Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Can we at least agree that some church leaders’ rhetoric has not been helpful?

Certainly.

Can we also agree that hostile, tendentious "Here, let me explain what the Mormons really think..."-style claims from the Church's most ardent critics and opponents have also "not been helpful?"

I am reminded of Krister Stendahl's "Three Rules of Religious Understanding," summarized here:

Quote

Stendahl is credited with creating Stendahl's three rules of religious understanding, which he presented in a 1985 press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, in response to vocal opposition to the building of a temple there by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[9] His rules are as follows:

  1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
  2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
  3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Can we agree that people with divergent perspectives should generally A) espouse their position, and B) refrain from presuming to speak on behalf of divergent perspectives ("you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies")?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/22/us/colorado-suspect-background-aldrich-invs/index.html
 

Father drug dealer and porn actor, mother arrested for intoxication and arson and appears to have had another child out of wedlock.  Not the best examples of any community and quite the antithesis of Latter-day Saint cultural and doctrinal standards, though perhaps mom has turned her life around recently…or maybe she is on LDS sites to scam (she was asking for a fan to be donated for her son, could have been an attempt to connect with a kind hearted and naive Saint).  Otoh, maybe his grandparents had more of a hand in raising him.  Either way, I don’t think we have even close to enough info to determine how much of an impact church teachings might have had on him.

If we went that route though, it would make more sense to claim inactive Mormons were a more likely community of influence since he matches that pattern getter….but my guess is no one is going to claim rhetoric that is common on online exmo/postmo groups could have influenced him to attack anyone, not his mom, not classmates, not online bullies, not LGBTQs.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

It is cowardice to publicly malign the Latter-day Saints for voting in large numbers in support of Prop 8, but saying nothing at all about the similarly significant numbers in the Black community who did the same thing.  The cowardice arises because, well, slandering the 70% of Black voters as bigots because they disagreed with re-defining marriage is a nonstarter, whereas publicly disparaging the Latter-day Saints for the same thing is just hunky dory.

The mindreading is likewise repulsive.  To disagree with SSM is to be a bigot.  To not want to re-define marriage is to hate gay people.  I think . . . not.

Black and Hispanic communities backed Prop 8 by margins of 70% and 53%, respectively.

But nobody, either back then or now, deride those communities as hateful bigots because of how they chose to vote.

Prop 8 was a "complex" matter:

None of this matters, though, for those intent on branding the Latter-day Saints as intolerant haters.

It also "just so happens" that people of a particular ilk (some in this thread) are unlikely to brand "those two communities" as bigots because large portions of them voted for Prop 8.  This is because A) there is substantial moral cowardice in play, B) doing so would expose the fatuousness inherent in the exercise, or C) both.

This is revisionist nonsense.  Blacks comprise about 6.5% of Californians, and Hispanics represent 39%, for a total of 45.5% of California.  Significant portions of both of these communities voted for Prop 8.

Hence the moral cowardice, both then and now.  Many largely black churches supported Prop. 8, but I don't seem to recall Black churches being confronted by screaming mobs (such as we saw banging at the gates of the Los Angeles Temple).  

I also don't recall Catholic churches in predominantly Hispanic areas of California being targeted for "protests."

"If?"  Do you serious dispute that this?

Malarky.  The comparison holds, because the treatment was, and remains, disparate.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Probably the biggest thing that really bothered me about the Church going all in on Prop 8 was that they were actively working to take away the civil rights of gay citizens.  The second thing that bothered me a lot is the distortion of information that campaign used to try and scare people into supporting it.  

Since the aftermath of Prop 8, those civil rights have been affirmed and restored by the Supreme Court.  But what still goes on is the complete distortion of facts that members of the Church STILL ENGAGE in.  It is like you justify your statements as being ok because you are distorting truth for God or something.

This is not the first post we have had on Prop 8, but as you have done in past threads, you try and equate the black (religious) community as somehow equal to what the Church did in passing Prop 8.  As if by disparaging that community, yours doesn't look so bad.  

Let me be perfectly clear.  NO ONE has ever resented or even implied that the reaction against the Church and the hard feelings those that support the rights of the LGBT community against the Mormon Church was about the way members VOTED.  That has never been the issue.  And you have had that explained to you over and over again.  It is pretty clear by now that you still want to deceive people into believing that the Church supported Prop 8 just like the black religious community.  THAT IS FALSE.  CFR anyone has ever said that the LGBT community ever complained about how members of the Church VOTED.

