Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

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:

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

Wholeheartedly agree. 

Link to comment
21 hours 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.

In that instance, yes. Very much so.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Calm, I am trying to understand your position.  Are you saying that using violent metaphors is never a problem for some people that might misinterpret what is being asked for?  Haven't we seen many instances of that occurring?  Does January 6th ring a bell?  How many defendants have claimed in court that they were caught up in the moment and thought they were doing what Donald Trump wanted them to do?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I didn't recall that he said "this is a metaphor". Yes-identifying it as a metaphor does play into that benefit of the doubt :)   But again, its because of who he is that he gets that benefit. If some politicians invoked violence as a metaphor and then later said it was symbolic I may not believe them. Or if a person says something really mean but then says " I was just joking" I may or may not give them the benefit of believing their statement.

Video games weren't a big thing in my house and my kids are all old enough to make their own choices. But my kids never played violent video games. They were all about mario-kart.

No- I don't avoid westerns, superhero or historic war shows. Boxing and MMA is easy for me to avoid because I don't understand it and don't like it. I view football more similarly to basketball or futball than I would to boxing or other violent sports even though there is plenty of physical contact in all of those. But the purpose in football and those other team sports isn't to physically hurt the other person.

As I've stated before. I think there is an argument made against violent media.  But IMO it's worse when people of authority glorify violence or teach it as a reasonable remedy. It's bad for politicians but even worse for religious leaders. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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.

YES.  Whether that is the case or not, I don't think anyone knows at this point.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, california boy said:

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

Stealing that metaphor for future use...just an FYI. Love it.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Though I'm sure that there have been both leaders and members who have been hostile (and who have said hostile unChristlike things), I'm with Blue Dreams on why I don't view disagreement and discrimination as hostile or unfriendly in and of themselves.  

Words are not spoken in a vacuum.  And it does not matter how you view it. What matters is the impact it has on the culture and dynamics of an organization and how it forms the beliefs of its members.  And there is not question that historically, even though I would say the LDS church has improved in its rhetoric towards the community in questions, that the dialogue and comments have not fostered a welcoming safe space for LBGTQ members.  And for another recent example let's look at the November 2015 exclusionary policy which was quickly reversed what the current church president called both revelation.  YOur members form their thoughts and base action on what they believe from what they are taught.  It is ridiculous to try to downplay such things and brush them off.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

The church condemns many things, yet you don’t see members of the church (or technically members of the church) shooting up porn studios, casinos, liquor stores, etc. The church strongly condemns murder, of course and anyone who commits mass murder has something deeply wrong with them. It’s ridiculous to suggest that somehow the church influenced this guy to do evil. 

Porn, casinos, and liquor stores are not vilified as pedophiles and groomers by people in the media, politicians, and religious leaders. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

The church condemns many things, yet you don’t see members of the church (or technically members of the church) shooting up porn studios, casinos, liquor stores, etc. The church strongly condemns murder, of course and anyone who commits mass murder has something deeply wrong with them. It’s ridiculous to suggest that somehow the church influenced this guy to do evil. 

I think pro-abortion / Planned parenthood would be a closer comparison to how many religious people/groups would view the LGBTQ community. And we do see violence against both of those groups by religious people. Why?

Both have been vilified to a level that some/many view them as a moral threat. For the most extreme, I don't know that they would view violence against these groups as murder since it's serving a "righteous cause". Besides murder is the taking of "innocent life". If a particular life isn't viewed as innocent then someone on the extreme may not view it as murder. This is part of the problem. There tend to be a lot of caveats about when and against whom violence is justified, and different people will come to different conclusions. The ubiquity of firearms makes that all the scarier.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Calm said:

I highly doubt “bad examples” are all that rare among the Saints. I hope evil or extremely twisted examples are rare, but unless you have research showing such is very rare, I think it better not to make the claim for the same reasons is it wrong to assume they are common.

"Rare" is a rather loosey-goosey term. It's as loosely defined as a rare steak. One woman's rare is another woman's medium rare.

