- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Featherina said she intends to write a post explaining that nobody is born with homosexual attractions. Be aware of it and watch it carefully. It has the potential to become a nucleur bomb. Just so everyone knows, I received multiple complaints about her anti-homosexuality comment in the “What would you say?” thread (about sacrament talks). I sent her an e-mail explaining that some people felt like it called them liars for what they had written and expereinced concerning homosexuality. I told her I had been asked to delete her comment, especially since it was SO incredibly out of place in that thread. I asked her to let me know if she had any problem with that. I waited for a fw days, but she didn’t respond, so I went ahead and deleted it – and two of my comments that referenced it.
She contacted Brian about it just recently, and he asked me. I am posting her response to me after Brian explained what had happened, as well as my response to her. I want everyone to see both messages, mostly because I want everyone to be prepared for her possible post and because I want everyone to see her state of mind concerning the issue of homosexuality and the LDS Church.
Quote:Ray,
Brian told me that you told him that you sent me a pm or email about the thread before deleting it, but I never got any pm or email from you as such.
I understand that we each have different ways of “staying lds” but I don’t appreciate lies like when you said the church changed it’s stance on homosexuality & that now it believes homosexuals are born that way. That is utterly false.
Brian suggested that I repost what my opinion is about it – in a more careful way, as I will.
I feel morally obligated to stand up for axiomatic truth, yet I also realize things can be said in a tactful way.
Quote:I’m sorry, Featherina, that you didn’t get my e-mail. I waited for a few days to see if you would respond, and when you didn’t I assumed you were ok with deleting the comments (yours and my two responding to yours). Again, I apologize for the miscommunication.
I didn’t lie about the Church’s current stance on homosexuality. It is stated quite clearly in the latest pamphlet, “God Loveth His Children”, and has been repeated more than one in interviews with apostles and with Elder Jensen. Fwiw, I don’t lie in this forum – EVER. My opinions are wrong sometimes, I’m sure, but I don’t lie. I know we see some things very differently, but I’ve never once accused you of lying; I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.
I have no problem whatsoever if you post your thought about homosexuality in a thread that is about that topic. Just do so respectfully and in a way that others won’t see it as calling them liars – which is the message I got from multiple participants and tried to share with you.
Obviously, I am very concerned about the post she says she will write – and about the fact that she obviously believes that the Church still teaches that nobody is born with homosexual tendencies (and that she would read my comment as saying all homosexuals are born that way, which I didn’t say).
Just keep an eye out for her post, please. If it needs to be shut down or moderated, I’d appreciate it if someone else acts as the hammer this time.
I was hoping this would fade away quietly… Accusing someone else of lying is not an acceptable debate tactic, not on this site. To me, that is a serious accusation. I know some people throw that term around loosely whenever they think someone else is factually mistaken. I do not approve of that loosey-goosey use of the term. It’s too emotionally loaded, and it isn’t correct usage. Lying requires IMO an element of maliciously distorting information to gain advantage over another person.
In the case of Featherina, I get this sense she has a deep emotional fear or something in her history that causes such an extreme emotional reaction on the topic of homosexuality. She has a very different vibe when it comes to this topic.
I told her she might be able to re-post her idea if she worded it softer and framed it in a less absolutist tone. Our Rules of Etiquette explicitly state that conversations should not be geared towards debating absolute truths:
Do’s
Quote:Please feel free to disagree with anyone. Nobody here has all the answers. We can all benefit from being challenged. This is not a debate club though. There is no winning or losing. Please try to stay supportive and positive with those who might not believe the same way.
Don’ts
Quote:Please do not start discussions that lead to a debate with the results of finding the one correct answer to a problem. Topics like this will probably be moderated.
Even though I disagree with her opinion … she is free to hold the opinion that people are not born with SSA. I still support her if she wants to talk about that as long as it stays within the scope of our site mission and rules.
I split off the thread with Featherina’s new comment and the one reply. It is located here: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3704 I put in a comment after yours Ray, letting everyone know where the new topic is located, and that we want to keep the current thread focused on the original topic from the OP.
Thanks, Brian. She is wonderful in lots of other topics, but homosexuality and and tithing are two topics where she gets extremely dogmatic and won’t even consider different perspectives.
We’ll see how this goes.
She just can’t step back on this topic. We might have to shut it down sooner rather than later. I will be traveling all day and away from my computer soon. If it continues this way, I won’t be able to step in. I’ve asked her to refrain from commenting on the thread for the rest of the day, so the two of us don’t dominate the thread and turn it into dueling piccolos. If she doesn’t do that, and if it spirals, please step in and do whatever is best for the thread and this site.
She came back and posted her responses. I was typing my comment about closing it and discussing it with the admins and moderators when cwald responded. Please read her comments. We need to decide whether to open it again or keep it locked.
Just finished reading through them. Its not heading anywhere new, and is still just debates. I believe it should remain locked, and I believe we need to watch for the next wave of threads that may pop up trying to restart the debates.
Yup. That threads a long road to nowhere. We’re not running this site to figure out why people are gay. It just isn’t in our scope. And even if it is purely a simple choice to make, it doesn’t matter for our purposes. We’re here to help people that our religion is on the brink of losing, or has lost. People who are gay have a very hard time right now staying LDS. That is why we probably need to be more lenient. People who believe being gay is something to be fought against out in society … they already have a lot of support elsewhere. We all could have predicted where this thread was going to go. We don’t do these kinds of debates. These discussions invite the wrong spirit (to use Mormon lingo).
I think we need to discuss seriously whether or not to ban Featherina. Her latest post was way over the top. I didn’t delete it specifically because I wanted controlled responses to the central question of attitudes toward killing, but I missed the really inflammatory, soapbox stuff in it when I originally skimmed it. She just doesn’t get it, and she won’t leave certain issues alone. The worst part of what I deleted was comparing dying of AIDS to suicide and why anyone would accept activities (described explicitly) that lead to that type of “killing”. To say it was bad would be an incredible understatement.
I think the way I handled the post might drive her away without being banned, but I think we need to have the conversation, regardless.
It’s a shame Featherina is so Jeckle & Hyde. I can’t say I am a huge fan of their posts in general, but many come across as well thought out and supportive. But the homosexual issue is one that sets Featherina off the cliff for whatever reason. It really almost seems like a different person every once in a while. I agree, Brian. Her comments to others in normal threads usually are really good, but this is the second time she has written a post of her own that, at the core, makes wild logical leaps and condemns homosexuals in seriously over-the-top ways. She basically called homosexual activity slow suicide and asked why any rational person would allow it. She also criticized people for thinking that “anuses are entrances” – among other things. If you didn’t see the unedited version, count your blessings. It was brutal.
I locked the thread. It got ugly again the minute she responded. I moderated with an even heavier hand this time, given the additional vitriol she wrote. Do we need to consider banning her, or do we wait and see how she reacts?
I got the following PM from cwald this evening and promised him I would share it with all of you to discuss: Quote:Featherina
Sent: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:10 pm
From: cwald
To: Old Timer
I think you’ve been very patient with her. She probably needs to go.
This has likely resolved itself. I hadn’t checked messages in a while but saw that Featherina PM’d me on Apr 15. Said was going to take a break. Like I said, probably resolved itself. I just deleted a paragraph in Featherina’s latest comment on the thread with “More Overtones to Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk”. ( http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4677&start=10#p63934 It accused the Church of using tithing funds to help support Mitt Romney’s run for the US Presidency and said the Church is guilty of priestcraft for not following the Old Testament model of tithing distribution. She just can’t get off that soapbox, even after we hashed it out previously – and the charge about Mitt Romney is just stupid.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.