You know darn well the the whole objection to what members of the Mormon Church did was about the 20 million dollars (more than half of the entire money for this campaign) raised to support the Prop 8 campaign.  It was about providing 70% of the manpower in the campaign.  It was about setting up phone banks in Utah, Idaho and other places on a proposition that was in California.  It was about using it's chapels to broadcast and coordinate efforts to pass Prop 8.  It was about the Church not being truthful about all it donated directly to their efforts to get Prop 8 passed until they were investigated.  

Stop using the black community to somehow make just voting for the proposition as the issue.  How many times are you going to trot out this comparison when you know darn well THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the bone of contention being gnawed on in this thread is the accusation that the Church incited this mass shooting, and/or that it promotes or condones hatred of homosexuals.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

Except no one has ever accused the Church of inciting this mass shooting in this thread.  Since you are claiming that there have been those accusing the Church of inciting this mass shooting, CFR just who you are referring to.

The whole discussion started when BlueBell asked  for examples of the church disparaging the LGBT community.  Those that responded to her question were raked through the coals and disparaged for providing answers to her request.  

Quote

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

 

 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

It would be both absurd and impolitic to publicly denigrate the black community as bigots - as you so regularly do when speaking of the Church - because 70% of them voted in favor of Prop 8.

But there's no downside to slurring the Latter-day Saints, I guess.  Even worse, you claim some sort of privilege to do so because you were previously "affiliated" with us.

You are utterly and completely bonkers.

You really see no distinction between an ethnicity you are born into that has no specific ideology or leadership or institution and voluntarily belonging to an institutional church that has both? You can blame black people as a collective group for what some of the members of the group did? It is equivalent to belonging to a church or a political party or a terrorist organzation? All are equally culpable for the actions of the institution? Even though ethnicities don’t have institutions they all adhere to?

This belief would make you a racist. Literally. It is tying beliefs to an ethnicity as if they all voluntarily chose it and are culpable for it.

This might be mitigated a bit by knowledge that you don’t actually mean what you are saying. You are parroting the words of vile racists that have been thrown around since the days of the KKK. It is a rhetorical device to try to make people ashamed: How dare you pick on an institution that people voluntarily join? Isn’t this non-homogenous ethnicity equally culpable due to being born into an ethnicity which has a lot of people who think this way? Shouldn’t you say black people in general are equally to blame if you are going to say the Church is? Do you realize how deceitful and vile this comparison is?

Stop repeating the racist arguments of racists.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find your posture here reprehensible.

LOL

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except no one has ever accused the Church of inciting this mass shooting in this thread.  Since you are claiming that there have been those accusing the Church of inciting this mass shooting, CFR just who you are referring to.

The whole discussion started when BlueBell asked  for examples of the church disparaging the LGBT community.  Those that responded to her question were raked through the coals and disparaged for providing answers to her request.  

 

 

 

Well now there’s a whole new wrinkle to this tragic story that will need to be factored into this discussion. It’s now being reported that the Colorado shooter’s attorneys are saying he identifies as “non-binary,” which I’m surmising means that he’s gay. Here’s one of the many articles that address the non-binary issue…

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-springs-lgbtq-club-shooting-suspect-identifying-non-binary-court-documents/

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Non-binary does not mean gay. It means they do not define themselves as a man or a woman or (sometimes) that they shift between the two or identify at some midpoint. Some have medical procedures done like a transgender person does. Most do not. Most people who seek gender-affirming care are not non-binary.

It does fall under the LGBT community. Originally it was lumped under the B as the bisexual community as many (though not all) identify as bisexual or one of its subtypes. Some are more comfortable in the transgender community.

At any rate, it now appears the attack was carried out by someone who embraced the LGBT community and lifestyle, not by someone who was hostile to that community. It’s interesting how the weird drug addicted nudist who attacked Paul Pelosi and the non-binary Colorado nightclub shooter are being portrayed in the mainstream media as ridged conservative Christian moralists.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

They sound more like the common profile of young men at risk for violent crimes. Red flag laws really needed to be used for this one. If I had to take a shot in the dark I’d bet the grandparents were one of the very few consistent people in his life, which is why he freaked out when they were going to move. 
 

with luv, 

BD

That is why it makes no sense to me to make it about them belonging to a relatively global community (whether Saints or exmormons), when they really fit into a much more exclusive group (in this case young men at risk for violent crimes).  
 

