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

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

How did that work out in the Nuremberg trials? Thanks for playing.

So you suggest that only the actual killer can be held accountable in any way for a killing and not anyone who might have incited or suggested or ordered it.

I say that people who create an atmosphere of violence or suggest or incite or order people to commit violent acts do bear part of the blame.

Then you……agree with me? And act as if you just scored a point? Is this one of those self-owns?

Edited November 23, 2022 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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

Yep. 

“The cashier who wouldn’t let me use an expired coupon is a Nazi.” - Godwin’s Law violation

”That old lady coming out of a fascist meeting is a Nazi.” - Not a violation

[Calm]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

would seriously doubt from what I could see that LDS community members are more likely to be the cause of mass murders. If there's one thing the church is really good at, it's creating tighter knit communities, which is a mitigator for said crimes. I would hypothesize they're likely less represented. But it also wouldn't take many to scew what's a small pool of criminals. 

 

I suspect if this shooter had actually been an active Saint that the shooting never would have happened, especially if their parents were active as well because this would have likely removed the drug use by the parents which would have likely removed the very abusive environment of his early life and possibly any damage his mother’s use of drugs before and during pregnancy caused for him directly and he might have gone up in a more stable family life, but also because it would have likely provided connections and stability he desperately craved (evidence being bomb threat when fearful of abandonment by grandparents).  While active membership doesn’t magically prevent abuse, I have never heard of an active member also being actively taking meth and other drugs or having multiple DUIs…it has probably happened, but frequency is likely so low I think it safe to say if he and his parents had been active in the Church, the level of drug use would have at least been substantially less, if not removed completely. Unfortunately can’t say the same about abuse, though if they were actually listening to church leadership teachings as closely as to be so influenced as is claimed by some, it seems to be that abuse would be much less, if not absent.

[The Nehor]

More information on dad. Looks like he identifies as Mormon and specifically says this is why he would be upset his son was gay and I can tentatively say the same about grandpa but want more information to be sure. Dad was an MMA fighter and a porn star and mom changed the son’s name after dad went AWOL. I won’t list the filmography of dad on the grounds that it would get me banned but it included a Spider-Man porn parody. High class stuff.

He was in MMA and by some accounts still is. He has been on the show Intervention for a meth addiction and according to those who have seen it it was tied into porn addiction. He was also Divorce Court but I am not sure if that was a divorce from the shooter’s mom or someone else later. Hard to nail down the timeline. He was in and out of juvie and then prison throughout his life. He is reportedly still doing porn films but I can’t confirm that.

At least my initial guess of what drug dad was on in that interview probably panned out. My money was on meth.

[ttribe]

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

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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

That’s what I was trying to say. The hostility towards LGBT folks is already bad from media, politicians, and religious leaders. It’s not too much to ask to dial back on the military imagery. 

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

More information on dad. Looks like he identifies as Mormon and specifically says this is why he would be upset his son was gay and I can tentatively say the same about grandpa but want more information to be sure. Dad was an MMA fighter and a porn star and mom changed the son’s name after dad went AWOL. I won’t list the filmography of dad on the grounds that it would get me banned but it included a Spider-Man porn parody. High class stuff.

He was in MMA and by some accounts still is. He has been on the show Intervention for a meth addiction and according to those who have seen it it was tied into porn addiction. He was also Divorce Court but I am not sure if that was a divorce from the shooter’s mom or someone else later. Hard to nail down the timeline. He was in and out of juvie and then prison throughout his life. He is reportedly still doing porn films but I can’t confirm that.

At least my initial guess of what drug dad was on in that interview probably panned out. My money was on meth.

Quote from meth dad:

“You know Mormons don't do gay. We don't do gay. There's no gays in the Mormon church. We don't do gay,” Brink said.

This is in line with my experience: adultery, porn, drug use — all awful and scorned. But homosexuality is treated much worse. I think we’re getting better, but that’s the church I grew up with. 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

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

So being responsible for your own actions is fascism?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s what I was trying to say. The hostility towards LGBT folks is already bad from media, politicians, and religious leaders. It’s not too much to ask to dial back on the military imagery. 

Has there been a lot of military or war rhetoric to town down?  Hasn’t it just been that one talk to BYU students about “metaphorical muskets”?

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Has there been a lot of military or war rhetoric to town down?  Hasn’t it just been that one talk to BYU students about “metaphorical muskets”?

