This GUEST POST was submitted by jonathan, a regular reader and occasional commenter, who lives in California. Many people from around the world flocked to the land of promise, and many came through New York to obtain the American Dream. Although our country's reputation and global power has diminished, when the price of oil was expected to reach 10 times historical norms and new global conflicts were escalating in each region of the world (Georgia, Venezuela, etc.), the economic advisors of the political leaders projected that the economy would be fine because the core fundamentals of our nation's economy were still strong. However, it wasn't long until the credit annoyance of the sub-prime mortgage loans began to bleed into other financial markets, and now the whole investment banking industry is gone. Companies all around the world came to Wall Street in New York to be listed and to do business, but Wall Street is now crumbling before our eyes. America's bank and the U.S. Treasury notes were the base of the world's trade markets and the nation's financial power, but now banks are refusing to do business with each other, and no one has confidence in their economic future. In this time of uncertainty, the Lord told His prophet that He required a sign of faith from His people. The leader of each home was told to make a mark for their house to show that they believed in the original prophetic proclamation. The prophet warned that the children of each family were at risk and that each family was at risk. Thousands of years ago, I am sure that Moses instructed the faithful to go door to door trying to persuade their neighbors and friends to put a positive mark for their home. The political leaders of the country today are polling and watching as the people prepare to make their marks. Many ridicule the followers of God and do not put any significance in the original prophetic warning or the risk to their children. The political leaders' main concern is to count how many people make a mark for their homes, and they are concerned that if a majority of the homes mark that they were following that the Prophet said, then the followers of God would outnumber the political leaders. The political leaders are covetous of political power, but the Prophet knows that this is a moral issue, not a political issue. November 4th is the day set apart as the deadline for when everyone must make their mark for their family. The day will soon come, and I do not know if 50% of the people will vote for Proposition 8 to pass; however, I do know that for this moral issue, my family will follow the Prophet. I do not anticipate that the firstborn sons of families will physically die, but I don't think it is unlikely that their spirits may die. In the end, thousands of years from now, I do not know if it will matter if Proposition 8 passes; however, I do know that the prophetic warnings will come true today like they did for the people of Moses. The calamities of old are happening today, and if Prop 8 does not pass, then I do believe that many families will lose their children. The people may currently only see this as just another proposition to vote on; however, when future families are in jeopardy, I wonder if political leaders will look back and realize the significance of Prop 8. What will happen to our country if we as a people choose not to support the family as the fundamental unit of society? What calamities will come to our country? Will our country ever have the same political and financial power as it did before the calamities came? I do not know the answers to these questions, but I believe the Lord and His Prophet do. As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord.
While walking door to door for Prop 8, I was pondering why this proposition is so important, and I thought of the following . . .
A Land of Promise
The followers of God lived in the most powerful country of the world. The people had been guided to this land by the hand of God - this was a land of prosperity. The followers of God held a feast each year to mark the gratitude they felt for God, who lead their ancestors to this land of promise. Their ancestors had come to this land in a time of desolation when they had no food; if it had not been for the generosity of the people in the land, the ancestors of the current followers of God would have perished. The ancient original inhabitants of the land gave the ancestors, or the followers of God, food and helped them through the famine.
An Imbalance of Power
In the centuries that followed, after the followers of God began to inhabit the land, the land was blessed with financial prosperity and global power. The followers of God existed in peace with the other people in the promised land for many generations; however, as the power of the nation increased, the leaders of the country began to covet their power. The leaders of the country did not have as many children as the families of the followers of God, and the imbalance was increased because the people of the land invented ways to abort unwanted babies. The leaders of the country began to feel threatened by the increasing numbers of the followers of God, and as a result, they took away many of their liberties.
A Prophetic Proclamation
The Prophet of the followers of God gave the leaders of the land a proclamation which warned them to let the people of the land be free. The prophet warned that if the people were not free to follow God as they chose, then God would send famine and pestilence. The Prophet was respected by the leaders, but the Prophet held no political power, so his proclamation was ignored.
Nation's Global Power Diminished
The Prophet prayed for the people in the land, but after a period of time, it became clear that the prophetic warning needed to be fulfilled for the benefit of the people. The basis of the global power of the country was its power in shipping and global trade; and all shipping routes led to the Nile River. The Lord demonstrated His power by turning the Nile River to blood. The bloody Nile was annoying; however, the ships continued to float across the bloody river, so the shipping wasn't completely devastated until the Lord sent plagues of frogs, lice, and flies which infested all of the cargo and made it so that no one would trade with the country.
A Mark of Faith for Each Home
Now that the nation had been sufficiently humbled, the Lord told His prophet that He required a sign of faith from His people. The leader of each home was told to make a mark for their house to show that they believed in the original Prophetic proclamation. The Prophet warned that the children of each family were at risk and that every family was at risk. The political leaders of the country monitored as the people made their marks; however, they ridiculed the followers of God and did not put any significance into the original prophetic warning or the risk to their children. The political leaders' main concern was to count how many people made a mark for their homes, and they were concerned that if a majority of the homes marked that they were following what the prophet said, then they would outnumber the political leaders. The political leaders were still covetous of their political power, but the Prophet knew that this was a moral issue, not a political issue.
