Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.  

Right.  Taking kids out of public school = holding up the entirety of the LGBT community as "as villains and bastions of immorality."

That makes perfect sense.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I also think Elder Holland's musket remark was not helpful.  

Here's a link to the entirety of Elder Holland's remarks.  

Back in 2018 I wrote (responding to you) :

Quote
Quote

How about a suggestion on how to move forward.  

Okay.  Let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.  That would be a good place to start.

Quote

Or should nothing change?  

A lot has changed.  Are you capable of acknowledging that?

Quote

I am really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like Reynolds think should happen.  

Again, let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

Let's stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

Let's stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

Not much has changed since then.

A reference to scholars defending the Church using "metaphorical muskets" contributed to the murder of gay people in Colorado.

Boy, a lot of unserious stuff is being said here.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

People draw conclusions believing they are dog whistles for calls they should literally act upon.

How utterly irresponsible this is.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I still have no idea why Elder Holland made such remarks given the issue with gun violence we live with in this country.  

I suspect for the same reason HappyJackWagon made remarks about "combat."

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.  

Do you have a scintilla of evidence for this?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Church leaders need to  be really careful how they address these issues.  

Indeed.  Particularly given that we have people like you and HappyJackWagon who are only too happy to step in and "interpret" what GAs say, pretty much always through reliably hostile, unfair and ugly caricatures and distortions.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think what Elder Holland said was reckless and put very badly.

HappyJackWagon referenced "combat" as a metaphor, but I suspect you have no problem with that.

Seems like using such metaphors is one of those "It's only wrong when the Mormons do it" kind of things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

OK-  I hope I never have friends who are as hostile to me as the church is to the LGBTQ community.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

What you call candid and accurate I call a "qualifier". Yeah, he's Mormon BUT (I know you like that word) not really.

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

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

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.

This too, is laughable. I merely presented both possibilities and you find that unfair.

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

There it is!

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?  Perhaps that the poster was 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...")?

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

Of course not. It's hard accepting negative truths.

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

As an example of how the church (its members and leaders) teaches, speaks, and behaves in a manner that is adversarial to the LGBTQ community. They might say things like "we love you" whilst simultaneously trying to discriminate against them for having a school club or legally being able to marry.

Funny, that.

There it is again!

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

Calling me a liar is classy. I don't really care if you believe me or not, but the truth remains that he is openly hostile to the LGBTQ community, withdrew his kids from school for the reasons I stated. He was even quoted in our most recent school board meeting by an organized group trying to get the GSA cancelled about his reasons for removing his kids. But whatever.

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

How utterly irresponsible and unserious this is.

-Smac

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

It probably depends. I have a child who while we were still believing and I expressed my friendliness towards LGBTQ people, because of the church stance that we belonged to she planned to leave at 18 and never look back.

I think that people who know their worth will see the lie that says they're not worthy, even if it's said with a smile and any other amount of friendliness.

Thankfully she didn't leave in the end. I don't know if she really would have, because we left the church before she was 18.  But that's how a healthy, lovely person in an engaged close loving family felt in her teens. 

Link to comment
13 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"?

Not as strongly phrased as 'Villians," but I do find this quote from Elder Oaks appalling on multiple levels. 

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer. I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

This is such nasty advice to give to parents, and for me is the same as treating people (loved ones) as villains. 

 

And Elder Maxwell said (also quoted by Elders Oaks and Holland): 

Quote

I would like to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning, especially on the subject of our fundamental doctrine and policies on the family. Since our members should be defenders of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as Elder Nelson taught in his [2014] BYU commencement address, we should also expect our teachers to be outspoken on that subject.20

The Church has a long history of fighting against marriage equality, possibly putting in the category of "must be stopped."

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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?  Perhaps that the poster was 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...")?

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

Disparaging your own playbook is an interesting strategy.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

OK-  I hope I never have friends who are as hostile to me as the church is to the LGBTQ community.

 

I have a handful of friends who completely disagreement with me on religious beliefs, and a couple that aren't exactly sure i'm not going to hell.  You would consider them to be hostile to me, I guess.  Oh well.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Not as strongly phrased as 'Villians," but I do find this quote from Elder Oaks appalling on multiple levels. 

This is such nasty advice to give to parents, and for me is the same as treating people (loved ones) as villains. 

 

And Elder Maxwell said (also quoted by Elders Oaks and Holland): 

The Church has a long history of fighting against marriage equality, possibly putting in the category of "must be stopped."