I was thinking the same thing about the grandparents or at least the grandmother (her husband is step grandparent, I believe, as I am pretty sure this is the mom’s mom); they had always lived nearby, they were likely Aldrich’s refuge/safe place.  
 

I feel sorry for this man.  No father in their life, both parents have significant substance abuse backgrounds.  There might even be a chance their mother drank while pregnant or used drugs setting them up physically and mentally with issues, feeling different, a target of bullying as a teen.  Mom having custody but unlikely to be giving an healthy childhood. Doesn’t mean they aren’t accountable and I am much more sorry for their victims and their families, but Aldrich’s life looks like a tragedy from its beginnings till now and likely will continue to be since I don’t hold out much hope the prison system will get them the help they need.

I wonder what happened to their sibling.

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

Non-binary does not mean gay. It means they do not define themselves as a man or a woman or (sometimes) that they shift between the two or identify at some midpoint. Some have medical procedures done like a transgender person does. Most do not. Most people who seek gender-affirming care are not non-binary.

It does fall under the LGBT community. Originally it was lumped under the B as the bisexual community as many (though not all) identify as bisexual or one of its subtypes. Some are more comfortable in the transgender community.

My daughter used to identify as bisexual and queer, now as she has thought about her actual experience and studied how gender is talked about, she uses primarily queer meaning she does not identify as having a categorized gender nor is she attracted to only one gender while still recognizing herself as a sexual being.  She rejects binary categorizing.  Since she defines transgender as more “beyond gender” than transitioning in some fashion from an assigned gender to an identity gender, she would likely be comfortable with that label too…I can’t remember though if she specifically said that or not…and there may be nuances I am missing.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Saturday night my wife, my son, and I volunteered at a Thanksgiving dinner at our local LGBT center. Other than the drag queen who was the MC, it reminded me of a ward Christmas party, though the music was better than what I remember from my Mormon days. 

There was a black family there to support their gay son, and his two younger siblings (probably 10 and 12 or so) seemed to be having a good time. The entertainment director from the gay bar next door was there with his wife and two young children (he had an amazing singing voice). There were young guys, transgender young adults, and a few people my age. 

In short, we had fun, and I got a kick out of the MC calling me sweetie and honey and sugar all night. But more importantly, it felt good doing something to let people know they are loved and accepted. 

The next morning we awoke to the news from Colorado, and my wife and I both thought it could just as easily have been our little party that was targeted. According to some sick people, what we attended was a “grooming event,” and therefore we were complicit in child abuse. Tonight Tucker Carlson had a guest on who warned that these kinds of targeted killings will continue until our country stops this “evil agenda” of corrupting our kids. 

Does it matter that the killer is LDS? Not when the kind of hatred that led to this attack is continuously promoted among some corners of our society and media. Enough is enough. Gay and transgender people exist and deserve to be treated as human beings.

What a lovely evening and of course a very alarming realization too that such an event could have been targeted.

I agree with you that his LDS status is of lesser importance given the tensions in the overall culture. And I would say that such toxic contention will increase in some ways while the economic health of the general public worsens.

That said, and even whether the shooting in Colorado Springs happened or not, the church should avoid rhetoric or policies which contribute to contentiousness. It's supposed to be a force for good in the world.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's supposed to be a force for good in the world.

Do you feel the same way about political or other advocacy groups?  Isn’t standing up for good part of being a force for good?  And standing up for something important generally creates contention because if it didn’t, there would be no need to stand up for it. 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I figured it might...let me see if I can try to explain.

Discrimination can have a negative impact on the discriminated parties. Discrimination that is aggressive or adversarial particularly does. But I've learned from witnessing discrimination that quite often it doesn't have a directly aggressive or hostile quality to them. It's just prejudices, delineation, beliefs, etc that inform their experiences and their outlooks. They're also near universal. Just about everybody has prejudices and biases that inform their beliefs and behaviors. Basically everyone discriminates to some degree. Threads like this tend to put those on full display. 

