Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Truth! I like what he said about LDS, he even said LDS, I think he might have connections, oops he said he has LDS friends. Sorry for the language. And if it's too political I'm sorry, he's definitely thinking far right. Also, I'm not either Dem or Republican. Sorry again, for the political slant. I just thought people might like how he's not blaming the LDS church.

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Crazy!

 

100% insane

Link to comment
4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I was thinking of the talk I attended where homosexuals were named as one of the three great threats to the church.

Was that not prophetic then? Is not a non-trivial portion of the retardation of growth and ongoing exodus around this issue. A number of these types of threads being a case in point.

Edited by gav
Added to last sentence
Link to comment
5 hours ago, MorningStar said:

100% insane

From LATimes:

Quote

Brink was an MMA fighter, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette. He appeared in an episode of the reality TV series “Intervention,” according to his IMDb page.

I assume he was the target of the intervention.  I have never watched it, do they go into the background of the interventee?  That might be interesting in the same way watching a train wreck is.  Someone is going to be digging that up if not done and posted already.

He may be changing his own name soon as I would guess he is going to get flooded with death threats, losing a job if he has one, etc.  What a twisted life.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

It will be interesting to see if they are removed from the new hymnal.

Is there any culture these days where first shooter video games are not popular?  I think of those and movies promoting violence as escapism (the vast majority of the highest grossing movies are violent), TV shows, etc.  Even classics like Lord of the Rings and Narnia have tons of war imagery in them and though they also show the tragedy, there is still the glory of the heroes.  Then there is the imagery of battle in sports…  I feel like the impact of war imagery in hymns and talks is so dwarfed by all of that…which is not to say it wouldn’t be a good idea to remove such anyway (haven’t made up my mind as I’d like to see actual evidence such has more of a negative impact than a positive one because some can be motivated to change themselves and the world for the better when they think of themselves as in a battle with injustice or even the clutter in their home, etc), just saying expecting a change to hymns to actually do anything significant to change people’s attitudes towards engaging in violent behaviour is probably unrealistic, imo.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The inventor of the Godwin Law affirmed that you can use the comparison when actual fascism is being discussed.

It's not a law imposing a penalty if violated, actually. It's a statistical predictive that asserts that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1. Hence, at that point, Godwin's Law is validated, not violated.

You can't "violate" Godwin's Law. Any more than you can violate the Law of Gravity, or the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

More information on dad. Looks like he identifies as Mormon

Hitler identified as Catholic. So does practically everyone who lives in Austria today. What of it?

My late wife's ex-husband, excommunicated for the same reasons why this guy's dad should be excommunicated, also identified as Mormon. I was there when he made this statement to our bishop: "I don't care what anyone says, I am still a Mormon!" In the meantime, he was smoking, drinking, sleeping around, attempting to sexually interfere with his own daughter and son. Sure, he identifies as Mormon. <sneer>

All this effort to try to implicate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with this heinous crime disgusts me. 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, 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.

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

All this effort to try to implicate the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with this heinous crime disgusts me. 

It may well be that the next mass shooting will carry the headline, "Shooter's childhood neighbor was Mormon and once invited him to attend church services!"

I am pretty confident that even if the Church's leaders never ever once used a violent metaphor that an individual who is on the membership roles of the Church would be used to blanket condemn the Church as an antagonizing influence that contributed to Albrecht's evil actions. Even though the facts show religious participation in the Church decreases violent proclivity among its adherents that would be deemed irrelevant (as it currently is in this very thread). If one person with even the remotest association with the Church acts badly, isn't that too much?! This thread is beyond tedious in its absurdity and those that would use this/anything as a club to beat the Church with are showing their colors particularly well.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Truth! I like what he said about LDS, he even said LDS, I think he might have connections, oops he said he has LDS friends. Sorry for the language. And if it's too political I'm sorry, he's definitely thinking far right. Also, I'm not either Dem or Republican. Sorry again, for the political slant. I just thought people might like how he's not blaming the LDS church.

 

The dad is nuts. Seems higher than a kite. But, go ahead and smear half the country…make sure you subscribe (politicizing this tragedy to get gain) and blame Republicans and Christians. I found his ‘take’ on this politicized garbage and find it disgusting he’s using it to push his very political agenda.
 

 

Link to comment

More on the dad…total messed up family but let’s blame the church and Republicans. So irresponsible and sowing hate with insane accusations of causation but it’s okay if it’s against your enemies. That’s what I’ve been getting from this thread. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11463995/Colorado-club-killers-porn-star-dad-worried-son-gay-heard-massacre.html

 

874E654D-1B88-4B21-95C3-BA63BE125865.jpeg

9F555549-075A-4847-96B7-6FFBB798A8B0.jpeg

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Truth! I like what he said about LDS, he even said LDS, I think he might have connections, oops he said he has LDS friends. Sorry for the language. And if it's too political I'm sorry, he's definitely thinking far right. Also, I'm not either Dem or Republican. Sorry again, for the political slant. I just thought people might like how he's not blaming the LDS church.