Angel of Death
A day had been set apart as the deadline for when everyone had to make their mark for their family. The day came and left, and it soon became clear that the prophetic warning had been true. Now the politicians did not care if there were more than 50% of the houses with marks; the political leaders only cared that they had lost their families and their children. The political leaders finally conceded to give the people the freedom they had been denied; however, by now it was too late. The story of the followers of God still continues today, but the once great nation that refused to follow God never again attained the same level of Global and Financial power it once enjoyed. The Nation had once been a promised land, but it no longer held the same promise.
The story above happened thousands of years ago and can be read in Exodus Chapters 5 to 14, but it is surprisingly similar to our situation today . . .
A Land of Promise
The followers of God live in the most powerful country in the world. The people had been guided to this land by the hand of God, this was a land of prosperity. We celebrate Thanksgiving each year, we state what we are thankful for, and the followers of God are thankful that God led their ancestors to this land of promise. The story of the pilgrims who were starving in their first years here is similar to the story of Joseph's technicolor dream coat and how the Egyptians helped Joseph's family.
An Imbalance of Power
Our country's government is based on the principles of a balance of power among factions and among political branches of the government. We believe that God guided the founders of our country, and our country has enjoyed immense financial prosperity and global power. The followers of God have existed in peace with the rest of the country for many generations; however, as the power of the nation increased, the leaders of this country have begun to covet power. What was once a model for balance and a government of the people, for the people, has turned into a government of political inbred elite who bring politics into each branch of the government and fight over the imbalance. The leaders of the country currently feel threatened by the increasing numbers of the followers of God, and as a result, they have begun to use judges in the judicial branch to take away many of the liberties that the people established through the legislative process.
A Prophetic Proclamation
In 1995, the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors (including Thomas S. Monson) and the quorum of the 12 apostles made the following proclamation to the leaders of the world: We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
Nation's Global Power Diminished
A Mark of Faith for Each Home
Angel of Death
In this context, please read these words again from 1995: We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
God bless us all,
Jon
One Eternal Round - Ancient Egypt and the U.S. Today
Posted by Stephanie on 10/29/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
103 comments:
"The people may currently only see this as just another proposition to vote on; however, when future families are in jeopardy, I wonder if political leaders will look back and realize the significance of Prop 8."
Or they may look back at it like we do today with the civil rights movement of the 1960's (which church leaders also sounded a warning voice about), asking themselves why it took so long.
Your guess is as good as mine. Only time will tell. I'm still a Prop 8 Agnostic.
Thanks for contributing, Jon, I love guest posts!
Commenters: a pre-emptive strike, from the Brethren:
"As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility." (emphasis added)
The story above [the Exodus story] is surprisingly similar to our situation today
No it's not.
The story of the pilgrims who were starving in their first years here is similar to the story of Joseph's technicolor dream coat and how the Egyptians helped Joseph's family.
No it's not.
In the annals of scriptural misreadings, Jonathan's misreading is, well, Mike just reminded us to be civil, so I'll just say Jonathan's is a profound misreading.
Exodus story: Joseph's family leaves Israel for Egypt because of a famine in Israel.
Pilgrim story: Separatist pilgrims leave Britain because that country's Christianity isn't "pure" enough, and then leave the Netherlands because it has too much religious freedom.
Exodus story: Joseph becomes an able assistant to the Egyptian leader and helps save the host nation from famine during seven lean years.
Pilgrim story: Pilgrims' smallpox and asymmetrical warfare and massacring of Indian women and children (e.g., Pequot Massacre of 1637) help to destroy the host nation.
Exodus story: Joseph's descendants do leave the host country. To this day the host country remains almost completely populated by Egyptians.
Pilgrim story: Pilgrims' descendants don't leave the host country. To this day the host country's original inhabitants remain a small and relatively poor minority.
Exodus story: Egypt remains rigidly anti-gay rights, yet DOES decline.
Pilgrim story: America gradually becomes more and more pro-gay rights, yet does NOT decline, even though so-called prophets keep saying it will.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Jonathan, you're not doing what you apparently think you're doing. You're not demonstrating that the sacred scripture backs up your political activity. You're twisting the scripture to make it fit your preconceived thesis. That's not only circular reasoning (at least if you believe your position to originate in the scripture you're twisting), it's also very disrespectful of scripture. It also makes you (and, sad but true, your church) look really, really bad.
Now, let's see... How can *I* twist scripture to back up one of *my* political positions.... I know! I'll write a wacky paraphrase that shows how the Book of Ruth is "surprisingly similar" to lesbian weddings!
Anybody can play this game, and many do--but it's a stupid game and, as I said, betrays a profound disrespect for the scripture itself.
--David
I read this and I get it. This is part of why I like the scriptures---they have so many meanings on different levels. I love reading something and relating it to my life and then rereading it a few years later and having it relate to my life in a completely different way. I think this is why the scriptures are inspired---so many different people undergoing different experiences with different trials and blessings can read them and get something unique and personal out of it.
Good post.
I have been fortunate to witness a youtube video Pro-8 which I have been copied on all the comments which flood in. There have been somewhere like 20,000 views of the video or so, and the comments which have been flooding in against prop 8 are THE most sickening and hateful words I have heard in a long time.
These words coming from those who claim that Prop 8 is hateful.
The scriptures state that evil will be called good and good will be called evil. I think we are 100% there on the prop 8 issue. Where did Heterosexual marriage become evil? Where did protecting our sanctified unions become evil?
Interesting stuff.
