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

[BlueDreams]

29 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Watching the Church make statements on many issues like, racism, gays, immigration etc. and then seeing how members react has made me feel the church needs to take it a step further, start providing examples. Too many members ‘justify’ their position and politics on these issues. Especially at the local level, all over social media and forums. (Example: I know a local high council member who openly uses the N word still and yet justifies it as not being racist.)

While the church has given some very strong statements on racism, it might be time to actually provide some real world examples of what racism actually IS. Same with dealing with anti gay rights movements/efforts, etc. 

I also think it might be time to start reading some of the Church’s statements at the pulpit. I know many members that have never heard the church’s recent statements on many of these subjects. Including many local leaders. When you point it out you can see the mental gymnastics begin.

I know a lot of members don’t know the Church is supporting the ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ and are shocked when it comes up.

To many are still reading and posting old quotes from Ezra Taft Benson, Brigham Young, Joseph F Smith, etc. to justify their positions and their politics.

I think that's a good idea in theory but in practice I really doubt it. Do you remember the really great GC session that was completely focused on refugees? It was beautiful, focused on a message of helping and welcoming those in need, highly spiritual. a number of leaders openly talked about their experiences as refugees and the welcome they valued from other countries and peoples when in severe need. And it took people 10 minutes to find ways to justify their worldview within that framework and either dismiss the session or rearrange it in a way that, no matter what they believed or supported, they were already doing what was suggested. 

From my experience, it takes a LOT to shift individual's beliefs around these topics. It's not a matter of how many examples you give, but if they're open to really hear you out and shift their perspectives. Take the guy who's using the N word. I doubt no one has ever talked to him and said that's not okay or they're uncomfortable with him saying it. Few average people are comfortable hearing that from a white man. And I bet each time someone tried to correct him, there was immediate pushback and excuses given. Ranging from "they say that in rap songs" to "I don't every use it derogatory" to "It's only meant to talk about certain types of black people, not all black people" to "it's a term of endearment" to "I have a lot (read somewhere between 1-10 people) of black friends, and they don't mind" and some other bs that allows him to keep on his merry way. You could sit and deeply explain why these arguments don't work and it may still just leave him pushing it back on you as being too sensitive or "woke." It gets easier to dismiss or defend one's position when the voice is even further from his immediate circles to a distant leader that he can juxtapose and exception to their general examples and advice.

 

Basically, it's a good idea and I don't think it could hurt to do things, like read statements over the pulpit. But I would just how a more tempered view for how much this will actually change peoples ideals/perspectives.

 

With luv,

BD   

Edited November 25, 2022 by BlueDreams

[LoudmouthMormon]

Some Colorado Springs local news:  Graffiti at Focus on the Family references Club Q Shooting

 

This is from the crowd that favors the "dude was religious and religion preaches hate against LGBTQ folk, therefore religion is responsible" explanation.   Social media comments are a warzone between those folks, and the folks who give a snarky reply like "Please stop misgendering this individual just because you don't like what they've done".

I've been in Col Spgs for 20+ years.  There are 2-3 LDS churches between Club Q and FOTF.  

 

[Ragerunner]

17 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I think that's a good idea in theory but in practice I really doubt it. Do you remember the really great GC session that was completely focused on refugees? It was beautiful, focused on a message of helping and welcoming those in need, highly spiritual. a number of leaders openly talked about their experiences as refugees and the welcome they valued from other countries and peoples when in severe need. And it took people 10 minutes to find ways to justify their worldview within that framework and either dismiss the session or rearrange it in a way that, no matter what they believed or supported, they were already doing what was suggested. 