In the end, every single Latter-day Saint is a bad example at some point. That's why we talk a lot about repentance. But it's the egregious examples I'm talking about. Like Butch Cassidy and Mark Hoffman. And now this other guy.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Calm said:

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,

Yes.  And there is more. 

The parents divorced when the shooter, Nicholas F. Brink, was a a kid.  The mother got custody.

Regarding the mother: "In 2009, Aldrich’s mother received three years of probation for convictions of public intoxication and falsely reporting a crime to police. The false report conviction stemmed from a 2008 incident in Murrieta, California in which police responded to a reported home invasion and found Voepel lying on her bed with her hands and legs bound with duct tape. Voepel initially told police a man had put string around her neck, bound her with tape and placed a knife on her chest. She admitted the following day, however, that she had been under the influence of narcotics and fabricated the incident because “she was lonely and wanted attention,” a police report states. "  ...In 2012, she allegedly used a lighter to start a fire in her room at the Baptist Medical Center in San Antonio, according to a police report. Voepel, who was rescued by a hospital staffer, initially denied setting the fire, but security footage showed that she was the only person in her room when the blaze began, according to the police report.  A licensed psychologist concluded that she suffered from severe borderline personality disorder and alcohol dependence, among other issues, records show. According to court documents, she was originally charged with arson, but pleaded no contest to a reduced offense of criminal mischief in August 2013. She was sentenced to five years of community supervision. 

He was apparently bullied as a teenager, and his grandmother made note of that on social media.

He changed his name when he was 16 to Anderson Lee Aldrich.

Mx. Aldrich is now non-binary as indicated by their defense attorney.

Mx. Aldrich also threatened their mother with "with a homemade bomb, multiple weapons, and ammunition". 

Mx. Aldrich's lived with their grandmother during these past few years.

The church said this person is still on the roles, but hasn't attended from years.  Online chatter I've seen suggests Aldrich hasn't attended since 12 years old. 

Now tell me again.  Where in this is the church at fault?  During the time he was at this grandmothers and away from any church influence, that's the time when Mx. Aldrich was influenced by one paragraph of Holland's speech about BYU faculty, enough that it assisted him to shoot up a gay bar with a drag show.  Huh?  Really?

Edited by helix
Link to comment
11 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/

You may be surmising incorrectly.  Look up the term.  And what wrinkle to you suppose this will give to the tragic story?

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, california boy said:

NO, you assumed.

No, you implied.  

I'm content to let readers decide for themselves.

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

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

"Maybe the Jews mix ZERO blood into their matzo, but then again, maybe sometimes they do.  Regardless, the Jews as a whole shouldn't be blamed for every bad actor. Yet, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum."

"Muslims are terrorists."

"Jews are greedy."

"Mormons hate gays and are inciting violence against them."

Not much daylight between these ugly denigrations of religious communities.

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.  

I did not assume that.  And HJW didn't assume that, either.  He expressly declared as fact that Elder Holland actually called for violence.  He 

  • declared that Elder Holland's "musket metaphor implies that members should be 'willing to defend the faith' with violence,"
  • 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,"
  • that - referencing Elder Holland - "it is immoral to incite people to violence,
  • 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}"

HJW has re-affirmed these accusations just an hour or so ago, so there is no need to assume accusations that HJW has explicitly - and now repeatedly - made.

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

This is exactly why violent metaphors are so dangerous to use.  

Baloney.

HJW used a "violent metaphor" ("combat"), which he finds perfectly hunky-dory.  So do I.  

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

This is an unserious claim.

And special pleading.  Big time.

HJW ignored these questions, so I will pose them to you:

Do you blame Bernie Sanders' generalized political philosophy/rhetoric for the 2017 mass shooting by one of his supporters, James Hodgkinson?

Do you blame the Democratic Party for the killing of Cayler Ellingson by Shannon Brandt, apparently due to a political dispute ("'Brandt admitted to striking the pedestrian with his car because he had a political argument with the pedestrian and believed the pedestrian was calling people to come get him,” the court document continues")?  