Anon David, here is the problem I have with comments like yours. You don't like the analogy, so you automatically disregard and attack everything in it. Could there possibly be any element of truth in there? No, it is not an exact comparison, but how many situations in history and in the scriptures are exactly the same? Sure, some of the correlations Jon draws are a stretch, but could there be any element of similarity between the two stories? There's enough to cause me to ponder.
Jessie nailed it. The thing about reading, interpreting and applying scripture is that it changes. The same scriptures mean different things at different times, depending on what the Lord is trying to teach you. The Lord tells us to "liken the scriptures unto ourselves". I appreciate that Jon drew this conclusion and sought to share it. It doesn't mean that I 100% agree with every conclusion he draws (mostly because I just don't know), but I appreciate the insight I gain in reading it.
My question for those of you who don't feel that defining marriage to include more than just one man and one woman is part of the "disintegration of the family" that the prophets warned about in 1995 is this: what is? What do you think is the thing threatening to disintegrate the family that we are asked to "promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society". If this isn't it, what is it? In what other ways is the family under attack since 1995 that we must promote measures against to ensure that the family is the fundamental unit of society?
"What do you think is the thing threatening to disintegrate the family that we are asked to "promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society"
Infidelity and abuse of all kinds. That's what's disintegrating families now and that's what will continue to disintegrate them in the future, whether or not gays get married.
Of all the couples you know who have split up and of all the dysfunctional families you can think of, how many of those sad cases can you link directly to homosexuality?
There is a heck of a lot more we need to do to protect families, and this issue (prop 8) is the loudest one ringing the bell right now. That's why we are all getting off our rears and answering the call.
Once this issue is won, there will be more battles to win about protecting marriage. Battling media decency, child abuse, and spousal respect to name a few.
All in all, the lord will win, we know that. It just waits to show who is on the lords side? Our voting records may ironically be an undeniable accounting of which side we are on.
FD, I agree that infidelity and abuse weaken families and that this is a great part of what the FP is talking about, but I get the feeling that strengthening the family "as the fundamental unit of society" also encompasses more (probably even some issues we haven't encountered yet). But, assuming you are correct that it is just infidelity and abuse, what are the measures we are being called upon to promote that will correct that? That will strengthen the family "as the fundamental unit of society"?
I don't presume to know exactly how changing the definition of marriage will affect families. Here is what I do know:
1. The Family Proclamation warns against the disintegration of the family and asks us to promote measures that will strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
2. The First Presidency has identified changing the definition of marriage to anything other than one man and one woman as a threat to the family: Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children. (Taken from "The Divine Institution of Marriage") of the family.
3. The First Presidency has asked us to support Prop 8.
As Jon pointed out, the church's action on Prop 8 is consistent with the Proclamation on the Family. I personally just can't interpret it any other way. But, that doesn't mean I think the warning is only about changing the definition of marriage. This is just one of the assaults on the family, but I think it is a big one.
Could there possibly be any element of truth in there? Sure, the possibility exists. The possibility also exists that, as I tried to show by pointing up the large and significant differences between the Exodus and Pilgrim stories, Jon's reading is entirely tendentious. Which is it? Whichever is right, some sort of demonstration is required. It won't do to say simply that "the possibility exists...."
No, it is not an exact comparison, but how many situations in history and in the scriptures are exactly the same? Of course none are exactly the same. You can't step in the same river twice. But some comparisons are still more or less instructive, or more or less offensive, than others. The differences I pointed out between the enslaved Jews and the colonizing Pilgrims are significant enough to render Jon's analogy both misleading and offensive. It's offensive in a deeply racist way to think (as the analogy suggests) that, just as God killed off so many Egyptians to enable the escape of the Israelites, God killed off so many Indians to enable the fortunes of the Pilgrims (as they believed).
Jon's analogy is so bad one is left wondering why he pursued it. I would suggest that he's picked up the bad habit of believing that if he attach his opinions to scriptural authority they somehow automatically become something more than mere opinion. Sensing the intrinsic weakness of his claims, he reaches reflexively for some scripture to back it up.
Could there be any element of similarity between the two stories? There's enough to cause me to ponder. Well, what are the similarities? I see these:
Both Puritans and Israelites arrogantly thought of themselves as God's favored people. This similarity causes me to ponder the humanity's profound capability for cultural arrogance.
In both stories, God kills off many innocents. Why so many people consider this to be a God worth worshiping is beyond me.
Etc.
But even on your own terms, Jon's analogy is shaky. It's not just that similarities between the stories are so much fewer than the differences. It's also that many of what he claims to be similarities simply aren't.
I mean, come on. Just because Jon attaches the same label, "Imbalance of Power," to two things does not establish any real similarity between them.
In ancient Egypt there was an "imbalance of power" between the Egyptians and the Israelites.
Somehow that's supposed to be "similar" to the following state of affairs in contemporary America:
The followers of God have existed in peace with the rest of the country for many generations; however, as the power of the nation increased, the leaders of this country have begun to covet power. [Are we really supposed to believe that America's leaders now covet Mormon power? Sheesh.] What was once a model for balance and a government of the people, for the people, has turned into a government of political inbred elite who bring politics into each branch of the government and fight over the imbalance. [Are we really to believe that there's more "imbalance" today than in the days of Lilburn Boggs and Tammany Hall? Sheesh.] The leaders of the country currently feel threatened by the increasing numbers of the followers of God, and as a result, they have begun to use judges in the judicial branch to take away many of the liberties that the people established through the legislative process. [Has Jonathan forgotten that the "leaders of the country" just happen to include George W. Bush, who considers himself a follower of God? Or that Bush has appointed justices like Roberts and Alito? America's leaders are worried about increasing numbers of Mormons/Christians/whatever? Sheesh. Jonathan's just wrong, Stephanie.]