From my experience, it takes a LOT to shift individual's beliefs around these topics. It's not a matter of how many examples you give, but if they're open to really hear you out and shift their perspectives. Take the guy who's using the N word. I doubt no one has ever talked to him and said that's not okay or they're uncomfortable with him saying it. Few average people are comfortable hearing that from a white man. And I bet each time someone tried to correct him, there was immediate pushback and excuses given. Ranging from "they say that in rap songs" to "I don't every use it derogatory" to "It's only meant to talk about certain types of black people, not all black people" to "it's a term of endearment" to "I have a lot (read somewhere between 1-10 people) of black friends, and they don't mind" and some other bs that allows him to keep on his merry way. You could sit and deeply explain why these arguments don't work and it may still just leave him pushing it back on you as being too sensitive or "woke." It gets easier to dismiss or defend one's position when the voice is even further from his immediate circles to a distant leader that he can juxtapose and exception to their general examples and advice.

 

Basically, it's a good idea and I don't think it could hurt to do things, like read statements over the pulpit. But I would just how a more tempered view for how much this will actually change peoples ideals/perspectives.

 

With luv,

BD   

Unfortunately you may be right. But I think the time has come to try and do more. It’s going to take a lot to unpack decades of cultural/political intertwining within the church. That ultimately, to often, lead to incorrect teaching within the church.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Ragerunner]

No excuse for damaging others property. 

I might also point out that the Focus on the Family group really doesn’t like the LDS Church.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Ragerunner

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The gun, of course.  "We need to pass another law to prevent 'people like this' from getting guns."  The problem with that reasoning is that,by definition, people  who commit murder are not law abiding.

 

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Most people who commit these types of shootings purchase their guns legally. 

Just saying. 

 

With luv,

BD

All the same, though, of its own volition (and, of course, guns are inanimate objects: they have no volition of their own) no gun ever decided to kill someone, to target innocents, and to fire itself.  Someone had to exercise his or her volition, to target innocents, and to fire it in order for it to do that. 

[BlueDreams]

20 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

All the same, though, of its own volition (and, of course, guns are inanimate objects: they have no volition of their own) no gun ever decided to kill someone, to target innocents, and to fire itself.  Someone had to exercise his or her volition, to target innocents, and to fire it in order for it to do that. 

That's also no one's argument. No one thinks guns could magically get up and shoot someone. It's more that easy, excessive, and unregulated access to guns increase the likelihood for gun deaths. No country with our degree of stability has the degree of problem we do in the US surrounding gun deaths. I'm not going to pretend that we just have a strange amount of unhealthy and/or non-law abiding people. We don't. We have a strange amount of unhealthy people who can get or have a gun. That's where most gun regulatory arguments begin with. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Danzo]

Unfortunately, as a practical matter, most gun law violations are charged against minorities and POC.  More laws often just give us more reasons to keep certain segments of the population incarcerated.  

[BlueDreams]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Unfortunately, as a practical matter, most gun law violations are charged against minorities and POC.  More laws often just give us more reasons to keep certain segments of the population incarcerated.  

Again...this isn't a great argument against gun regulation and moreso a good one for between judicial reform. Because just about any crime is more likely to be charged/ prosecuted if you're POC and/or poor. That doesn't mean the solution is to decriminalize or deregulate all forms of currently illegal behavior to solve this disparity. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, BlueDreams said:

Again...this isn't a great argument against gun regulation and moreso a good one for between judicial reform. Because just about any crime is more likely to be charged/ prosecuted if you're POC and/or poor. That doesn't mean the solution is to decriminalize or deregulate all forms of currently illegal behavior to solve this disparity. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

We should be careful about wishing for new laws. Because we might get what we wish for.  If we look at who gets charged with gun law violations currently on the books, it isn't close, the vast majority are charged against minorities, not would be mass shooters.  Unfortunately, there is no reason to assume new laws wouldn't similarly enforced. The are already so many laws on the book that pretty much everyone is guilty of something. Who gets prosecuted is more a function of the  preference and prejudice of law enforcement than anything else.  New laws with the same people enforcing them will just get you more of the same.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

That's also no one's argument. No one thinks guns could magically get up and shoot someone. It's more that easy, excessive, and unregulated access to guns increase the likelihood for gun deaths. ...

Okay.  How does One More Law automagically make someone who, already, is so "non-law-abiding" that, not only is the person determined to acquire at least one firearm (by whatever means, legal or illegal), also, the person has determined that the best way to deal with whatever demons that person is facing, whatever problems he or she has, whatever grudges he or she holds, and so on, ad infinitum, law abiding? 