Do you blame Rand Paul's political/ideological opponents for the physical assault on him by his neighbor, Rene Boucher ("Earlier accounts of the incident suggested bad blood between the neighbors, who have known each other for roughly 17 years, including a dispute over a property line and possible distaste for Paul's politics, as well as those of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul.")?

I suspect your answers will be "No," "No" and "No."  And I would agree.

Consider the word "combat."  It has both literal and figurative applications, but to infer the latter when it is being used by an ideological opponent is . . . unserious.  It is equivocation.  Distortion.  It is dishonest and misleading.

For example, in 2013 you said:

Quote

When the NOM tried using the same distorted facts last election cycle, all 4 states shot down their arguments and voted for gay marriage.  The time has past that such distortion will work.

"Shot down their arguments."  This is, in your view, a "violent metaphor," right?

In 2015 you said:

Quote

I am not suggesting that there is anything you can do about it or anyone else for that matter.  But it does explain why gay couples want marriage so badly that they are willing to fight huge odds and seek their judicial rights in order to have it.  While there may not be gay marriage in the eternities, at least they can find happiness in this life.

"Willing to fight."  A "violent metaphor," right?

In 2016 you said:

Quote

I guess if you feel that we should appeal the civil rights laws that have been in place for over 50 years, then knock yourself out.  I personally believe those laws have made America a better place to live.  

"Knock yourself out."  A "violent metaphor," right?

In 2019 you said:

Quote

This breaks my heart.  The Satanic Ritual Abuse, McMartin Preschool and all the others are horrible crimes perpetrated on by therapist should go to jail for that abuse.  A slap on the wrist would be to take their license away and prohibit them from ever practicing again. 

"A slap on the wrist."  A "violent metaphor," right?

In 2019 you also said:

Quote

Give me your best shot.  Where do you possible think these missionaries would dream up such a crazy idea to invite someone to be baptized before they knew very much at all about the gospel.

"Your best shot."  A "violent metaphor," right?

And so on.

Elder Holland spoke of "metaphorical muskets."

HJW spoke of "combat."

You have used phrases such as "shot down," "willing to fight," "knock yourself out," "slap on the wrist" and "best shot."

To claim that any of these incite violence is absurd.

58 minutes ago, california boy said:

Even you believed HJW explicitly said Elder Holland called for violence when he actually said no such thing.

He actually did say such thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

This brought up one of my funniest memories of discriminatory bias. I had a young adult white client who had an over protective mother who would join sessions sometimes. The client started to date someone black and the mother freaked out, sending me a prolonged text about her worries about her adult child dating someone she wasn't sure about and finally ending said text by noting that she just didn't want her child dating a black person and with this assumption that I understood. The blindspot on her was colossal if she thought I, a noticeably biracial woman from a family who's motto seems to be "date out," would understand her objection. It was absurdly comical. I don't think I ever responded to her (by then, I wasn't seeing the main client so I had no obligation to collaborate with her).

If I had, I don't know if I would have called her racist. Not because she didn't harbor a racist attitude toward interracial relationships. She did. But because years had taught me that going for the jugular tends to make people more defensive and angry. It's not productive beyond the catharsis of telling them off...at least if my goal is to have them really think about what they're saying. The message and introspection doesn't go anywhere and like mama homophobe over there, instead of really thinking about the appropriateness of their actions and stepping into another's shoes, they end up re-entrenching into their own shoes, feeling righteous in their sense of being attacked. 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

I mostly agree with you on the GSA part. Most likely it was just a club that some joined and others didn't. If there was pressure to join or support (not in terms of obligation, but more in the sense of peers labeling kids as homophobic or some form of looked down on) I could see a case for why there would be pushback. I doubt that was it from what's being described and other clubs like this. Even if that were the case, their letter and board campaigns are still discrimination. 

I do see a little difference between this and what the church did during the time of national debate and cultural conflict around SSM. I think their biggest concern of a cultural shift that would inevitably push them to accept ideals they don't believe in has some merit. Particularly in our country where big shifts like this weren't just technical and tolerant (as in make space for people who see differently) but cultural and assimilatory (as in creating this as a moralistic litmus test). Which is likely why the shift after it became nationalized wasn't find a way to rid of this and more about shoring space for hold different views/values.  To some degree they weren't wrong... the sense of moral value and parameters around marriage have shifted (though to be fair it already was well before this). And with that shift there's been a definite shuffle on what religious based organizations can or can't do...there still is, as people are trying to find what it looks like to live in this form of a pluralistic society.

