Popular Post Tacenda Posted January 27 Popular Post Posted January 27 10 hours ago, SteveO said: A man said that though. Seriously, I feel this isn’t a fair comparison. For example, I’m getting in a bathroom break, a snack break, or doing really anything else but listening to what is being said when a woman gets up and speaks in GC. As a straight white man who is looking forward to the next four years, I generally have next to zero interest in hearing anything said by a lesbian bishop who thinks she speaks for Jesus. (I see conflicting reports she had an open marriage, lived with two dudes, etc. I dunno, she looks like a lesbian, and I don’t have to pretend to care if I’m wrong anymore). But… As has been pointed out, she had a captive audience. Trump couldn’t just get up and get a Diet Coke. And I just feel it’s disrespectful to waste his time like that. Anyways, everyone in the country, except you guys apparently, have moved on from this. And her 15 minutes are over. If Trump can use the church and Bible to his advantage, she should be able to. 7
CV75 Posted January 27 Posted January 27 12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: From Nelson: ”Vulgarity, faultfinding, and evil speaking of others are all too common. Too many pundits, politicians, entertainers, and other influencers throw insults constantly. I am greatly concerned that so many people seem to believe that it is completely acceptable to condemn, malign, and vilify anyone who does not agree with them. Many seem eager to damage another’s reputation with pathetic and pithy barbs!” Oh the humanity! The soapboxing virtue signaling!! (emphasis mine) Further: “My dear brothers and sisters, how we treat each other really matters! How we speak to and about others at home, at church, at work, and online really matters. Today, I am asking us to interact with others in a higher, holier way. Please listen carefully. “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy”10 that we can say about another person—whether to his face or behind her back—that should be our standard of communication.” “Brothers and sisters, the pure love of Christ is the answer to the contention that ails us today. Charity propels us “to bear one another’s burdens”16 rather than heap burdens upon each other.” My poor liberal ears are bleeding from the scorn! Oh I see -- you take exception to posters complaining about such statements about brotherly love as examples of soapboxing/virtue signaling, and not specific topical application of the counsel. I was thinking of your providing examples of statements by general conference speakers that reflected Bishop Budde's. 1
CV75 Posted January 27 Posted January 27 11 hours ago, Calm said: I posted a GC talk earlier in the thread on unity that her sermon reminded me of (absent the specific call out to Trump). I can’t remember when it was from though. Perhaps you missed my post? I did miss your post. But I see a difference between preaching about general principles such a brotherly love and charity and preaching about applying these principles to specific issues. Those are the kinds of general conference talks I was asking for. 1
CV75 Posted January 27 Posted January 27 13 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I'm horning in the middle of this conversation and probably need to butt out, but if a sermon was needed at hand, then so be it! I'm sure every sermon ever preached by anyone is needed by someone in that it somehow turns their attention to Christ. 1
CV75 Posted January 27 Posted January 27 11 minutes ago, Tacenda said: If Trump can use the church and Bible to his advantage, she should be able to. Absolutely -- what I find interesting is that the Bible is neither "pro"- nor "anti"- concerning immigration, but seems to accept it as a general human activity with attendant conditions and circumstances that give us opportunities to learn how God treats His children. Likewise, the scriptures are neither pro- not anti- on many topics (e.g., farming, manufacturing, office work, construction, recreation, social interaction, science, education, etc.) just the way / the spirit in which we go about them. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 27 Posted January 27 (edited) 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: I did miss your post. But I see a difference between preaching about general principles such a brotherly love and charity and preaching about applying these principles to specific issues. Those are the kinds of general conference talks I was asking for. So, saying we should have brotherly love is ok. Saying we should have brotherly love towards our gay brothers and sisters and immigrants is soap boxing virtue signaling? 🤔. Or do you mean something else. Edited January 27 by SeekingUnderstanding 2
CV75 Posted January 27 Posted January 27 Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said: So, saying we should have brotherly love is ok. Saying we should have brotherly love towards our gay brothers and sisters is soap boxing virtue signaling? 🤔. Or do you mean something else. Yes, I mean something else (and yes, I believe saying we should have brotherly love is ok). Using the example you just mentioned, provide a general conference talk that says we should have brotherly love towards our gay brothers and sisters (or any other topic Bishop Budde mentioned). You said they exist, and I would like to see a side-by-side comparison of the Budde quotes you shared and what you found in general conference talks. 1