We actually had a really good discussion about that decades old quote a few weeks ago.  All of my thoughts on it can be found in that thread.  :) 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have a handful of friends who completely disagreement with me on religious beliefs, and a couple that aren't exactly sure i'm not going to hell.  You would consider them to be hostile to me, I guess.  Oh well.

I would consider them hostile to you if they actively did things to exclude you from participation. For example, as a Bishop I attempted to get involved in our local Ministerial Alliance but wasn't allowed because of my religion. They expressed appreciation for the good things we did BUT wouldn't allow me to participate because it would signal to other Christians that we were acceptable. I had one minister say that he didn't mind if I participated but not if I ever prayed. He thought he was being supportive but still discriminated.

So if your friends actively tried to prohibit you from legally marrying, then yes, that would seem hostile. If they prevented you from joining a club or even starting a legal club because of your beliefs then yes, that would be hostile.

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

What you call candid and accurate I call a "qualifier". Yeah, he's Mormon BUT (I know you like that word) not really.

Do you object to "qualifying," say, the homosexuality of Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, and Jeffrey Dahmer?

Would it be fair to, when discussing their murderous proclivities, draw specific attention to their being part of the LGBT community, and then strongly imply that their being gay was a causal element in their behaviors?  AFAF.

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

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

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.

This too, is laughable. I merely presented both possibilities and you find that unfair.

Right.  "Merely."

"I merely presented the possibility that Jews murder Christian boys and ritually exploit their blood, and you find that unfair."

Yep, nothing wrong with that

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

There it is!

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?  Perhaps that the poster was 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...")?

No comment, eh?

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Of course not. It's hard accepting negative truths.

You are one of the most virulently anti-Mormon people on this board.  Relying on you to fairly characterize us is, to quote a guy, "laughable."

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Calling me a liar is classy.

I'm not calling you a liar.  As noted above, you are consistently and pervasively anti-Mormon.  I simply don't trust the glosses, embellishments, characterizations, etc. you provide when describing the Church and its members.

You and yours regularly presume to step in and explain what the Latter-day Saints say, what they mean, and so on.  And you do so pretty much always by casting us in the worst possible light, assuming the worst about us, imputing onto us the worst possible motives, adding slants and glosses and distortions.

You are not a trustworthy source of information as to what the Latter-day Saints are doing and saying, what their motives are, and so on.

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't really care if you believe me or not, but the truth remains that he is openly hostile to the LGBTQ community, withdrew his kids from school for the reasons I stated.

He's not here.  And the only one describing him is you.  And you are intractably hostile toward his religious beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

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

I would consider them hostile to you if they actively did things to exclude you from participation. For example, as a Bishop I attempted to get involved in our local Ministerial Alliance but wasn't allowed because of my religion. They expressed appreciation for the good things we did BUT wouldn't allow me to participate because it would signal to other Christians that we were acceptable.

So they "expressed appreciation" but were nevertheless "hostile."

Weird.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I had one minister say that he didn't mind if I participated but not if I ever prayed. He thought he was being supportive but still discriminated.

Perhaps some day you will be able to accommodate the possibility that people of good will can and do reasonably disagree about things, including important things.

And hopefully that accommodation will enable you to refrain from assigning horrible motives to people who do not agree with you, or who fail to capitulate to your worldview.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if your friends actively tried to prohibit you from legally marrying, then yes, that would seem hostile.

As I understand it, "African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8.  Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8." 

I don't recall you going around and saying all sorts of ugly and vicious things to disparage and vilify that community.

Seems like you reserve your venom for the Latter-day Saints.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If they prevented you from joining a club or even starting a legal club because of your beliefs then yes, that would be hostile.

Oh, brother.

Political disagreement = "hostility."

Disagreement about sexual ethics = "hostility."

-Smac

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We actually had a really good discussion about that decades old quote a few weeks ago.  All of my thoughts on it can be found in that thread.  :) 

I am not sure why a quote from the #2, future prophet, can be overlooked because it was stated 18 years ago? I will look for the thread with your thoughts though. If my family ever treated me or my children the way Elder Oaks said to, that is grounds for excommunicating them out of my life. It is an awful thing to say. Based on history and current sentiments i hear passed around the membership of the Church, it is actually quite sad that Elder Oaks would probably be more ok if a child had 2,3,10 wives than if a child found the love of their life in a same sex relationship. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, "African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8.  Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8." 

I don't recall you going around and saying all sorts of ugly and vicious things to disparage and vilify that community.

Seems like you reserve your venom for the Latter-day Saints.

wait, are you comparing a religious organization to racial demographic?!? When not throw in arabs, muslims and Chinese to pad your numbers. 