I'm not saying this to agree or disagree with the church's decisions then or even now. FTR, I was uncomfortable with the push then and stayed away from people on campus seeking to support it because my feelings around this were complicated. In some ways they still are (largely the theological realm, less so than on the political). But the overall actions in the last decade where the larger church has usually been supportive around concerns tied to civil protections while still trying to figure out space around a fundamental disagreement on the definitions of marriage and what that means moving forward in varying cultures but particularly in the US. So I still wouldn't call the example hostile even if it's actions were/are at times discriminatory.

  This doesn't mean that there haven't been hostile statements or local geographies or actions that aren't hostile. I've been enjoying a podcast called "questions from the closet" that I can remember at least 2 interactions that I would describe as likely motivated by hostile biases. One was where the larger church supported a move for equal housing protections in AZ and some local members pushed hard against the move. Another was a woman who dated/married another woman after previously being married to a man. Her fiance/wife's ward was very welcoming, her ward made several hostile moves that ended up getting shut down by higher ups (though much of the damage around trust had definitely been done).  On larger statements I would say the older the statements are, the more on the side of hostile they likely are. Largely because there was no major push back to correct that. As more and more LGBT voices/allies/family are heard within a church context that messaging shifted to incorporate greater understanding and caution in their speech.  

Basically this is a long way of saying, I'm not comfortable with simple straightforward rundowns of "the church." That's not what this story has been. And I still don't see most of their larger moves as generally hostile, even though some of them have been discriminatory and at the very least wrong. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think pro-abortion / Planned parenthood would be a closer comparison to how many religious people/groups would view the LGBTQ community. And we do see violence against both of those groups by religious people. Why?

Both have been vilified to a level that some/many view them as a moral threat. For the most extreme, I don't know that they would view violence against these groups as murder since it's serving a "righteous cause". Besides murder is the taking of "innocent life". If a particular life isn't viewed as innocent then someone on the extreme may not view it as murder. This is part of the problem. There tend to be a lot of caveats about when and against whom violence is justified, and different people will come to different conclusions. The ubiquity of firearms makes that all the scarier.

This is moving the goal post as well as cherry picking information to get to this point. 

MS was talking about an LDS context which is also what this thread has been largely about. Porn is also really strongly prohibitive in the church. More so than abortion. With abortion there are technical exceptions codified in our policies. With porn there is no justifiable porn use mentioned in church settings. And it shows in many different policies and responses around this. 

There is very very little that allows for violence, nothing that would use violence as an offensive causes against beliefs or views that differ from us, and several counter views, teachings, practices etc that would go directly against it. A big one is that the church doesn't believe in becoming a law unto itself, but rather following and working within the laws of the land they reside in. Deciding someone is worthy of death and executing someone is strictly a state/government call, NOT a church one. For this there is no caveat that allows for a mass shooting of unarmed people at a non-violent/non-threatening party. None. You need at the very least a non-lds viewpoint of some sort to get there. 

No matter how its written this is a severe distortion of religion and particularly our faith to the point that it would be unrecognizable to most if not all members.

With luv,

BD

Link to comment
On 11/22/2022 at 10:23 AM, pogi said:

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

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

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

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

Of the top 10 - 12 States with highest number of gun violence, many of those States have stringent firearms laws.

Of US Cities with mass shootings, Chicago, Philedelphia, and Baltimore are the tops 3 with the most - triple digit amount. Chicago and the State it is in, have stringent gun laws.

Can one argue that more laws do not work?

If we consider the number of firearms in the US to the number of mass shootings, can we argue current laws do work?

 

gunviolencearchive.org, complie the mass shooting yearly reports, and filter.

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
1 minute ago, provoman said:

Of the top 10 - 12 States with highest number of gun violence, many of those States have stringent firearms laws.