 

Wow!  That video of his father is really disgusting.  

“Your son is accused of shooting 5 people in a gay bar.”  
“Yeah, well, my son is not gay, I can tell you that!”  “I’m republican, I’m LDS, we don’t do gay!”

While watching that I had the distinct thought come to mind - “his son is gay”.  That would explain a lot.   His response is really disturbing.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
16 hours ago, 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?

Ok.  Hold on.  Wait a moment.  Full stop please.  So, folks on this thread have suggested church leaders "tone down war rhetoric".  @ttribe is calling out responses to this suggestion, saying there is anger and vitriol.

Can someone point to any post on this thread exhibiting anger and vitriol? ttribe, cite your source please. 

One thing that I know happens on occasion, is sometimes folks will look at a response they don't like, and they'll demonize it. Claiming anger and vitriol exists when it doesn't.  I'm wondering if that's happening here, or if I missed a post.  So yes, please - if someone is exhibiting anger and/or vitriol in response to the suggestion, please point it out.  I'd like to maybe add my voice to those who would seek a calmer discourse.  

Or, if no examples are forthcoming because they don't exist, then I'd call on ttribe to stop the inflammatory unproductive demonizing rhetoric.  Such things aren't helpful.

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, pogi said:

While watching that I had the distinct thought come to mind - “his son is gay”.  That would explain a lot.   His response is really disturbing.  

Everyone should watch the video, and have good hard thinks about what drug addictions and maybe awful lifestyles do to your ability to think, reason, and feel.  I don't know that dad, but I've done a little research on what meth and heroin do to people, and that dad is a textbook example of what is seen everywhere. 

In other words, you wanna keep being disturbed by folks saying such things, acting such ways, and looking like that, just look up videos of meth/heroin addicts.  You'll find it in abundance.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Everyone should watch the video, and have good hard thinks about what drug addictions and maybe awful lifestyles do to your ability to think, reason, and feel.  I don't know that dad, but I've done a little research on what meth and heroin do to people, and that dad is a textbook example of what is seen everywhere. 

In other words, you wanna keep being disturbed by folks saying such things, acting such ways, and looking like that, just look up videos of meth/heroin addicts.  You'll find it in abundance.

I don’t disagree.  It is disturbing on many levels.  

But I think you are missing my point.  Clearly they guy (on drugs or not) was intolerant of the idea of his son being gay.  How traumatic would that be to have a father like this (gay or straight), but especially if his son is gay?

It very well could explain the motive behind the shooting - which could have been based on self-loathing and hating people who remind him of what he is on the inside.   If I am right, this was the volcano that finally erupted after a life-time of self repression and loathing out of a desire to be accepted by his father.

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t disagree.  It is disturbing on many levels.  

But I think you are missing my point.  Clearly they guy (on drugs or not) was intolerant of the idea of his son being gay.  Who knows how severe this ideation was throughout his sons life, but drugs could have exacerbated it.  How traumatic would that be if his son is gay?

It very well could explain the motive behind the shooting - which could have been based on self-loathing and hating people who remind him of what he is on the inside.   If I am right, this was the volcano that finally erupted after a life-time of self repression and loathing out of a desire to be accepted by his father.

We can agree that his father and family has much to do with this. Complete dysfunction. It is implied they changed their name to disassociate from the dad. To the point the mom told the dad they had committed suicide and were dead. The dad states they called him and were angry with him. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's not a law imposing a penalty if violated, actually. It's a statistical predictive that asserts that as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1. Hence, at that point, Godwin's Law is validated, not violated.

You can't "violate" Godwin's Law. Any more than you can violate the Law of Gravity, or the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.

Yeah but it's still a 15-yard penalty for using that. If you can't make your point without bringing Hitler up you don't have a point to make.

Link to comment

I totally get the intense desire to determine the cause of the horror, so that folks can finally wake up to the presence of such causes in their communities and culture, and rid themselves of it.   I watch this intense desire play out every single time the media picks a horror to have everyone thinking and talking about.  Aldrich isn't making it easy, giving us so many things to think about.  Was it due to bein' mormon and reading about firing muskets?  Was it due to repressed gender identity and internalized homophobia that didn't manifest publicly until the lawyer started putting it on court documents?  Was it because we need more gun control?  Was it because CO red flag laws failed, or due to progressive changes to charging and sentencing?  Was it because biodad is who biodad is?  Was it because Grandpa is a MAGA republican?  