SteveO Posted January 27 Posted January 27 7 hours ago, Calm said: Assuming you are serious….if you are not, please let me know. Why do you think it’s appropriate to ignore women speakers in GC? Why would you feel the need to pretend in the past? You aren’t serious people. 320,000 children were released into the US and nobody knows where they are. I know, I know, fact checkers say it “lacks context.” But the context is that the government has made no effort to find them, missing paperwork, and most important, we can’t assume anything bad happened to each and every one of them. And what heartless scumbag doesn’t believe that explanation? It’s only that some of the worst people in the world smuggled them in, so they’re probably fine. You aren’t a serious person if you believe that at face value. Certainly no more serious than me, when I roll my eyes at the “plight” of those poor LGBT folks. 32 trans people were murdered last year. Trans perpetrators have murdered or maimed as many school kids. It just seems the mercy and compassion doesn’t extend to kids in any capacity. Unless they’re trans, then we’ll move heaven and earth for the 1, and screw the 99. If your message is that we need mercy and compassion on the highest risk groups in our society, and you leave out the mention of those immigrant kids, or the fentanyl crisis, or the victims of violent criminals that should have never been allowed here in the first place, I think your message of mercy and compassion doesn’t mean anything. Do you think anyone should take seriously a conversation in which “WWJD” is being used to browbeat political opponents? 1
MustardSeed Posted January 27 Posted January 27 12 hours ago, SteveO said: generally have next to zero interest in hearing anything said by a lesbian bishop who thinks she speaks for Jesus. I teach gospel doctrine. I wonder if you were in my ward if you would just go home after sacrament for the same reason. 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 27 Posted January 27 57 minutes ago, SteveO said: You aren’t serious people. Says the person that calls Budde a lesbian? Really? I’d tell you that your misogynistic homophobia is showing, but you don’t care. That’s fine, but, um don’t expect anyone to take you seriously. 2
SteveO Posted January 27 Posted January 27 3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Says the person that calls Budde a lesbian? Really? I’d tell you that your misogynistic homophobia is showing, but you don’t care. That’s fine, but, um don’t expect anyone to take you seriously. What’s wrong with her being a lesbian? I guess I’m confused. 4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: I teach gospel doctrine. I wonder if you were in my ward if you would just go home after sacrament for the same reason. Probably, if you’re gonna lecture and apply “WWJD?” on select social issues and ignore others because they’re inconvenient. I’m getting a little snack out in the hall. 2
MustardSeed Posted January 27 Posted January 27 11 minutes ago, SteveO said: Probably Because im a woman. Ok…. I knew there were folks like you but I’d never met one personally. Now I know I’m not crazy. 🤪 2
Rain Posted January 27 Posted January 27 3 hours ago, halconero said: Genuine question: If the president attended General Conference, and Patrick Kearon delivered his famous talk on refugees, would we suggest that Elder Kearon “targeted” the POTUS? And if so, why is that a bad thing? If Christ’s ministers aren’t “targeting” those in the world in most need of Christian principles and ethics, what are we even doing here? That's basically what all church talks do. Even Jesus did this in the Good Samaritan. Probably other places too, but today my brain is particularly bad about bringing to mind things. 3
SteveO Posted January 27 Posted January 27 7 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: Because im a woman. Ok…. I knew there were folks like you but I’d never met one personally. Now I know I’m not crazy. 🤪 No, it’s because you’d be a bad teacher if you’re doing the thing I stated in the remainder of my post, which you didn’t address. You guys are more concerned about my personal views than anything else I’ve said. You guys are proving the point. You care about the low hanging fruit than anything substantial or consequential. It’s almost…virtue signaling. 🤔 1
bluebell Posted January 27 Posted January 27 1 minute ago, SteveO said: No, it’s because you’d be a bad teacher if you’re doing the thing I stated in the remainder of my post, which you didn’t address. You guys are more concerned about my personal views than anything else I’ve said. You guys are proving the point. You care about the low hanging fruit than anything substantial or consequential. It’s almost…virtue signaling. 🤔 People are just confused because you said that you don't listen to the women speakers in GC and now they are trying to figure out if you were serious or not. It sounds like you're trying to make a point but people are too distracted by your way of making it to even get close to where you are trying to get them to go. Maybe you could clarify (if the point is important to you) so people can interact with your perspective. If the point isn't important to you and you don't care if anyone has any idea what you are trying to say, then no need to clarify. 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 27 Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, SteveO said: anything substantial or consequential. 12 hours ago, SteveO said: don’t have to pretend to care if I’m wrong anymore). Um, If you were planning on pretending to say something substantial, it might be best for now to keep the quiet part quiet instead of out loud.