Of US Cities with mass shootings, Chicago, Philedelphia, and Baltimore are the tops 3 with the most - triple digit amount. Chicago and the State it is in, have stringent gun laws.

Can one argue that more laws do not work?

If we consider the number of firearms in the US to the number of mass shootings, can we argue current laws do work?

People simply cross state boundaries to get the guns FYI 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No, you implied.  

I'm content to let readers decide for themselves.

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

"Maybe the Jews mix ZERO blood into their matzo, but then again, maybe sometimes they do.  Regardless, the Jews as a whole shouldn't be blamed for every bad actor. Yet, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum."

"Muslims are terrorists."

"Jews are greedy."

"Mormons hate gays and are inciting violence against them."

Not much daylight between these ugly denigrations of religious communities.

I did not assume that.  And HJW didn't assume that, either.  He expressly declared as fact that Elder Holland actually called for violence.  He 

  • declared that Elder Holland's "musket metaphor implies that members should be 'willing to defend the faith' with violence,"
  • 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,"
  • that - referencing Elder Holland - "it is immoral to incite people to violence,
  • 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}"

HJW has re-affirmed these accusations just an hour or so ago, so there is no need to assume accusations that HJW has explicitly - and now repeatedly - made.

Baloney.

HJW used a "violent metaphor" ("combat"), which he finds perfectly hunky-dory.  So do I.  

This is an unserious claim.

And special pleading.  Big time.

HJW ignored these questions, so I will pose them to you:

Do you blame Bernie Sanders' generalized political philosophy/rhetoric for the 2017 mass shooting by one of his supporters, James Hodgkinson?

Do you blame the Democratic Party for the killing of Cayler Ellingson by Shannon Brandt, apparently due to a political dispute ("'Brandt admitted to striking the pedestrian with his car because he had a political argument with the pedestrian and believed the pedestrian was calling people to come get him,” the court document continues")?  

Do you blame Rand Paul's political/ideological opponents for the physical assault on him by his neighbor, Rene Boucher ("Earlier accounts of the incident suggested bad blood between the neighbors, who have known each other for roughly 17 years, including a dispute over a property line and possible distaste for Paul's politics, as well as those of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul.")?

I suspect your answers will be "No," "No" and "No."  And I would agree.

Consider the word "combat."  It has both literal and figurative applications, but to infer the latter when it is being used by an ideological opponent is . . . unserious.  It is equivocation.  Distortion.  It is dishonest and misleading.

For example, in 2013 you said:

"Shot down their arguments."  This is, in your view, a "violent metaphor," right?

In 2015 you said:

"Willing to fight."  A "violent metaphor," right?

In 2016 you said:

"Knock yourself out."  A "violent metaphor," right?

In 2019 you said:

"A slap on the wrist."  A "violent metaphor," right?

In 2019 you also said:

"Your best shot."  A "violent metaphor," right?

And so on.

Elder Holland spoke of "metaphorical muskets."

HJW spoke of "combat."

You have used phrases such as "shot down," "willing to fight," "knock yourself out," "slap on the wrist" and "best shot."

To claim that any of these incite violence is absurd.

He actually did say such thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Boy you really try and get blood out of a turnip don't you.  

Can you at least agree that many had a problem with Elder Holland's choice of words in this day and age even if you don't?  

If you don't think that people care about using these kinds of references in speech against the LGBT community, then hey, you should also be ok with the backlash that comes with this kind of speech.  Because unlike you, a LOT of people do have a problem with an apostle going around using muskets metaphors to make his point against the LGBT community. 

Your post is just ugly.  It saddens me to see those claiming to be follows of Christ double down on language and hate that causes real pain and sometimes leads to violence against any group.  This thread reveals to me that while I have been encouraged by recent remarks by Church leaders, there  are plenty in the pews that are perfectly fine with how some address and act towards the LGBT community.  

To answer your question, I condemn all speech that can lead to violence and hate to any group.  It doesn't matter where it comes from.  It is irresponsible wherever it comes from. 

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
10 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

Don’t jump to conclusions you idiot!