Yeah.  I already know how it'll turn out.  The way it always turns out.  Different particulars, but same overall cycle.  CO is going to give more gun control a try, and we'll see if we've got enough red in the state to stop it.  The feds will try something that sounds good but has no teeth, b/c the democrats are too weak to accomplish anything in this part of the election cycle.  The media will drop it like a smelly turd as soon as they realize it's striking a blow against the golden rule of "thou shalt respect pronouns".  The vocal right won't let that one go, but everyone else sure will, and we'll all stop thinking and talking about it two point four nanoseconds after the media drops it.  This thread and all threads like it will die about the same time.   With a little luck, we might have some good debate about gender and pronouns and whatnot, and perhaps some increased understanding and agreement on the topic.  But that's all.

 

The other thing I'm always fascinated to watch, is what media chooses to push into our national conversation, and what it doesn't.  Brutal 'assault rifle' shooting attack by a white guy on the LGBTQIA+ community that killed 5 and injured 26?  It's everywhere, in all our media.   Brutal driving attack by a black guy at the height of the ACAB/racist America/defund the police/unrest in the streets wave, that killed 6 and injured 62?  Yeah, well...

 

13FCf02.png

 

 

 

 

 

yhMvwmB.png

That blue line from the bottom chart just kills me.  Darryl Brooks got more media attention as a goofy sovereign citizen, than he did as a murderous mass killer.

 

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The talk in question was by an apostle when I worked for the church. I was quite shocked at the time, particularly that he was making fun of gay people in what apparently he thought were witty asides. It's better now than when I was younger (I'm 58), but I do think there's still a lot of hostility towards gays in the church. I certainly saw it when people here were going nuts about the drag show in Provo that was supposedly grooming children and trying to alienate students from their parents.

 

I would be interested to know if Hamba's talk was the one you were mentioning. I'm not sure if I would define it as a lot of hostility. I remember a time my cousin moved from utah to live with her gf in delaware. She had experienced problems and intolerance in UT, but found a whole new level in this part of DE that included more hostile behaviors and actions (this is an area that is known for still having a stronghold for white nationalist/KKK ideology). Her gf's father advised them not to hold hands in public for fear of being targeted and when they did she found open, hostile stares. When she moved back I talked to her about the difference between problems based more in ignorance v hate. This is part of the reason I don't label most of what I see in the church as hostility...my contrast line likely differs, particularly in the last decade. Again, this isn't denying attitudes and behaviors that veer on hostile in members. They're still there. But they're by no means the most common tone I find, which is usually some variation of "love them even if you disagree with them." This does not mean I don't find remarks uncomfortable, wrong, or frustrating. I do, have, and likely will. 

FTR, I'm not a big fan of drag. I'm not about to get my panties in a bunch about them, but I just find them weird in a way that's squirmy and/or off putting. Definitely don't fall into the "groomer" hyperbole. 

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

And the "musket fire" thing struck me as unnecessarily hostile. But that's just me.

There's a difference between having a discrepancy or argument that the wording in Holland's talk was hostile and then tying that even remotely to this mass shooting. That's what most are finding absolutely insane. Think of it this way, there are people who are not fans of nudes or partial nudes in art. They have their reasons and arguments against them. Some I could at least connect the dots, even if I disagree. But lets say one day someone had a drunken orgy in an art gallery that leads to art and gallery damage and someone after commented: see, this is why nudes in art are so morally dangerous. There's only a strained connection, there's obviously no evidence that these things have more than the mildest correlation let alone causation, and it's a terrible argument overall if not a little insulting. That's my problem with this. You can note that a talk sounds hostile or believe it's best not to have inferred violent metaphors.* That's going to have far more productive discord and a respectable argument around it. But when it starts being even remotely tied to a mass shooting that's not going to get much traction and will rightly garner heavy push back.  This shooting had nothing to do with a remote religious affiliation and everything to do we a generationally messed up family, little support and/or consistent care for serious warning signs, and easy access to guns where by any account that should have been limited. 

 

*I personally found that part far less problematic than the initial commentary that I was receiving about it. His earlier examples of a graduation speech where someone referenced being gay was more and issue to me.

 

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I haven’t read through the whole thread yet, has it already been identified that the son is lgbtq?  Apparently, I was right:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna58499

It has. It's also been pointed out that non-binary is not the same as being gay. One's about gender identity the other is about attraction. 

 

But yeah, if this is a hate crime, it's at best some form of self-hate. I'm curious if the evidence will end up somewhat like the orlando shooting, where the case for hate crime started to fall apart with greater investigation. 

 

Edit: There's reports of friends saying Aldrich had anti-gay sentiments to the point that a friend didn't want to bring any gay friends around them. So there may likely still be some anti-gay sentiment directly involved.  

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah but it's still a 15-yard penalty for using that. If you can't make your point without bringing Hitler up you don't have a point to make.

Oh, I don't know. Sometimes Hitler can be a good argument to bring up. Just ask The Nehor.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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