My question for those of you who don't feel that defining marriage to include more than just one man and one woman is part of the "disintegration of the family"...is this: what is?
What counts as "disintegration of the family"? Well, actual disintegration of families counts as "disintegration of the family." When a gay couple gets married they don't disintegrate any existing family, they create a new one. Creation is pretty much the opposite of disintegration, yet you'd have us believe they're the same! What's next on this Orwellian tour--war is peace?
Look, folks. Just because you've got the special pipeline to God's truth doesn't mean you don't have to think. It doesn't make a really, really bad argument a good one.
--David
I never said it was "just" infidelity and abuse. There are surely many other factors that can contribute to the disintegration of a family. But the majority can probably be traced to those two things.
Yes, when gay couples wed, it DOES disintegrate the family. There are requirements to become licensed in something. If we issue licenses to everyone, they are of no value.
A drivers license given without testing or requirements is of no value, it becomes unnecessary and useless.
A license to practice Law loses its value if you start giving them to 2nd year college students.
A license to practice medicine loses value and disintegrates to nothing is we offer them to any jo shmo who wants to cut people open.
We have requirements to meet in order to obtain a license in this country, which keeps the value of that license important. The founding fathers of this country and religions of this world have agreed alike that offering licenses for marriage to people breaking natures laws, or breaking health norms, could be dangerous to societies as a whole. Hence we do not allow people to marry underage children, to protect them from predators, abuse, and foolishness (I guess) ;)
They do not allow marriage licenses to marry your sister, because it is a health concern for children born in such unions, and is morally wrong. We do not issue licenses to marry trees or cars, because it disintegrates or devalues a license to marry a human. There is a value to religious and athiest/agnostic alike, which we protect by not allowing just everyone to marry anything. Gay marriage happens to disintegrate on levels both of health to society, morality, and human nature. There are NO laws against them doing what they want to freely do, but they are not given a license to wed because they do not meet the requirements.
This is no more a civil issue than not allowing 15 year olds to have a drivers license, or pedophiles to marry kids, or my high school drop out homeless friend to have a medical license. The value of those licenses are based on logic and reason.
This is also not about gay "RIGHTS". hahah. What rights do I have that a gay person doesn't have??? NAME ONE!
you can't. Because there are NO rights I have that they dont have, so lets try to lose this misnomer of gay "rights". They have every right I have.
(oh, what about the right to marry the one I love!!) If that is what constitutes a right, then why do we ban people from marrying trees and children? They LOVE them, and who are we to tell them they cant be married! What about the dude that wants to marry his mother? or sister? If love is all it takes, why not! NO no no. There is much more to the value of a license than giving it to anyone who wants it.
Hence, giving a license to wed away to someone who doesn't qualify devalues, and disintegrates the secular and sacred union of marriage.
Hmmm. I'm not interested in continuing this conversation. The only verse that keeps coming to mind throughout these types of discussion is 1 Corinthians 2:11,14. (It was quoted 3 times in April 2008 General Conference)
Thank you, Jon, for your submission.
Hmmmm... I think that sounds like a good idea. We've been through this gay marriage debate before. I think I'll go out with one last question:
"The founding fathers of this country and religions of this world have agreed alike that offering licenses for marriage to people breaking natures laws, or breaking health norms, could be dangerous to societies as a whole."
What, then, did the founding fathers think of polygamy?
Writes Coy, The founding fathers of this country and religions of this world have agreed alike that offering licenses for marriage to people breaking nature's laws, or breaking health norms, could be dangerous to societies as a whole.
In what universe did this country's founding fathers ever say a single word about gay marriage? Talk about pulling stuff out of your hat....
Coy is using a naked appeal to authority: X says it, so it's true. So the argument is both fallacious in form and wrong on the facts.
--David
I can't believe I'm perpetuating yet another same-sex marriage discussion, but...
The founding fathers of this country and religions of this world have agreed alike that offering licenses for marriage to people breaking natures laws, or breaking health norms, could be dangerous to societies as a whole.
I think you are putting words in the founders' mouths, but fine - if that is your premise let's run with it. The founding fathers also would have agreed that the federal government has no business in determining who should and should not marry - it's a right left to the states by the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
Now I realize that props 8 and 102 are potential state laws, not federal, but I would imagine most ardent 8/102 supporters want a federal amendment as well. If you're all about the founders' intent, then leave well enough alone and drop it once your state outlaws it (or move to a state that does).
I'm glad you find nothing better to argue than my statement of our founders. The founders of this country supported the law as written, and religious leaders also support this law as written, and licenses have been given as such.
You clearly have no better argument against the points I present, so you resume nitpicking words. Fine by me.
Big Dave, really I think we should welcome revisits to the same topics, since 1. new people read and contribute (ahem, myself included) and 2. there are not an infinite supply of topics, and I don't think this blog will expire once we cover them all.
If the founding fathers welcomed gay marriage, and my statement is wrong, then why didn't they write it in the constitution? I assume am I right, they supported the marriage laws as they have always been from the time of Hammurabi, where even therein marriage law was a most dominant topic in his code.