MustardSeed Posted January 27 Posted January 27 (edited) I think you were saying that you would stay for Sunday school as long as I didn’t talk about lesbian stuff. If I, a woman, were speaking on Jesus’s behalf, you would stay. General conference is the exception though. When those women talk, you get up and walk out. I would have more weight than the women who hold general positions in the church. it appears as though Teddy is team Steve so now I understand two of you just a little bit better. Thank you for the clarification. I mean, it makes sense to me. Not really, but I’m just trying to get along here. 😅 Edited January 27 by MustardSeed 4
Popular Post Rain Posted January 27 Popular Post Posted January 27 (edited) 21 minutes ago, SteveO said: No, it’s because you’d be a bad teacher if you’re doing the thing I stated in the remainder of my post, which you didn’t address. You guys are more concerned about my personal views than anything else I’ve said. You guys are proving the point. You care about the low hanging fruit than anything substantial or consequential. It’s almost…virtue signaling. 🤔 I'm not good at remembering specific logical falacies, but what you said reminded me of one. The idea that people don't care about these children because they only talked about those people in a short sermon. If you think no one is talking about these children you are not in the places where they are. I have 3 friends who have fostered/adopted unaccompanied minors. Tomorrow I will be attending a meeting in part about this situation put on by a refugee organization. Last week I attended another meeting that talked about this some. Just because it doesnt come out big and flashy in the news doesn't mean that people don't care. Edited January 27 by Rain 7
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 27 Posted January 27 13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: it appears as though Teddy is team Steve so now I understand two of you just a little bit better. Honestly this has always been my impression of both of them. It's just that Steve O has, in his words, stopped pretending.
SteveO Posted January 27 Posted January 27 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: People are just confused because you said that you don't listen to the women speakers in GC and now they are trying to figure out if you were serious or not. It sounds like you're trying to make a point but people are too distracted by your way of making it to even get close to where you are trying to get them to go. Maybe you could clarify (if the point is important to you) so people can interact with your perspective. If the point isn't important to you and you don't care if anyone has any idea what you are trying to say, then no need to clarify. If I get up during a woman speaking in conference, does it diminish the importance of what she said? Now what if Trump and Vance had gotten up in the middle of that sermon? Would we be talking about what she said, or that Trump and Vance got up and walked out? You know the answer. I know the answer. Everyone here knows the answer. We’d hear words like, “sexist” and “racist” and “homophobe”. Which means the message was targeted to specifically him. And when you browbeat a specific person and his supporters over their lack of compassion and mercy for special groups of people, and ignore their concern for the plight of (as I’ve very correctly argued) a far more consequential group of people, I can’t come to the conclusion that the message was anything but a political hack job. 1
Tacenda Posted January 27 Posted January 27 (edited) Life is interesting. Examples have been set for people to see there isn't a line anymore on how badly we treat the human population. Edited January 28 by Tacenda
teddyaware Posted January 27 Posted January 27 32 minutes ago, SteveO said: You aren’t serious people. 320,000 children were released into the US and nobody knows where they are. I know, I know, fact checkers say it “lacks context.” But the context is that the government has made no effort to find them, missing paperwork, and most important, we can’t assume anything bad happened to each and every one of them. And what heartless scumbag doesn’t believe that explanation? It’s only that some of the worst people in the world smuggled them in, so they’re probably fine. You aren’t a serious person if you believe that at face value. Certainly no more serious than me, when I roll my eyes at the “plight” of those poor LGBT folks. 