What is the law, or what are the laws, that can make a non-law-abiding person say, "Hey, wait a minute.  I was going to get one or more guns, get ammunition, get body armor, et cetera, and go shoot up the local [fill in the blank: nightclub, gay nightclub, church, Walmart, ad infinitum].  But, Alas!, now, that the One More Law has been passed, it has foiled all of my diabolical plans"?

Let me be clear: Although several members of my family are (or have been) law enforcement officers, I am not rabidly, reflexively "pro-gun."  I, myself, do not happen to own any guns, and while my father has promised to bequeath me one of his former duty weapons when he passes, it's quite possible that he will live forever simply to spite me.   I am, however, pro-logic.  Is it really logical to conclude that, if only One More Law is passed, automagically, someone who is so "non-law-abiding" as the person I describe will abandon his (or, less likely, but possible, still, her) not-just-illegal-but-evil designs?

[Teancum]

On 11/23/2022 at 6:53 PM, ttribe said:

Why is it such a source of anger and vitriol to simply suggest that the leaders of the organization claiming to be God's One True Church tone down the war rhetoric because it's too easy for the people to exploit or use as an excuse to cause harm? I would think basic self-awareness and integrity would be enough to motivate such leaders to make a simple alteration to language.

 Because many here have a persecution complex and play it well.  Even a small thimble of criticism and an attach on a "religious minority."  There is a lot of thin skin among Latter day Saints.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 11/23/2022 at 7:19 PM, jkwilliams said:

I was thinking of the talk I attended where homosexuals were named as one of the three great threats to the church. Frankly, what I heard growing up makes the “muskets” thing seem pretty tame.

 I an tell you that as a young teen growing up in the SLC area in the 70s we thought homosexuals were an awful aberration.  And some of this was fueled by talks from church leaders and SWKs infamous book The Miracle of Forgiveness.  I recall hearing Elder Packer state that a missionary would be justified hitting a companion that was homosexual if that companion tried to make a pass it him.  We used to kid around about going to Liberty and fining "faggots" to "roll" meaning to beat up though we never did that.  Do I blame all that on the Church?  No. I was a dumb teenager in the 70s and also society was not to accepting or open and homosexuality at all.  

Interestingly as an adult working where I live in the Northeast I had co workers who in the late 90s and early 2000s who were highly critical of my views on LBGTQ issues which were formed by my religion.  I can recall going out to golf once with someone I knew in the financial services community who was openly gay.  And I got a lot of very rude comments from those co workers that were critical of my rekigous view on homosexualty.  I told then I found it odd that they when said they were accepting of such a lifestyle wer so crude about it. I said I might not agree with the persons lifestyle but I liked him as a person and enjoyed socializing with him.  He was a very nice person.  Any way it showed me that even those who may say they supported LBGTQ people might still have some discomfort at least 20 or so years ago.  Of course my views on humans sexuality have gone 180 degrees since then,.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

On 11/23/2022 at 8:05 PM, helix said:

"So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children... In that spirit, let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters. Like many of you, we have spent hours with them, and wept and prayed and wept again in an effort to offer love and hope...,  There are better ways to move toward crucially important goals in these very difficult matters — ways that show empathy and understanding for everyone while maintaining loyalty to prophetic leadership and devotion to revealed doctrine"

But good lord just look at what I bolded.  He loves those with THIS SAME SEX CHALLENGE?  Really.  Do those who have same sex attraction view it as a challenge?  Would they if they could be accepted for who they are?  Challenge makes them sound broken and flawed.  Sound more like pity than love.  They are not broken.  It is no more a challenge for them to be same sex attracted than it is for a heterosexual to be attracted to the opposite sex.  And this is what is wrong with how the Church leadership approaches this issue.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Teancum

[LoudmouthMormon]

Hey folks wondering about a church leader’s talk of muskets getting interpreted as “go shoot up club Q”:

Do you have any wonderings about This leader’s tweet?