Its a waste of time to argue about the founding fathers, and a great tactic you lefties always use to confuse/change the focus of this issue away from logic. Point is clear that our founding fathers supported one nation under God. Disagree with them if you will, but God was very central to their mission, and they understood gods laws on marriage.
From the days of Ham. Code till now, governments have always had interest in marriage big Dave, even our founders.
While I have no hatred or anger towards gay persons, we must protect marriage.
If you disagree, the only arguments I think are valid is to argue the same logic for why giving a 14 year old a drivers license is ok, and why it wouldn't be a problem. Why is loosening the requirements for marriage ok and not harmful? That is the best argument for the gay supporters as I see it.
I think this USA needs to be a lot more tolerant of people who are X (insert gay, black, mexican) different than them. That can be accomplished without devaluing marriage.
Oh my, where to start?
If the founding fathers welcomed gay marriage, and my statement is wrong, then why didn't they write it in the constitution?
If they didn't support gay marriage, why didn't they outlaw it in the constitution? The Constitution is not a comprehensive set of laws; it's a framework for a representative democracy. And part of that framework is leaving rights to the people and the states that are not expressly granted or denied by the Constitution.
Its a waste of time to argue about the founding fathers, and a great tactic you lefties always use to confuse/change the focus of this issue away from logic.
I completely agree - YOU brought them up, not me.
Point is clear that our founding fathers supported one nation under God.
Wow. The founders intentionally kept the Constitution free of references to God - they were completely against the institutionalization of religion! That was exactly what they were trying to escape in England! The phrase "one nation under God", which appears in the Pledge of Allegience (originally written in 1892, containing NO reference to God, or even the United States, for that matter), has nothing to do with the founding fathers.
If you disagree, the only arguments I think are valid is to argue the same logic for why giving a 14 year old a drivers license is ok, and why it wouldn't be a problem.
What you fail to see is that I am actually opposed to gay marriage, in the exact same way Barack Obama is opposed to gay marriage. I have already voted for prop 102 in Arizona via mail. I'm just poking holes in your swiss cheese logic. :)
BTW - here is a good article on the history behind the "under God" phenomenon. The commentary has a bit of a leftist lean, of course, but the history is legit.
So the value of marriage is enhanced by keeping it exclusive. OK, fine. Its value would be enhanced even more if, say, poor people could not marry. That's just brilliant: exclusivity as its own end--as long as Coy gets to be in the club.
This is the morality of the junior-high-school clique.
I'm going to be generous here and assume that Coy knows better and is just pulling our collective leg. Like Stephanie, I'm outta here.
--David
you got me. I was just pulling your legs! haha. I actually think we should give marriage licenses to gays, and drivers licenses to 14 year olds, and law licenses to dropouts, and medical licenses to people who love drugs and cutting people. So long as I am in those clubs...
hmm. makes sense. right? ;)
Big Dave, does swiss cheese logic refer to the kind with holes in it, or without? Because traditionally the bigger the holes in S.C. the better the taste! Those holes are also called "eyes", so assume you mean that I have good views on things.
I suppose I will accept the compliments that I have good taste and views!
Why thank you Dave!
;)
Coy, if you want to argue your position with logic and reason, great - let's do that. But patronizing me isn't going to get you very far. I'm done with this topic as well.
""pa·tron·ize"...
3. To treat in a condescending manner."
You either...
1. have no sense of humor and take yourself way too seriously.
or
2. Are not used to someone playing your game back at ya.
Perhaps you would enjoy the ability of letting "patronizing" comments like "I'm just poking holes in your swiss cheese logic", roll off you without chinking your armor too.
Hope you can enjoy your evening still. haha.
For those who still have a humor bone, anyone else getting as many laughs from the SNL representations of these debates and such? Its really hilarious.
I'm a big Palin supporter and I think the SNL stints are hilarious.
By the way, since when did this blog become the End All of political discussion? Why is everyone so stuffy?
I think the conversation went way off topic (Thanks ANon Dave...this seems to be your talent). Personally, the blog post could have fostered some good discussion. What about the economic implications in conjunction with righteousness? Anyone agree or disagree? What about the Lord guiding people to come hither or thither based on politics and religious freedom?
This post got me thinking. Hopefully it got you thinking before you got upset by all the asinine comments that are personal, rather than reflective of this thread.
1. have no sense of humor and take yourself way too seriously.
or
2. Are not used to someone playing your game back at ya.
No, I don't take myself seriously at all, and if you were "playing my game", I wouldn't be so frustrated right now. I have presented several logical counterarguments, and you have yet to logically respond to a single one. I participate on this blog for intellectual discussions that make me challenge my own thinking, and I am disappointed in the lack of intellectual rigor in this one. You have demonstrated that you have to be right, and you seem to be willing to make any argument, no matter how fallacious or ill-conceived, to get there. And that's not intellectual discussion. If I wanted that I'd listen to Sean Hannity.
Those who know me know I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I'm just not wrong very much Big Dave! lol. (kidding, kidding)(I have to throw in that disclaimer for some).
Have a good nite man, really, you may just be smarter than I am, but it doesn't change the fact that when you start making "patronizing" comments about someone (including me) you will never walk away feeling fulfilled.