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Disparaging your own playbook is an interesting strategy.

I have never attributed murderous proclivities being causally linked to membership in the LGBT community.

In contrast, that is pretty much what HJW is saying about the Colorado shooter and his membership in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:
Quote

As I understand it, "African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8.  Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8." 

I don't recall you going around and saying all sorts of ugly and vicious things to disparage and vilify that community.

Seems like you reserve your venom for the Latter-day Saints.

wait, are you comparing a religious organization to racial demographic?!?

Wait, are you saying there is no such thing as a "black community?"

14 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

When not throw in arabs, muslims and Chinese to pad your numbers. 

I don't follow.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

I am not sure why a quote from the #2, future prophet, can be overlooked because it was stated 18 years ago? I will look for the thread with your thoughts though. If my family ever treated me or my children the way Elder Oaks said to, that is grounds for excommunicating them out of my life. It is an awful thing to say. Based on history and current sentiments i hear passed around the membership of the Church, it is actually quite sad that Elder Oaks would probably be more ok if a child had 2,3,10 wives than if a child found the love of their life in a same sex relationship. 

I don't think we can take that one quote from Elder Oaks alone.  He has said other things on about the lgtbq community as well, and I think they all need to be taken together.  I would not be surprised if his views have changed somewhat.

But yes, the other thread goes through it all.

Link to comment
2 hours 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"?

The musket talk is exhibit number one.  And no there was not the words you put in quotes above but it did state promote the idea that a line must be drawn and it was focused on LBGTQ issues and BYU etc using the metaphorical musket example.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would consider them hostile to you if they actively did things to exclude you from participation. For example, as a Bishop I attempted to get involved in our local Ministerial Alliance but wasn't allowed because of my religion. They expressed appreciation for the good things we did BUT wouldn't allow me to participate because it would signal to other Christians that we were acceptable. I had one minister say that he didn't mind if I participated but not if I ever prayed. He thought he was being supportive but still discriminated.

So if your friends actively tried to prohibit you from legally marrying, then yes, that would seem hostile. If they prevented you from joining a club or even starting a legal club because of your beliefs then yes, that would be hostile.

 

I would not consider those people/group as being hostile to you either.  They disagreed with some of your beliefs and they didn't accept you in full fellowship within that group, but that alone isn't "hostile" or adversarial from my perspective. 

I think this exchange helps me to understand your views on the church better, as you seem to see hostility in others much more easily than I do, and you seem to assign hostile motives to others when I would not assign the same, and when hostility might not be a motive at all.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The musket talk is exhibit number one.  And no there was not the words you put in quotes above but it did state promote the idea that a line must be drawn and it was focused on LBGTQ issues and BYU etc using the metaphorical musket example.

We'll have to emphatically agree to disagree on that.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Wait, are you saying there is no such thing as a "black community?"

How is it an equivalent to say compare Latter-day Saints to black community? a religion has doctrine, dogma that clearly define it. The 'black community" is made up of all types of beliefs and religions. Your argument is that the black community should be held to the same standard/scrutiny as a religion? 

 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As I understand it, "African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8.  Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8." 

I don't recall you going around and saying all sorts of ugly and vicious things to disparage and vilify that community.

Seems like you reserve your venom for the Latter-day Saints.

Original Study: https://www.issuelab.org/resources/8510/8510.pdf

Quote

From: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Black-support-for-Prop-8-called-exaggeration-3177138.php

Reports of overwhelming African American support for Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage were exaggerated in exit polls, a new look at the November election results has found.

"Party identification, age, religiosity and political view had much bigger effects than race, gender or having gay and lesbian family and friends," said Patrick Egan of New York University, who wrote the report with Kenneth Sherrill of Hunter College of New York for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

...

"The study debunks the myth that African Americans overwhelmingly and disproportionately supported Proposition 8," Andrea Shorter, director of And Marriage for All, said in a statement. "But we clearly have work to do with, within and for African American communities, particularly the black church."

Religious voters were among the leaders in the pro-Prop. 8 efforts, with 70 percent of weekly churchgoers backing the same-sex marriage ban. Among voters who hardly ever attended religious services, only 30 percent voted for Prop. 8.

Churches/religions were the driving force behind the Prop 8 vote, not the black or hispanic communities. It just so happens that those two communities tend to be more religious than the white community. Racial communities did not sway the vote, religion and politics were the main drivers, hence the protests against the churches that openly, actively, and financially supported Prop 8. 

If there were organizations/groups within the "black community" actively campaigned in support of 8, then the treatment of those organizations could be compared to the way the Church was treated. 

 

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   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...