I find myself thinking about your first line especially. My dating and single life keep popping up. I knew that there were dating biases in a nameless white population that was effecting who was available for me to date. The evidence was in the population I would match with on dating sites (disproportionately POC. Basically if they were brown, I almost always matched....white, not so much). It's found in studies too. The intent to these actions I knew would be largely innocuous. Ranging from attraction based on a long life of dating and seeing people of their same race as measurements for attractions to assumptions of how well we'd "connect" to picturing what their family would think, etc. This annoyed me, sure. And it likely reduced my dating pool. But a personal negative effect didn't equal intent towards aggression or hostility. And If I were being honest, I'd prefer not to date people who likely had racial reasons to avoid dating me. I don't want to be with a person that I had to prove I was worth their time. I've had similar non-hostile forms of discrimination happen with religion, race, sex, age, and marital status. All have a similar flavor to me...annoying, sometimes shocking, but not threatening. 

Hostile discrimination  has more of a threatening vibe to me. It's the difference between discrimination based on ignorance or conflicting values and one based on some degree of hatred. It's the difference between allowing some degree of tolerance verses trying to control, repress, and eliminate voices and people from certain spheres. It's the difference between flexibility to change some assumptions and approaches v seeing any form of change as a threat. In my dating example, it would be the difference between a person swiping down v to hypothetically harassing me through DM or making a petition to get rid of xyz people on open apps. I'm very happy to have experienced hostility or adversarial discrimination directly far less (though not entirely removed unfortunately). This also has far more propensity to actively harm and minoritize another and it's far harder to change or find tolerant middle grounds with, since middle grounds aren't what people are seeking when they're hostile.  

 

Hopefully that helps clarify

With luv,

BD

Thank you for this post. You make many great points.

I agree that everyone has bias, sometimes known but often not. In some cases those bias' can lead to overt discrimination with malice but often it is merely acted upon as a personal preference. Regarding the dating pool you mention, I would agree that personal bias definitely would play into a person swiping or not, but I would see a major difference between someone not pursuing a dating partner who doesn't match their personal preference/bias by failing to swipe versus someone who said something like "I would never date a POC" or even worse say something like "that would be gross."

I only mention that last phrase because that's exactly what someone said to me recently. After the school board meeting one of the anti-GSA women came up to me to complain about how discriminatory the GSA was. She argued that it only allowed for one type of person (which I found funny but didn't respond to). She then talked about how her daughter had been treated very badly by a lesbian at school. The daughter had told the lesbian that gay relationships were gross...disgusting. The lesbian then called the girl homophobic. So the mother took offence that the daughter was called homophobic but thought there was no problem with telling the lesbian she was gross and disgusting. I doubt this mother would have reacted well if someone had said her relationship was gross/disgusting.

So in this example I see people who don't want to participate in the GSA as a personal choice. No problem at all. You don't want to be a part or can't be supportive, then don't be. I have no problem with that. But if you then take that personal preference/bias and try to stop others from participating, essentially forcing your bias onto them, it becomes discrimination.  When they write letters to the editor and regularly show up at school board meetings in an attempt to get it shut down, that is discrimination. IMO- this is the line the church has crossed repeatedly and consistently for MANY years with regard to marriage equality. The church doesn't want to support it, fine. Leaders can make that choice not to participate BUT when they actively try to block others from participating then they become hostile and discriminatory.

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you feel the same way about political or other advocacy groups?  Isn’t standing up for good part of being a force for good?  And standing up for something important generally creates contention because if it didn’t, there would be no need to stand up for it. 

Sure, I do feel similarly about lots of other institutions. My expectations can vary depending on their resources and stated purpose but overall I do feel similarly.