Your comment is just full of irony, referring to my comments as "fallacious" or "ill-conceived". seems as though you are more interested in being right than being civil friendly. Maybe I am wrong. (oh wait, I am supposed to always be right, dang.) :)
If you can "lighten up" a bit, we could have some fun discussion, where even conservative members enjoy posting, (imagine that) without the (albeit ironic) personal attacks.
I welcome HUMOR at my expense though, as I enjoy a good laugh, even at myself.
Ya know, Jon, I think you wrote a great post comparing past experiences in this world to our current experience. This thread may have been sidetracked again, but might I try to post an "intellectual" (snicker) comment about your post? Most politicians today don't seem to have true interest in individuals enough. I would say, from the primary system to the lawmaking judges, we lose the individual voice somewhere in the mix. That could be good or bad I guess, depending on the good or evil people that make up a country. Like Mosiah said... "If it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings... it would be expedient..." Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, and the voice of the people is usually a safer way to ensure a good outcome. Not in all cases though...
I recently came across this quote, and audio is available online for those who desire. I think it is along the lines with what you are saying.
Ezra Taft Benson...
“I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I’m proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture — and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declaired in substance:
“‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’
“And they’re ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ7LcplfkgY
Wow. Gullible we are. Destroyed from the inside... I can believe it.
Jon, what do you think will help us avoid Kruschev predictions?
Thoughts?
My goodness, I don't know what displays greater paranoia: that quote by Ezra Taft Benson, or that last comment by Anonymous (who isn't as anonymous as he thinks he is).
Some people will never learn that the lower they stoop to argue their side, the harder it is to convince anyone of whatever it was they were arguing in the first place.
And that last comment is about as low as it gets. Makes me sooooo proud to be a Mormon! (*huge sarcasm.*)
Hi all--I've emailed BBD separately about this, but will ask the rest of the Politicalds administrators here if they would please delete the above post with the home address and phone #. The person who revealed it is free to contact me directly if they want, but I'd just as soon not have every Jean, Joe, and Johnny knocking on my door every time they get angry at something I write here....
BTW, it is not "perfectly alright" to post that information here. It's legal to do so (although it would be nice if more of the info was correct), but it's also a breach of netiquette. We all know perfectly well that the info was not posted in order to facilitate any exchange with me (that can be done right here on Politicalds) but to intimidate me.
Thanks in advance.
--David
So, I still don't get what this has to do with families losing children.
I have to agree with anonymous David - no. This story isn't similar to our situation today.
And as far as rehashing those same prop 8 tired emotional pathways, geeze. I don't want to say much - I mean who is left to personally attack? What is left to say?
Will an administer please strike that last comment?
oh, my bad - not yours David - the one that deserves to be deleted. If I had the godgiven administrative ability, I'd already have done it, but alas...That crap makes me sick.
It's nice to see your true colors coming through guys. What a lack of respoect you have shown to Jon.
When someone writes something you don't agree with, your intolerance for such comments is nauseating. If you want this to be a LEFT blog, then cut off the Right and call it "politicalds, dissenters from the left."
I have heard soo many past followers of your blog comment that they can't stand to read it anymore because you are so rude and disrepectful to those who have conservative views, or differing views from your own. Are you guys really trying to scare away all your readers? you done a good job so far.
And when quoting the prophets words becomes a problem on an lds themed blog, you have truly lost sight of your purpose. Rick, are you refering to the "last comment" as the one with Ezra Taft Benson quote in it? I pray not. That kind of quote is a perfect item for respectful discussion on this kind of blog. Dont close the doors to open discussion. You guys need some respect.
yeah, jons post is not 100% exactly comapring then to today, but BRAVO for making a good post and sharing a good comparison they should have discussed more respectfully.
-SL
Looks like someone beat me to it - that comment is now gone. People, control yourselves please. This is not a place for personal attacks, and this is especially not a place for the airing of private, personal information.
If you can "lighten up" a bit, we could have some fun discussion, where even conservative members enjoy posting, (imagine that) without the (albeit ironic) personal attacks.
I am not attacking you at all - I am just pointing out what I feel to be flaws in your arguments. If you disagree, great - let's have it out. You could start by responding to my criticisms of your arguments.
Good Day Bog Dave,
As I read it, your only criticism which seems asking me to answer is about the founding fathers. Its a MOOT POINT in this discussion. If you want to declare victory over me about that go ahead. As I said, that is a point is moot. Agree to disagree I suppose. You (in true Leftie form) focus on the unimportant points of my comment, which are moot, and disregard the valued points I have made. I dont have time or desire to argue opinions, and it is my opinion that the founding fathers and founders of religion supported marriage as it is today, not to mention that the prejudice/intolerance of that era would never have allowed open homosexuality. But don't expect us to believe that the founders had no interest in God and his laws, though I agree they left him out of the constitution to allow religious freedom.
The real point I make is that from the beginning of law, leaders have had interest in marriage, even back to Hammurabi.
Would you like to point out anything else you want to discuss?
As I read it, your only criticism which seems asking me to answer is about the founding fathers. Its a MOOT POINT in this discussion. If you want to declare victory over me about that go ahead. You (in true Leftie form) focus on the unimportant points of my comment, which are moot, and disregard the valued points I have made.
That is correct - my only major criticism was your conjecture that the founding fathers had a stand on marriage licenses (gay or not). We can agree to disagree on that, sure. I completely disagree that it's irrelevant to the discussion (I'll get to that in a minute). but if it's so irrelevant, why did you bring it up in the first place? You're welcome to make any argument you want, of course, but don't be surprised if you get some feedback on those that don't fly. And I'm not sure how that's a "Leftie" tendency - I'm sure I will see the exact same thing from Righties next time I make a fallacious claim.
