are gay men," that this is "44% (or 55% of the top 20), an amazing disparity considering that gay men account for roughly 2 to 3% of the population," and that while the author "{doesn't} know what it means, exactly," he does know that "that it means something," and that "it can't just be coincidence." 

Now let's say that someone like you were to take the foregoing stuff to a message board populated by a bunch of gay people, post it, and then commentate on it with something like this: "Maybe gayness has ZERO to do with this statistical disparity, but then again, maybe something about the gay lifestyle did play a role. Regardless, the gay community as a whole shouldn't be blamed for every bad actor. Yet, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum."

How do you think that would go over?  Do you think the paltry attempts to appear even-handed ("ZERO to do with...", "shouldn't be blamed...") would come across as hollow, even false?  That the poster was, as a practical matter, attempting to goad and offend and disparage the entirety of the community, to allocate blame, by drawing unsubstantiated causal connections ("but then again...", "this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum...")?

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just last week in my little neck of the woods the former Bishop (released last month) pulled his children from our local schools. The reason he stated publicly was because the school district allowed for a school club to be organized by students at the high school. The club is a Gay/Straight Alliance with the stated purpose of providing a safe place for individuals in the LGBTQ community and allies to gather without fear of bullying or intimidation. To this bishop the GSA's stated purpose was just too immoral and he felt like he needed to make a stand against the moral decay of the schools by the LGBTQ community. 

I'm not really inclined take your word about this.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This man led a congregation and still holds sway with the LDS population in the area. He didn't do anything like the violence perpetrated at the nightclub

And yet you are bringing him up in a conversation about "violence perpetrated at the nightclub" anyway.

Funny, that.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

BUT

There it is again!

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

he does perpetuate the belief that the LGBTQ community should be stopped from corrupting the community.

I'm not really inclined take your word about this.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As long as the LGBTQ community is held up as villains and bastions of immorality

Says the guy who makes a living off skinning puppies and torturing baby harp seals.

(This is the part of the discussion where we trade loaded questions/comments, right?)

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

that must be stopped, then some people will choose to stop them. Some will publicly ridicule, some will remove kids from schools, others will get violent. This doesn't happen in a vacuum.

How utterly irresponsible and unserious this is.

-Smac

Edited November 22, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

All of this will bring the Church closer to the inevitable revelation allowing same sex relationships.

No, I don't think it will.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd be surprised if we don't begin to hear stories of Church Presidents praying to allow them in the next few decades.

Enough bad publicity and the precedent that has been set multiple times in Church history all but guarantee it.

I think the past and ongoing indications are all but guarantee precisely the opposite of what you are suggesting.

Time will tell, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not seeing anything in that list that comes close to treating the lgtbq community as "villains and bastions of immorality that must be stopped."

But the bolded part of your post does make me think of all the teachings of loving our brothers/loving our enemies/turning the other cheeks/pleas from the pulpit for kindness/the church going out of it's way to support legislation that protects the lgtbq community that have happened in the last decade.  And it makes me wonder why is it that you always ignore those examples in these discussions.

If your examples are evidence of how church members view the lgtbq community, why aren't the more loving examples evidence as well?  Why are you never asking anyone to think of those?  

The church going "out of its way" to support recent legislation does not negate decades worth of attacks and the fruitless effort to discriminate against LGBTQ couples by fighting vociferously against SSM.

Lets not forget the "revelation" creating the policy of exclusion. The church has consistently been anti-LGBTQ. They are less forceful now because (I believe) they recognize they are losing the PR battle. The church is continually adversarial, EVEN when "going out of their way" to make a public statement in support... since they always carve out an exception for the church based on religious freedom. They support Marriage Equality as long as they as a church maintain their exception.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I gave a few examples. Just curious, do you think the church is hospitable to the LGBTQ community? Would you be more likely to describe the relationship of the church toward the LGBTQ community as "friendly" or "adversarial"?

 

I view it as friendly.  It would be hard to argue that someone who was hostile to a community would also try to legislate protections for that community, in my view.  I suppose other people interpret adversarial differently.

[Nofear]

14 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

This is big news here in Colorado Springs.  It's the second mass killing event at an LGBT venue (Pulse in Florida was the first).   ...

The Pulse shooting was (and still is) horrific and evil. Not motivated by LGBT discrimination as was initially assumed by many.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/5/17202026/pulse-shooting-lgbtq-trump-terror-hate

[CA Steve]

I look forward to the next conference when the membership numbers distinguish between "nominal members" and believers.