Taking a stand is not the same as injecting contentious language. Or policy. America has a chronic problematic relationship with firearms, so language using firearms as emblematic in a positive way is foolish and reckless. And America is meant to be a place for religious freedom, not for imposing religious beliefs on others, which is what the church has done in it's historic fight against gay marriage and gay rights.  But finally, people can be LGBTQ and good, full stop. They just are, and these from any group. They are born into the church and the church inevitably then ends up creating conflict for them. In the end, that's the fundamental problem with the church's stand: it creates conflict for a people who are doing nothing wrong and who are not wrong.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suppose I should be gratified that you seem to be somewhat walking back the abhorrent insinuations you have leveled against us.  It's an improvement on your comments last year, when you

  • accused Elder Holland of using a "violent metaphor" about "muskets,"
    • Of course it's metaphor- Would you prefer that I treat it as a literal call to violence? No. It's a metaphor. A violent one.
  • declared that Elder Holland's "musket metaphor implies that members should be 'willing to defend the faith' with violence,"
    • When combined with other talks and teachings that glorify violence as righteous, then yes it could be understood that way.
  • declared that "Holland is appealing to people to defend the religion by talking about muskets and musket fire," that "Perhaps you think they are mis-hearing/reading Holland by enthusiastically wanting to defend their religion with violence (even if hyperbolic) but they really aren't,"
    • Think of the political climate from a year ago. Think about the violent rhetoric from some politicians. Think of the violence perpetrated by some people as they followed their politicians. Those politicians claimed they were only speaking metaphorically yet some people took their words to violence. Leaders should be aware of how their words could incite others. And it is during this general period that Holland talks about "musket fire". At the very least HORRIBLE timing for a violent metaphor.
  • that - referencing Elder Holland - "it is immoral to incite people to violence,
    • Yes- I stand by that. It is immoral to incite people to violence.
    • Even when people claim they had nothing to do with the incitement to violence because their language was only metaphor, they still hold some responsibility for their poorly chosen words.
  • that - referencing Elder Holland - "I'm also opposed to politicians (on any side) urging people to violent action, even if it is hyperbole. IMO it is classless for politicians to do it. But it is even worse for a 'man of God' to do it {incite violence}", 
    • Yep- 100% stand by that statement. It is bad for politicians but even worse for a "man of God"
  • that you "just prefer that the church and its leaders stop harming the LGBTQ community by enflaming the DezNat types (of which there seem to be plenty in the church) with dog whistles of 'musket fire,'"
    •  Yes- that would be fantastic!
  • that Elder Holland was actually telling BYU professors to "Do whatever it takes to defend the faith, even with musket fire if necessary," 
    • By definition the metaphor is symbolic, but I DO believe Holland was telling BYU professors to do whatever it takes. I don't think he meant that they should literally cause violence. I sure hope not. But it wouldn't be the first time a prophet or apostle used violent language to incite people to action. Does anyone remember the Danites and Mountain Meadows? 

And on and on and one.  And that's just from one thread.

By all means, HJW, please continue to lecture us about the dangers of irresponsible and provocative rhetoric.

Thank you. I plan to.

-Smac

Wow- you went back to a post from a year ago to try (unsuccessfully) to make your point. You must have quite a bit of free time on your hands.

The first part of your comment isn't worth responding to but this portion- All of those things listed are true and apparently very well stated by me...a year ago.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Calm said:

Do we have evidence outside of anecdotal that hostility and violence against gays is higher among Saints in general?  That the negative comments are outweigh in influence calls for tolerance and love?  Individual examples are poor evidence because there are too many variables involved to demonstrate causation.  I think it likely with our teachings there could be a tendency where it is more difficult for members to connect with LGBTQ individuals and organizations/communities, which might possibly lead to hostility as no one likes feeling awkward around others and some respond to that with aggression, but we also have massive teachings about loving others which seems likely to significantly suppress levels of violent reaction even if there is a possibility that such may not always promote healthy expressions of love (would like to see studies on more intimate relationships, but Saints typically measure as liking others outside their religion more than most religious groups even though we rate lower on being accepted ourselves, iirc…I can find the research if wanted, pretty sure it has been discussed here before so assuming people are aware of this), but seem likely to at least shift behaviour away from violent reactions.  If in general Saints are more positive to others than the general population, then I think it fair to ask for evidence beyond anecdotal accounts that Saints are more hostile to a particular group than the general population.  Too often anecdotal is used as if it can prove an isolated behaviour when there are a host of influences interacting in complicated ways for each individual, so saying one cause is significant needs more than just being present in a person’s environment.

