selek1 wrote:There were no denials by the Church, nor by President Dunn. He was called on his excesses and corrective action was taken.
The record is clear and unquivocal- the matter was being taken care of in an appropriate and ethical fashion. Packer's article affected that process not one whit.
To pretend that the evidence supports any other conclusion requires a level of petty mendacity and trenchant myopia found only in the depths of the Tanner's Ministry, IRR, and the warmest levels of Hell.
I guess if by handled ethically you mean that he was allowed to continue to sell his books and cassette tapes and his lies were being swept under the rug.
Here we see Wade Englund explicitly admitting that facts are not relevant to the point he is making (bold in original):
wenglund wrote:
DavidB wrote:Some more disinformation; which is the disinformation. These three are a few of the rally cries against ssm.
Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close shop because of SSM vs. Catholic adoption agencies closed because they could not operate without State or Federal funding - a condition of receiving said funding was abiding by State laws.
A Church in New Jersey was penalized for standing true to its religious beliefs against SSM. vs. A Church in New Jersey, which held it property open for public use as a condition for receiving tax exemption on the property, lost its tax exempt status for refusing to hold the property open to the public i.e. a homosexual couple.
Student in Mass. were forced to read a book about a homosexual Prince. vs. Student in Mass. were sent home with a list of books for reading. The parents of said children were to review the list are were permitted to object. Parents did not review the list and thus did not object to a book about a homosexual prince.
Students in Ca. were forced to attend a SSM wedding. vs. Parents of students in Ca. arranged for their children to attend the ssm of their teacher.
FYI, this thread is intended to discuss the general process and strategies related to the gay movement. The previous thread was intended to highlight general points of disinformation. Here you are presenting specific points you believe are disinformative.
Now, even though your post is more than a little off-topic, I will allow it and open it up to scrutiny by those interested.
However, the thing is, you need to provide links to what you are allegedly quoting in each of the cases above so that we can check the accuracy of your quotes and also read the quotes in context so as to test your claim of disinformation.
zerinus said: If I thought that I had been tricked by somebody, I would be angry at myself for allowing myself to be tricked. This is especially true in matters of faith. Nobody can force anybody to adopt a system of belief. If you do, the responsibility is entirely yours. Although it is possible to know for sure that Mormonism true, it is impossible to know for sure that it is not true. You still don't really know if Mormonism is true or not. You cannot really say that you have been tricked by anybody, except possibly by yourself. The Church has not altered its position any. It is declaring what it has always declared. The only one who has changed is you.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
William Hamblin wrote:While there are, of course, numerous non-binary issues, there are, in fact, some issues which necessarily are binary--that is "all or nothing." This is especially true with questions of existence or non-existence of something. That is: there either is a God, or there is not. There either was a historical Alexander the Great, or there was not. Jesus either really existed or he did not. He was resurrected from the dead, or he was not. The existence or non-existence of the Nephites and the golden plates is one of those issues. That is to say, Joseph Smith either really had ancient golden plates that were written by Nephite prophets, or he did not. I think that if he didn't, the unavoidable logical implication is that he was a false prophet.
LOL!!!
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
zerinus said: If I thought that I had been tricked by somebody, I would be angry at myself for allowing myself to be tricked. This is especially true in matters of faith. Nobody can force anybody to adopt a system of belief. If you do, the responsibility is entirely yours. Although it is possible to know for sure that Mormonism true, it is impossible to know for sure that it is not true. You still don't really know if Mormonism is true or not. You cannot really say that you have been tricked by anybody, except possibly by yourself. The Church has not altered its position any. It is declaring what it has always declared. The only one who has changed is you.
Stormy Waters wrote:Additional quotes from the Paul H. Dunn thread. Basically any criticism of the church is wrong even if the criticism is true.
why me wrote:I don't think a LDS journalist should be in the business of hurting other LDS members. Sometimes there is the human factor and this must be considered. When that piece was published, Dunn was devastated. But Packer got a reputation and some money. And because of this there is a moral equivalency brush' and some ethical considerations.
ERayR wrote:No it was he did something that he knew would damage the church and Elder Dunn and neither is/was out to harm anyone. And for what? Money. To me it kind of reminds me of Judas' action. That being said, had I been in his position would I have acted any differently. I don't know but I hope I would have.
Racer wrote:This line logic worked out well for Penn State.
The practice of covering up mistakes for the good of an organization is contemptible. These posters have shown their true colors here. They believe information that is damaging should be concealed or rationalized for the good of the organization. If it had been up to them they would have allowed Paul Dunn to continue to sell books and cassette tapes to members who were unaware. In short, they are okay with other members believing lies if they think it's for the greater good.
Stormy Waters wrote:The practice of covering up mistakes for the good of an organization is contemptible. These posters have shown their true colors here. They believe information that is damaging should be concealed or rationalized for the good of the organization. If it had been up to them they would have allowed Paul Dunn to continue to sell books and cassette tapes to members who were unaware. In short, they are okay with other members believing lies if they think it's for the greater good.
I am not surprised one bit that this is the way that many apologists think. There is no question that selective memory, doublespeak and other obfuscation tactics are standard tools of the trade for mopologists. What I AM surprised by is how open many of them were about it on the Paul Dunn thread. Many of them show no shame at all while openly advocating lying in the service of a greater cause. Joseph Smith would be proud of them.
Stormy Waters: how have you managed to avoid banning . . . and also how exactly do you manage to maintain your sanity while browsing the MADhouse?
Cicero wrote:Stormy Waters: how have you managed to avoid banning . . . and also how exactly do you manage to maintain your sanity while browsing the MADhouse?
One of my accounts was banned. I still have another but I don't use it. I clear/refuse cookies from their site to keep browsing. But I think I'm done. I've been wasting time that could be spent reading educational material. There aren't even critics participating over there. Mostly it's just DBMormon wanting to discuss various topics and the regulars getting pissed at him for bringing them up. The other threads are about as exciting as a Sunday school lesson.
Wanting it and demanding it are two very different things. If there was caffeinated rather than decaf coke at the temple cafeteria I would buy it instead....but it would not even occur to me to ask for it. So unless there is documentation of petitions or other campaigns, which would be very, very unlikely at BYU, it would be quite honest to say there was no discernable demand.
I'm thinking that it might be a little dishonest to claim that there was, unless you are using mind reading as the criteria
WTF!?!?
In what universe is economic demand measured by the number of petitions sent to an organization or company?
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written on the Internet, anywhere.
"This is why I am a big fan of the Mormon lay. It is important that two people know that they are somewhat compatible in bed. After a couple of Mormon lays, one can know a lot about the other person's sexuality."