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

[helix]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hasn’t it just been that one talk to BYU students about “metaphorical muskets”?

It wasn't even students.  It was about BYU faculty to BYU faculty.  The talk was between semesters.  Holland said faculty were firing shots at fellow and a couple of faculty took shots at church HQ.  Then he said faculty need to use these same muskets in defense of the church instead of attacking each other. 

That's it. 

But critics lied and pushed a narrative that Holland suggested we should point guns at gays.

Edited November 24, 2022 by helix

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, helix said:

It wasn't even students.  It was about BYU faculty to BYU faculty.  The talk was between semesters.  Holland said faculty were firing shots at fellow and a couple of faculty took shots at church HQ.  Then he said faculty need to use these same muskets in defense of the church instead of attacking each other. 

That's it. 

But critics lied and pushed a narrative that Holland suggested we should point guns at gays.

Hmmm. I read Holland’s talk, and I reread it again just now. The “musket fire” analogy was specifically directed at advocacy for gays and lesbians. True, he went on to say this:

“And while I have focused on this same-sex topic this morning more than I would have liked, 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.”

Was it an analogy? Obviously. But it’s not a lie to say it was directed at same-sex advocacy. 

[helix]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Hmmm. I read Holland’s talk, and I reread it again just now. The “musket fire” analogy was specifically directed at advocacy for gays and lesbians. True, he went on to say this:

“And while I have focused on this same-sex topic this morning more than I would have liked, 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.”

Was it an analogy? Obviously. But it’s not a lie to say it was directed at same-sex advocacy. 

The theme was broader and more expansive than that.  The theme was about BYU's purpose.   The intro was about BYU's purpose.  The ending was about BYU's purpose.  The talk was to BYU faculty.  He stayed on theme throughout.  He summarized part of it in the middle, that people who work at or speak for BYU shouldn't "push individual license over institutional dignity".  BYU should be a place where students can get a university education while growing closer to God, that BYU stands for church principles, and that parents shouldn't feel like BYU is not an appropriate place to send students.

Before he said anything about same-sex advocacy, he quoted Maxwell who started the musket analogy in 2014.   Then he quoted Oaks who used the analogy again in 2017.  Then when Holland quoted those two, now it became a problem.

He also made sure throughout his comments on this particular point of same-sex advocacy to repeatedly mention to love those in this situation.

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

Somehow the above words are being blamed as the kind of language that is guilty of inciting mass shootings.

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by helix

[jkwilliams]

Just now, helix said:

The theme was broader and more expansive than that.  The theme was about BYU's purpose.   The intro was about BYU's purpose.  The ending was about BYU's purpose.  The talk was to BYU faculty.  He stayed on theme throughout.  He summarized part of it in the middle, that people who work at BYU shouldn't "push individual license over institutional dignity".  BYU should be a place where students can get a university education while growing closer to God, that BYU stands for church principles, and that parents shouldn't feel like BYU is not an appropriate place to send students.

Before he said anything about same-sex advocacy, he quoted Maxwell who started the musket analogy in 2014.   Then he quoted Oaks who used the analogy again in 2017.  Then when Holland quoted those two, now it became a problem.

He also repeatedly made sure throughout his comments on this particular point of same-sex advocacy to repeatedly mention to love those in this situation.

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

Somehow the above words are being blamed as the kind of language that is guilty of inciting mass shootings.

 

Not by me. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote from meth dad:

“You know Mormons don't do gay. We don't do gay. There's no gays in the Mormon church. We don't do gay,” Brink said.

This is in line with my experience: adultery, porn, drug use — all awful and scorned. But homosexuality is treated much worse. I think we’re getting better, but that’s the church I grew up with. 

Because someone choosing to do meth and porn will be a great representative for the typical Saint’s attitudes…

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Because someone choosing to do meth and porn will be a great representative for the typical Saint’s attitudes…

I did not say that at all.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I did not say that at all.

You used the dad to introduce your own view of your experience in the Church confirming exactly what the dad’s reaction was and then adding the additional emphasis that homosexuality was treated even much worse than adultery, porn and drug use.  It seems implied to me.

Edited November 24, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

You used the dad to introduce your own view of your experience in the Church confirming exactly what the dad’s reaction was and then adding the additional emphasis that homosexuality was treated even much worse than adultery, porn and drug use.  It seems implied to me.