 

For example, for the shooter being discussed in this thread…potential influences….the grandfather appears to have held some racist views in the past and his reactions to outsiders of his in group are off, but those seem unlikely to have come from the Church (calling local Vietnamese “Viet Cong” and seeing even sending his signature to a Chinese citizen as aiding and abetting the enemy, church teachings would be more likely to suggest sending the guy a Book of Mormon).  Such attitudes might have come from his experiences in Vietnam (he is a vet of that war from what I have read). We also have the mother who apparently has a criminal background including arson while the Church strongly teaches members to be law abiding.  Unhealthy individual and family dynamics (his response to his grandparents moving was an extreme fear and anger of abandonment resulting in a violence/bomb threat) are suggested as high contributors to his behaviour.  How in the world can we tease out church influence from all that family and mental health issue noise?

If anyone wants to claim church culture leads to increased violence in general or in particular towards a certain group or even just hostility, then it seems only fair that they pull up something besides individual examples.  A handful or even a dozen or couple of dozen examples in a church of millions is not likely a significant statistic.  I can see why such anecdotes may raise concerns and that could and should imo be useful in promoting research into determining if incidences of hate and violence are higher among church members, but to simply assume based on a few examples is irresponsible. Such undocumented criticisms may even lead to promoting inappropriate intolerance and hostility themselves, though I would never claim that as if a surety without seeing research that demonstrated that even though I have seen what appears to be connections between the two in my personal life.  It is, however, a concern of mine.

I agree that there are many variables that play into the development of a person's personal beliefs. Religion, family, and politics would be major factors IMO.

Yes we have teachings about love and acceptance but there is also a culture of worthiness and righteous judgement. I think individuals will lean more heavily into certain teachings. And yes, family and politics could influence how a person leans into religious teachings. I am not aware of a study that compares LDS views/acceptance of LGBTQ with other Christian or non-Christian faiths. However, there are certainly some faiths that seem to be more accepting than LDS. But I'm not sure if a comparison would be useful. For example, if a study happend to show that amongst LDS members they had a 35-40% view that was negative or very negative against LGBTQ people while another church showed that they were 50-55% negative/very negative I still don't think the 35-40% would be something to be excited about or acceptable.

I agree that there has been a shift away from violent reactions in the church. For example, had Brigham Young talked about musket fire I think membership as a whole would have taken it much more literally than when Holland says it. Holland gets benefit of the doubt that it was metaphorical in today's culture, but that doesn't absolve him of any responsibility for using a violent metaphor. Some people may still take it badly. IMO it's time to get rid of violent metaphors and stories that glorify violence.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Calm said:

My problem is you are considering the metaphors and stories in isolation and therefore assigning them as a potential primary cause while ignoring the fact that such metaphors and stories are few in comparison to teachings and stories about love, including loving one’s enemies and there is no research that shows such teachings increase violence.

If the Church heavily pushes love, forgiveness, and kindness (to the point we get at times complaints about being too nice to those we shouldn’t be, such as not sharing info about or automatically excommunicating those who have defrauded other Saints because we don’t want to create an environment that makes it hard for them to repent, for example), why is it that you believe the metaphors and stories of violence could be the biggest potential influence on some individuals in the Church?  Is it not as likely the violent predilection is there already and the individual will latch on to anything to justify their choice of violence whether or not the example they chose really does?  If someone believes voices are telling them to kill someone, do we blame the voices for inciting violence or assume there is mental disturbance causing the person to believe they are being incited?  If a person latches on to something someone has actually said as justification, should we automatically assume that justification is valid when we wouldn’t accept it if it was an imagined voice?  Wouldn’t a better course be to look at what is being used as justification and seeing if it was connected with other examples of violent behaviour?  And then to study if such connections were statistically significant?

If someone uses a good principle, one we highly value, for a bad act (someone goes around insulting people claiming they believe in absolute honesty, for example), do we blame the principle or assume the issue is the person (if the person does not also say obviously positive things about all those they are insulting, it seems unlikely honesty is actually contributing all that much to their behaviour even if used as justification)?  Is it therefore appropriate to hold a different standard and to just assume that a principle we disagree with is the cause of extreme, violent behaviour in someone or would it be the more reasonable, consistent position to see if the principle was actually connected with extreme, violent behaviour in a statistically significant group of followers of such principle before drawing conclusions about cause and effect?