Clearly this attacker loved the LGBT community and lifestyle! Paul Pelosi’s attacker was a weirdo but he was a gamergate weirdo. That means far-right crazy. For anyone unfamiliar with Gamergate it was a “scandal” that blew up over a video game reviewer who supposedly gave a favorable review of a game because he was sexually involved with with the designer. That was just the pretext though. It was a bunch of angry straight white male gamers who were very angry at all the horrific “politically correct” things designers and publishers were trying to do like represent ethnic and sexual minorities and women more in games. It sounds silly but that description does not capture the rabid online frothing rage. The reviewer behind the scandal was threatened with rape and death. Other female developers had their personal details and addresses revealed and were threatened with assault, rape, and murder.

Gamergate’s white male victimization movement caught on and continued. It is no coincidence that the major rallying points and personalities behind Gamergate are pretty much all now affiliated with MAGA. It is not a secret. Steve Bannon praised Gamergate as paving the way for the movement. Know your history.

 

As to this attacker being someone who embraced the LGBT community, that is very doubtful and not supported by the evidence like….you know, trying to kill a bunch of members of the community.

This could be any number of things. Rampant self-hatred. Jealousy of “out” members of the lgbt community being able to express themselves while feeling trapped in the closet. The self-identification could even be some kind of cynical ploy the lawyers recommended to try to dodge hate crime laws. I might believe it more if it was coming from the mouth of the suspect and not the lawyers.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Simple. Without evidence, Americans by the millions have been assuming the Colorado shooter’s motivations grew out of his supposed anti-LGBQ conservative activism, but the disclosure that he’s actually a member of the LGBQ community may throw a monkey wrench into that  presumptuous left wing narrative.

What follows is a typical example of the kind of “reporting” one could find all over the mainstream media right after the shooting took place. And please note that the beef these two have with Governor Ron DeSantis is that he doesn’t want LGBQ propaganda taught to kindergartners, as if that perfectly reasonable, common sense position makes the Governor anti-gay.

Wrong.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

People simply cross state boundaries to get the guns FYI 

which shows, criminals will not obey the law and that Chicago/Illinois strict guns laws do not work. And that there isn't realy a reason to think more laws - which would oerwhelmingly & disproportionately punish responsible owners - work.

And why punish other States because Chicago, Philly, Baltimore can't get control of their citizens?

Edited by provoman
Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Boy you really try and get blood out of a turnip don't you.  

Accusations against a minority (and, in some circles, unpopular) religious group of inciting mass murder is a serious thing.

That you are indifferent to this is understandable.  Those of us who are being so targeted, however, may feel some need to speak against such hateful rhetoric.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Can you at least agree that many had a problem with Elder Holland's choice of words in this day and age even if you don't?  

Yes.  Just as I agree that someone can have a problem with you using words like phrases such as "shot down," "willing to fight," "knock yourself out," "slap on the wrist" and "best shot."

Whether people with that concern are behaving reasonably is quite another matter.

And in any event, I would not extrapolate from your use of such "violent metaphors" the notion that your community is inciting violence.  That would be tendentious and stupid. 

Regarding Elder Holland's remarks, I think this piece by Daniel Peterson gets it right: Elder Holland: What They Heard is Not What He Said

Quote

Elder Holland recently addressed the 2021 edition of BYU’s annual University Conference, a gathering to which all of the University’s faculty, staff, and administrators—even retirees—are invited.  He began and ended his remarks with his own story of falling in love with BYU—a story that, again, resonates deeply with me.  

It’s what Elder Holland said between his expressions of affection for BYU, however, that has generated controversy in some circles, and even bitter anger.  

He has been called irresponsible, a hater, and a bigot. His speech has been widely portrayed as an angry tirade against gays.  When a BYU student was videotaped muttering an anti-gay slur and pouring water on a sidewalk to erase a chalk rainbow, the headline in one national gay publication said that “The incident comes on top of a former Brigham Young University president urging the use of “muskets” to fight LGBTQ+ equality.”  It cited the explanation given by a national gay organization: “Elder Jeffrey Holland gave license for such conduct, using dangerous and warlike comments against LGBTQ students earlier this week.” 