I'm not at all interested in "declaring victory". I just want to challenge other people's assumptions, and I expect my own to be challenged in the process - that's what this place is about.
You and I fundamentally agree, in that we both oppose same-sex marriage; we likely differ on what we would consider ideal government involvement to deal with it. As I stated above, I don't believe the right solution is a federal Constitutional amendment, and I feel the founding fathers would agree with me for reasons I stated previously.
If you ask me, the government should have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever - leave it to churches to decide who can or can't be married, and let the government worry about civil benefits like visitation, estate/probate, etc. Why is it the government's place to legislate marriage at all?
Good post Dave.
Why do Governments have interest in marriage?
My opinions of why...
1. Marriage effects every single person
2. Divorce law, sadly very necessary and important
3. Child law, based on custody, caring, responsibility, etc. The Government needs to protect children
4. Health. Governments probably recognize the value of marriage in helping fidelity, and hence health.
5. With a place like the USA, so much travel between states, etc. A federal standard for all to recognize is a great idea. As of right now, Gay marriages are not legal everywhere, creating problems for gays married in Mass. and moving to a state where its not recognized.
That's just a few thoughts.
Any others? For or against federal interest in marriage?
PS. In Gods eyes, marriage is not just a civil union for purpose of visitations, sharing properties, etc. As Mormons, we recognize a higher law in marriage, the bonding our that union FOREVER in an eternal plan. (thats one reason why those "progressive mormons" will never make sense. They think the church will "catch up to the world" about gay marriage. Sorry, no. Gay marriage does not fit into the eternal plan. Marriage and posterity cannot be accomplished in gay marriage. The church will hate the sin and love the sinner, but Gods plan as we all know it, is for us to have eternal progression. That requires man, woman and children.
(so, why does government have interest in this? now THAT is more about the civil reasons, and property and children etc).
No, anonymous - I didn't ask for the Ezra Taft Benson thing to be striken - I asked for the completely hostile anonymous comment posting all of one particular different anonymous commentor's personal information on this form for some strange and sadistic reason. Everything else is up for debate -and, as you see, I am the only poster on this website that is particularly opposed to Proposition 8 - everyone else either supports it, or is uninvolved either way (undecided). "Dissenters" may be your word to describe me, but please don't use it to describe this blog - I am not the blog owner nor the administrator. Simply a poster. This blog is balanced from left to right now, and we have some very vocal right-minded bloggers - so cut the accusations, and accept that there are opinions from all around the spectrum that deserve to be heard - not just from one side. And because someone's oppinion doesn't agree with yours, that doesn't make them dissenters.
Coy, you wrote above that "In God's eyes, marriage is not just a civil union for purpose of visitations, sharing properties, etc. As Mormons, we recognize a higher law in marriage, the bonding of that union FOREVER in an eternal plan."
Well, sure. The problem is that the degree to which marriage is specifically religious is the degree to which it should be free of government regulation. Why? Because the government should not be prescribing who can and cannot partake of a religious sacrament.
I can understand perfectly why Mormons do not believe in the legitimacy of gay marriage. But so what? Legalizing gay marriage would not in any way compel the Church to marry gay couples, no more than the legalization of alcohol compels the Church to serve champagne at a wedding reception.
There is probably some racist church somewhere whose sacramental conception of marriage forbids marriage between races. Such a church is free, on First Amendment grounds, to refrain from performing interracial marriages--but none of us would be impressed if it argued that its particular sacramental vision should be enshrined in law, in such a way that no church could marry an interracial couple.
Personally, I believe government should get out of the marriage business altogether. All the legal benefits and responsibilities that currently attach to a "marriage" should instead attach to a "civil union." If, in addition to getting a government-sanctioned civil union, you wish to be married, then more power to ya--you can go get married in the church of your choice. And that church can marry you or not, at its discretion.
This way, the government is not discriminating against gay couples, but the churches remain free to act in accordance with their beliefs.
--David
Interesting thoughts Dave, thanks for a productive post.
Whether Govt. needs to be involved in marriage could well be debated. I just happen to be of the opinion that we are blessed to have a good government protection of that sacred union right now.
You are right that is SHOULDN'T effect the churches marrying gays, or vendors choosing not to offer services to gays, however, lawsuits have already been fought and/or won against groups for denying gay couples, even in states where gay marriage is not legal. We are already on a slippery slope to bad moral ground.
I don't think there is a problem with the governments involvement of marriage now, so I don't see a need for it to be fixed, but I respect your opinion and comments David.
Rick,
I think I'm ready to get off the fence now.
I may very well find myself on the wrong side of history for this -- and I still would personally prefer to see the definition of marriage remain between 1 man and 1 woman -- but I just can't find a justifiable reason -- besides serving my personal religious views -- to support Prop 8.
Some of you will perhaps ask why. Well, this sums up my feelings pretty well.
For me, it has less to do with what the Church HAS done, and more to do with what it HASN'T done.
David - that sounds familiar ;) I second that notion.