 

[Teancum]

On 11/23/2022 at 9:19 PM, BlueDreams said:

Is it really fair to suggest the church needs to dial back on messaging around LGBT things by pointing out examples that happened when you were growing up?

Yes it is. It is fair.  We have been over this idea that you youngsters 😁   promote that what is said years ago does not matter. It does.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

That's also no one's argument. No one thinks guns could magically get up and shoot someone. It's more that easy, excessive, and unregulated access to guns increase the likelihood for gun deaths. No country with our degree of stability has the degree of problem we do in the US surrounding gun deaths. I'm not going to pretend that we just have a strange amount of unhealthy and/or non-law abiding people. We don't. We have a strange amount of unhealthy people who can get or have a gun. That's where most gun regulatory arguments begin with. 

 

With luv,

BD

I need to save and keep this quote, thanks.

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Hey folks wondering about a church leader’s talk of muskets getting interpreted as “go shoot up club Q”:

Do you have any wonderings about This leader’s tweet?

 

Maybe they mean people arms. 🤣

[helix]

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But good lord just look at what I bolded.  He loves those with THIS SAME SEX CHALLENGE?  Really.  Do those who have same sex attraction view it as a challenge?  Would they if they could be accepted for who they are?  Challenge makes them sound broken and flawed.  Sound more like pity than love.  They are not broken.  It is no more a challenge for them to be same sex attracted than it is for a heterosexual to be attracted to the opposite sex.  And this is what is wrong with how the Church leadership approaches this issue.

Someone who is gay and a member of this church is going to have a challenge. 

But my original point was asking if that kind of language would persuade someone to shoot up gays.  The shooter went by the online screen name Satanicdruggie, was a heavy member of the serial killer obsession site Encyclopedia Dramatica, had no contact with the church for a long time, and self identified as an atheist.   Do you think he used this speech to BYU faculty as his motivation to shoot up a gay bar?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, helix said:

Someone who is gay and a member of this church is going to have a challenge. 

Of course they will.  With language saying you love someone who is same sex challenged creates it being a challenge.  

[BlueDreams]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes it is. It is fair.  We have been over this idea that you youngsters 😁   promote that what is said years ago does not matter. It does.

Its a little telling when you're calling 34 a youngster  

in all serious my concern isn't that what was said years ago doesn't matter, moreso that it doesn't matter as much as I've often seen it used for. I have i think 3 main concerns that I've seen when this is brought up. 

1.) the timeline for a problem/observation is rarely given. An experience that happened 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years ago is treated like it happened 5 months ago, or in this case last week. That's problematic both for how memory changes based on our experiences since and that most of us just don't stay stasis for 40 years. At least I hope few people remain that stagnant.

2.) the context around the time  to be tend to be forgotten quite a bit in the retelling. Let's take the example you gave of attitudes in the early 1970s, which you mentioned some of the context to quickly. Also in the early 1970's, homosexuality could still be a diagnosable disorder in the DSM. Most of the common culture varied between repugnance, to assuming something was wrong with them, with a few people being fairly accepting. The likelihood that one knew-knew that someone was gay or was attracted to any degree to the same sex was far less likely than today as well. So in a time with little exposure, minimal cultural acceptance,  sketchy amounts of tolerance, and a strong pervasive history of seeing gay as abnormal....church members were more likely to act intolerantly, ignorantly, or with hostility.  This past experience of church is important because it gives an idea where some of these leftover behaviors/beliefs comes from, but it doesn't indicate where the church is now as a whole. And it certainly doesn't say what an inactive 22 year old would have been exposed and influenced by.  

3.) it's then all used to explain present day problems. Often at the expense of having a balanced look of what's more common in terms of attitudes, current experiences, and discord in the here and now. Which is a huge problem. Most of us don't have too many memories of the 70's. Heck it you're under 55 (ie senior living age) that would be their memories from age 5-10 for the oldest ones. For the youngest, it's the generation of their grandparents and great grandparents. That's just not going to be that important to us. And it can't carry equal weight to what's happening in the here and now. 