“It looks like the muskets are out and being used to abuse the LGBTQ community,” said one anonymous critic of the Church on a predominantly atheist message board.  “If there is any justice, there has to be a special place in hell reserved for people like Holland.”

I would like to briefly comment on such curious reactions.
...
First of all, of course, he asked that employees of the Church’s flagship school be personally loyal to the standards and doctrines of the Restoration...
...

Referring to Elder Oaks’s appropriation of the imagery, Elder Holland importantly observed that “He said this in a way that could have applied to a host of topics in various departments”—just as, in fact, Elder Maxwell had applied the musket metaphor more generally.

“But,” Elder Holland continued, “the one he specifically mentioned was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”

This is easily understandable:  Issues of gender, sexuality, and the nature of families loom very large today in our culture, law, and politics, and societal trends related to them clearly and increasingly clash with the standards and teachings of the Church.  Accordingly, Elder Holland’s own speech alluded fairly prominently to such matters—in, by my quick estimate, four of forty-four paragraphs of the published text:

“I have focused on this same-sex topic this morning more than I would have liked,” he said, adding that “I pray you will see it as emblematic of a lot of issues our students and community face in this complex, contemporary world of ours.”

In other words, the speech was not, as many have claimed, primarily devoted to issues of same-sex attraction.  He simply chose gender issues to represent the other areas in which the teachings of the Church come under attack, areas in which some members of the BYU faculty might be well situated to help.  And, I add, the speech was neither hateful nor angry; as anyone can learn by simply watching it online:

“My Brethren,” said Elder Holland, “have made the case for the metaphor of musket fire  which I have endorsed yet again today. There will continue to be those who oppose our teachings and with that will continue the need to define, document, and defend the faith. But we do all look forward to the day when we can “beat our swords into plowshares, and [our] spears into pruning hooks,” and at least on this subject, “learn war [no] more.””

Specifically referring to those who experience same-sex attraction, Elder Holland said,

“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.”

But, he also said, “we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.” We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.”

I invite each individual to read the above transcript of Elder Holland's remarks and decide for themselves whether California Boy's characterizations of those remarks are fair and accurate.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If you don't think that people care about using these kinds of references in speech against the LGBT community, then hey, you should also be ok with the backlash that comes with this kind of speech.  Because unlike you, a LOT of people do have a problem with an apostle going around using muskets metaphors to make his point against the LGBT community. 

Oh, the irony.

The "problem" is being whipped up by you and yours.  The "incitement" is all you.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Your post is just ugly.  

Right back atcha.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It saddens me to see those claiming to be follows of Christ double down on language and hate that causes real pain and sometimes leads to violence against any group.

Here you are likely referring to "violent metaphors" like "shot down," "willing to fight," "knock yourself out," "slap on the wrist" and "best shot."

Right?  Right?

"It's different when I do it, because shut up," California Boy explained.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This thread reveals to me that while I have been encouraged by recent remarks by Church leaders, there  are plenty in the pews that are perfectly fine with how some address and act towards the LGBT community.

The Latter-day Saints are not inciting violence against your community.

Yours is nothing but an updated version of the blood libel of yesteryear against Jews. 

"Jews murder Christian boys and use their blood to make matzo."

"Latter-day Saints hate gays and are inciting violence against them."

Not much daylight between these two.

And you and yours continue to spew such hateful things while simultaneously indulging in self-preening lectures condemning incitement.  The irony of this is pretty strong.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

To answer your question, I condemn all speech that can lead to violence and hate to any group.  

No, you don't.

Because you have not condemned your own "violent metaphors" ("shot down," "willing to fight," "knock yourself out," "slap on the wrist" and "best shot"), which is included in "speech that can lead to violence and hate."

1 hour ago, california boy said:

It doesn't matter where it comes from.  It is irresponsible wherever it comes from. 

"Speech that can lead to violence and hate to any group" is overbroad by a country mile in this context.  

The Latter-day Saints are not inciting violence.  You and yours, however, are inciting hatred and anger with your blood libels against us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
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...