32 trans people were murdered last year. Trans perpetrators have murdered or maimed as many school kids. It just seems the mercy and compassion doesn’t extend to kids in any capacity. Unless they’re trans, then we’ll move heaven and earth for the 1, and screw the 99. If your message is that we need mercy and compassion on the highest risk groups in our society, and you leave out the mention of those immigrant kids, or the fentanyl crisis, or the victims of violent criminals that should have never been allowed here in the first place, I think your message of mercy and compassion doesn’t mean anything. Do you think anyone should take seriously a conversation in which “WWJD” is being used to browbeat political opponents? For the those who are in rebellion against God’s strict but loving standards of righteousness, it’s of little consequence if the implementation of their ideas provably cause a descent into moral chaos and societal collapse. Why? Because as long as the destructive policies they implement are initially motivated by “compassion” it’s unnecessary to take stock and reassess whether or not their “compassionate” ideas actually work in the real world. With these people “compassion” reigns supreme, with wisdom taking a distant second place in the running. Undeniably obvious terrible end results and cataclysmic collateral damage are of secondary importance as long as “compassion” is what precipitates the frightful plunge into moral degeneracy and the collapse of law and order. No need to worry too much if scores are murdered, thousands die of fentanyl poisoning, and tens of thousands more are trafficked as long “compassion,” even when it’s unwise and ultimately hurtful, is enthroned as the ultimate of all virtues. But be it known that when mercy overpowers and supplants the demands of divine justice you can count on the fact that mercy is actually destroyed and results will never be good.
bluebell Posted January 27 Posted January 27 4 minutes ago, SteveO said: If I get up during a woman speaking in conference, does it diminish the importance of what she said? It doesn't. But in regards to our specific conversation, I'm not engaging with you on this topic because I'm trying to figure out if what the women GC speakers say is important or not. I'm trying to figure out if you actually get up and leave when a woman speaker in GC is at the pulpit. Quote Now what if Trump and Vance had gotten up in the middle of that sermon? Would we be talking about what she said, or that Trump and Vance got up and walked out? You know the answer. I know the answer. Everyone here knows the answer. We’d hear words like, “sexist” and “racist” and “homophobe”. So if I'm understanding you correctly. You don't actually get up when a woman speaker comes on. You just said that to make a point about what would happen if they had gotten up and left. To answer the question, it would depend on their timing. If they got up and left the second she stood up to speak when yes, there would be accusations of sexism and the like, just like you got with your statement that you refuse to listen to women speakers. However, if they had gotten up to leave after she started on the specific topic, then people would know that it was the topic that was making them leave, not the speaker herself. If you had said that you get up to leave when any speaker talks about immigration, then people would probably have understood your point. Tying your leaving to the gender of the speaker muddied the waters, since the gender of the person who gave the sermon to Trump and Vance isn't what people care about. Quote Which means the message was targeted to specifically him. You lost me again. I have no idea what you mean by this. 2
SteveO Posted January 27 Posted January 27 39 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: it appears as though Teddy is team Steve so now I understand two of you just a little bit better. Thank you for the clarification. So now we’re on teams? What are you even talking about? I don’t even know who Teddy is.
SteveO Posted January 27 Posted January 27 41 minutes ago, Rain said: I'm not good at remembering specific logical falacies, but what you said reminded me of one. The idea that people don't care about these children because they only talked about those people in a short sermon. If you think no one is talking about these children you are not in the places where they are. I have 3 friends who have fostered/adopted unaccompanied minors. Tomorrow I will be attending a meeting in part about this situation put on by a refugee organization. Last week I attended another meeting that talked about this some. Just because it doesnt come out big and flashy in the news doesn't mean that people don't care. Then why specifically talk about any one group of people at all? 1
Recommended Posts