That his attitude towards homosexuality is pretty close to how I was taught does not make him representative of the church. It just tells me he was raised the way I was. 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

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

 

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote from meth dad:

“You know Mormons don't do gay. We don't do gay. There's no gays in the Mormon church. We don't do gay,” Brink said.

This is in line with my experience: adultery, porn, drug use — all awful and scorned. But homosexuality is treated much worse. I think we’re getting better, but that’s the church I grew up with. 

Is it really fair to suggest the church needs to dial back on messaging around LGBT things by pointing out examples that happened when you were growing up? I don't want to presume age, but I'm going to say that's got to be a couple decades back. The messaging has definitely "dialed back" with that timeline. I can't think of once hearing a talk like you mentioned and I don't know anyone who pictures being an adulterous porn star with a serious drug problem as somehow better than being gay...well except for that one porn star meth head who helped create a mass shooter...

 

With luv,

BD

[MustardSeed]

The dad of the murderer comes across as mentally ill Or brain damaged so putting any weight on his words doesn’t make a lot of sense to me at all.

Edited November 24, 2022 by MustardSeed

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Is it really fair to suggest the church needs to dial back on messaging around LGBT things by pointing out examples that happened when you were growing up? I don't want to presume age, but I'm going to say that's got to be a couple decades back. The messaging has definitely "dialed back" with that timeline. I can't think of once hearing a talk like you mentioned and I don't know anyone who pictures being an adulterous porn star with a serious drug problem as somehow better than being gay...well except for that one porn star meth head who helped create a mass shooter...

 

With luv,

BD

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

[Tacenda]

Crazy!

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The talk in question was by an apostle when I worked for the church. I was quite shocked at the time, particularly that he was making fun of gay people in what apparently he thought were witty asides.

This is a transcript of the clandestine recording of Pres Packer's talk to Church employees in 1993. (The transcript can also be found towards the bottom of the page on this critical site. I remember listening to the recording itself back in the 1990s.) Can you please identify the exact passage/s that you interpret to be his 'making fun of gay people'?

These are the words I am reading, but I may be missing something:

Quote

There are three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away. I chose these three because they have made major invasions into the membership of the Church. In each, the temptation is for us to turn about and face the wrong way, and it is hard to resist, for doing it seems so reasonable and right.

The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals. Our local leaders must deal with all three of them with ever-increasing frequency. In each case, the members who are hurting have the conviction that the Church somehow is doing something wrong or that the Church is not doing enough for them.

To illustrate, I will quote briefly from letters on each of those subjects. They are chosen from among many letters which have arrived in the last few weeks. These have arrived in just the last few days.

The first is from a young man, possibly a gay rights activist:

'May 3rd marks my 18th year in the Church. As a gay Mormon, I have witnessed and experienced first-hand during those eighteen years what it’s like to be homosexual in a Church which is sometimes less than accepting of its gay members.

'My experiences have run the range from incredible, Spirit-filled and loving encounters with members, Bishops and Stake Presidents to a laughable run-in with a departing Mission President. May I share with you some of the more permanent and meaningful memories?' After a page or two of those, he said:

'So in a spirit of friendship I offer that which I have to give--the life experience of a gay Mormon. At your convenience I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the issues facing gay Latter-day Saints and the Church.

'The purpose for meeting is not to debate, or to presumptively call you to repentance, or to be called to repentance myself for being gay. The point is to meet together and share what we have for the good of The Kingdom and the furthering of the Will of the Lord here on Earth' ...

Those who are hurting think they are not understood. They are looking for a champion, an advocate, someone with office and influence from whom they can receive comfort. They ask us to speak about their troubles in general conference, to put something in the curriculum, or to provide a special program to support them in their problems or with their activism.

When members are hurting, it is so easy to convince ourselves that we are justified, even duty bound, to use the influence of our appointment or our calling to somehow represent them. We then become their advocates--sympathize with their complaints against the Church, and perhaps even soften the commandments to comfort them. Unwittingly we may turn about and face the wrong way. Then the channels of revelation are reversed. Let me say that again: Then the channels of revelation are reversed. In our efforts to comfort them, we lose our bearings and leave that segment of the line to which we are assigned unprotected.

The question is not whether they need help and comfort. That goes without saying. The question is “How?”

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[BlueDreams]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Crazy!

 

The entire time he was talking I was thinking about this ad from the 80's:

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by BlueDreams