 

With luv,

BD 

 

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Danzo said:

We should be careful about wishing for new laws. Because we might get what we wish for.  If we look at who gets charged with gun law violations currently on the books, it isn't close, the vast majority are charged against minorities, not would be mass shooters.  Unfortunately, there is no reason to assume new laws wouldn't similarly enforced. The are already so many laws on the book that pretty much everyone is guilty of something. Who gets prosecuted is more a function of the  preference and prejudice of law enforcement than anything else.  New laws with the same people enforcing them will just get you more of the same.

Imma keep this short, cuz I'd like to veg out a little before bed. 

Again, this is oversimplified and ignoring really key facts. Minorities are also far more likely to be victims of gun violence. Many "laws" that we have around guns have so many loop holes they look like swiss cheese. And the more aggressive laws that have strong evidence for working to curtail gun deaths in both state and international data are also hard to get political traction. 

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  How does One More Law automagically make someone who, already, is so "non-law-abiding" that, not only is the person determined to acquire at least one firearm (by whatever means, legal or illegal), also, the person has determined that the best way to deal with whatever demons that person is facing, whatever problems he or she has, whatever grudges he or she holds, and so on, ad infinitum, law abiding? 

What is the law, or what are the laws, that can make a non-law-abiding person say, "Hey, wait a minute.  I was going to get one or more guns, get ammunition get body armor, et cetera, and go shoot up the local [fill in the blank: nightclub, gay nightclub, church, Walmart, ad infinitum].  But, Alas!, now, that the One More Law has been passed, it has foiled all of my diabolical plans"?

Let me be clear: Although several members of my family are (or have been) law enforcement officers, I am not rabidly, reflexively "pro-gun."  I, myself, do not happen to own any guns, and while my father has promised to bequeath me one of his former duty weapons when he passes, it's quite possible that he will live forever simply to spite me.   I am, however, pro-logic.  Is it really logical to conclude that, if only One More Law is passed, automagically, someone who is so "non-law-abiding" as the person I describe will abandon his (or, less likely, but possible, still, her) not-just-illegal-but-evil designs?

This logic is built on the back of a strawman. Again, no one is saying that there's a single magic fix to our gun problems. No One. NOT a SINGLE PeRsOn is saying that. It will take work, it will likely take a series of laws and court shifts to allow such laws to stick. It would take change in our gun obsessed culture that seems to find just one more reason every human should get a gun. It would take shoring up loop holes, and making sure laws on the books are actually being enforced. It would likely also take a reduction in guns in general in our country. And it would likely need to include plans to help troubled communities, expand mental health services and better integrate it into general health care, systemize reporting of concerns, and changes to our judicial system. In short, it will take work and with our current system as it is, it will likely take years of it. 

FTR: I and my household will never own a gun. I don't envy gun ownership, don't feel safer in the proximity of a gun, feel uneasy around hand guns, and have no need to go hunting since I'm a vegetarian. I'm also a terrible shot (at least with rifles and clay pidgeons). Plus my husband, who's definitely not from this culture, finds American interest and thought processes around guns insane. But I am also not so anti-gun that I think there's no such thing as responsible gun ownership or that we could have a nation that still has  guns (albeit a far better regulated) as part of its landscape.  

 

 

With luv,

BD 

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It would take change in our gun obsessed culture that seems to find just one more reason every human should get a gun. ...

Now who's torching straw men?  Good night, Ma'am.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Now who's torching straw men?  Good night, Ma'am.

Not straw; its hyperbole. Night to you too

 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Its a little telling when you're calling 34 a youngster  

I hope you know I meant it with fond affection.  😀  After all my oldest is 40 next week and my youngest is 27.  Me I am turning 63 next week so I am old as dirt.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Teancum

[BlueDreams]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I hope you know I meant it with fond affection.  😀  After all my oldest is 40 next week and my youngest is 27.  Me I am turing 63 next week so I am old as dirt.

Oh, I don't doubt. Thus the winky face.