I don't think I ever said that it was the "biggest potential influence". However, people are different. What strikes a chord with you may not be as compelling to me. But when you talk about violent stories and metaphors as being a small portion, you are likely right. But I would wager that a young man or boy sitting in church is very likely to remember the stories of Nephi beheading Laban and Teancum slaying Amalackiah. Or the 2000 stripling warriors. And we can't forget about all of the "War chapters" in the BoM. A lot of time has been spent in studying and teaching those in application to our day. So are "SOME" members likely to be influenced towards the negative or violent? I think so. I think it would be foolish to claim that NONE are. 

Like I said in my first post on this thread, maybe church teachings had nothing to do with this particular shooter's motivations. I doubt we will ever know with any certainty. But maybe there was some influence from his upbringing. That could include church, politics, family, friends etc. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Well now there’s a whole new wrinkle to this tragic story that will need to be factored into this discussion. It’s now being reported that the Colorado shooter’s attorneys are saying he identifies as “non-binary,” which I’m surmising means that he’s gay. Here’s one of the many articles that address the non-binary issue…

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-springs-lgbtq-club-shooting-suspect-identifying-non-binary-court-documents/

How does that add a new wrinkle to this tragic story.  We have seen some of the most homophobic bigoted politicians rail against the gay community and champion anti gay legislation only to find out they are gay.  We have seen religious leaders with huge influence who use anti gay hatred to fuel their ministries turn out to be gay.  It has almost become a cliche that the most anti gay bigots are probably gay.  We have seen the outraged anti abortionists turn out to have paid for multiple abortions of their own babies.

Religion and/or attitudes within our society can lead a person down a path that they end up hating who they are to the point where they commit heinous acts of violence.  

Is this the case here?  I don't think any one knows at this point.  But just because someone is gay does not mean they are not homophobic bigots.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Holland gets benefit of the doubt that it was metaphorical in today's culture

He only gets the benefit of the doubt that it was metaphorical even though he identified it as a metaphor in his talk?  You are a tough crowd…

Out of curiosity do you let your kids play any video games that involve fighting or conquest?  Do you avoid superhero, westerns, and war shows?  Boxing, football, etc? Just wondering how far you take your concern for promotion of violent behaviour.

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

Non-binary does not mean gay. It means they do not define themselves as a man or a woman or (sometimes) that they shift between the two or identify at some midpoint. Some have medical procedures done like a transgender person does. Most do not. Most people who seek gender-affirming care are not non-binary.

It does fall under the LGBT community. Originally it was lumped under the B as the bisexual community as many (though not all) identify as bisexual or one of its subtypes. Some are more comfortable in the transgender community.

And because of his being non-binary, could that have caused inner angst and made him lash out like that, and thinking he's pleasing his grandfather who is in the group of people that don't approve of LGBTQ+ lifestyle or choices to live their true selves? Of course this is all conjecture. And he may be just like all the other shooters that fit his profile.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What a lovely evening and of course a very alarming realization too that such an event could have been targeted.

I agree with you that his LDS status is of lesser importance given the tensions in the overall culture. And I would say that such toxic contention will increase in some ways while the economic health of the general public worsens.

That said, and even whether the shooting in Colorado Springs happened or not, the church should avoid rhetoric or policies which contribute to contentiousness. It's supposed to be a force for good in the world.

I noticed Pres Oaks left the rhetoric out thankfully this past conference, and Pres Nelson if I recall.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

HJW heavily implied that.  And he has previously explicitly accused Elder Holland of "incit{ing} people to violence."  Many times over.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

NO, you assumed. It is a habit you have of assuming the worst and then taking that kernel and popping a whole bag of popcorn out of your assumption.  

This is what HJW actually said in the link you quoted.

Quote

 

I didn't claim that Hollands talk caused the perp to shoot up the club.  Holland's talk was used as an example of how church leaders have used violent metaphor and stories in teachings.

Another assumption you made.  Which actually proves the point he was making.  Elder Holland did in fact use a violent metaphor and you assumed that he actually called for violence.  This is exactly why violent metaphors are so dangerous to use.  It was reckless for Elder Holland to use such a metaphor in this day and age where gun violence is so common and such a plague on this country. Even you believed HJW explicitly said Elder Holland called for violence when he actually said no such thing.

 

Where is the answer to the CFR that the gay community was protesting the way Mormons voted so you could claim they were picked on when the black religious community did the same thing?  Are you slithering away from that statement?

Edited by california boy
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...