Now, Coy about your Hammurabi comments. Tanya mentioned that to me in a personal email she sent me. I responded to her roughly how I will respond to you now.Ny degree was in history - focusing on the Ancient Near East - so I'm quite familiar with Hammurabi's Stele. It was NOT a law code, as you or I would see a law code - Hammurabi believed, and his government backed up the position, that he was God's divine mouthpiece on earth in that day. The "code" is a misnomer - it is actually a collection of judgements that Hammurabi made in his seat as king and recorded down for posterity as if they were divinely sanctioned laws. Therefore, his judgements were God's law code - akin to the Ten Commandments - His God (Marduk - aka Baal) was the one who was actually declaring the divine judgement - usually on threat of death - Seeing how vehemently the writers of the Old Testament had it in for Baal, and seeing that Hammurabi was the King of Babylon (the same Babylona as "Oh Babylon Oh Babylon we bid thee farewell") at roughly the same tiem that Abraham fled Babylonian territory because their pagan ways would ensure his death by human sacrifice(Book of Abraham), You probably don't want to reference the "code" if you want to make a case that what you are advocating is actually true and right.
The fact of the matter is that what is "legal" and what is "sanctioned by God" should not be confused. Having metaphysical beliefs about God and Sin tied into the intrests of thes state was the primier mistake of the ancients, and it is still just as much a mistake. I'm sure you wouldn't want the nation voting about something sanctioned by the Church according to the public's belief on wether or not they think it is good, or of God.
Well done Rick, but it doesn't change the fact that from beginnings of "codes" rulers have had interest in marriage. That's it! They recognized its importance in society.
I think that people ought to act as they believe. Act and vote accordingly. Don't be politically correct because you don't want your views 'forced' on someone else. If you don't act or vote according to how you believe then you're a hypocrite. I am not meaning to call any names, but that is the definition of hypocrite.
Just think if everyone was actually nice and Christlike! Wouldn't it be a great world to live in?
And I really do think that the Lord works in mysterious ways, to say, through economic downfall and terrorism and disease and poverty in order to teach people humility and give them the opportunity to step up and offer what they can to fix the problem themselves. To just turn everything over to government is dodging the problem in my opinion. I think that asking for government (or socialism) to take care of society's ills is denying your own Godlike ability to reach out and help and give what you can to make the problem better. Thats how God works in mysterious ways, through giving us situations that give us an opportunity to grow. Are you going to grow? Or wait for someone else to fix the problem?
FD on the page you referenced, there was a comment on the bottom. I would like to rephrase it a bit.
"The general membership of the LDS church spends every Sunday learning how important it is to follow the prophet, yet rarely are members asked to do much of anything outside their weekly routines."
This is where I take it one way, and the author takes it another.
I say... Finally the church has asked us to DO something (hard for some).
When the early church members were asked to leave their homes and move west, or leave their country, I am SURE they did not understand why, or even agree. (many other times in church/biblical history people have been asked to do what they don't understand or agree).
While I respect your right to choose, and dont judge you for it, I will comment since this IS an lds themed blog, that this IS one of those times.
Gods prophet has asked us to support this cause, and we have the choice to follow or not. I dont know why the church got involved, and I could disagree if I wanted to, just like you, but I dont presume to know more than God, or his prophet. As a member I support Pres. Monson as his prophet, and as such I believe he leads us in Gods path.
For me, this is simply a choice to follow God, or rebel.
Emphatically, Im NOT judging you, I am stating the fact that I don't see how one could "sustain" Pres. Monson, and simultaneously rebel against his admonishment. Let God be our judge, and him alone. But for the sake of those YOU have caused to question their own stances, I feel the importance to point out that this is FINALLY a chance to show our faith. We weren't asked to march our families across the deserts and have our families die or be killed. We often glory in others sacrifice; are we so weak and proud that we cannot accept our own chance to show faith in the Lord?
Emphatically... I am NOT judging you, and I am not spreading fear and asking for blind obedience. I AM sharing my emphasis on the opportunity at hand, for wise obedience. Don't take it lightly. If there is a God in heaven, ( and I believe there is) and if T. Monson is his prophet, (and I believe he is) then we will have to answer someday for our choice to follow him or not. What choices do you expect will those judgments be made on?
I think, on this, God has clearly drawn a line in the sand.
Each of us must ask ourselves... Where do I stand? Which side are we on?
yes, its important. Its an ordinance. Lets keep it that way, and not let the government get involved in it. That's why David's preference, which is also my preference, is the only really fair route.
So lets do what Jesse suggests - lets act according to the dictates of our conscience, and support the doctrines of the gospel, and not ask for the government to come in and define stuff for us and outline what is and what isn't marriage - because its a question of semantics - we know what marriage REALLY is - its the new and everlasting covenant as preformed by the priesthood authority - so who cares what the government wants to call it?
I think what I am about to say is along the lines of your founding fathers arguments...
Should Governments impose religious rites/rights upon the citizens of its nation? NO
Should the citizens of the nation work to influence governments to make good moral choices. Yes.
"Governments" shouldn't impose on the people (ahem, like the judges overturning gay marriage after the people voted it banned)(thats a whole other topic, how 1 judge margin (4/3 vote) can overturn over 60% vote from the people) but the voice of the people must stand of for truth and right.
Yes on 8, Yes on 102, Yes on 2.
I'll paraphrase something Mike said in an earlier blog - and expound on it - what the prophet has asked us to do is this "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment" Well all I can do right now is to sit back, shake my head and wonder what is going on. Because obviously everything within me is telling me that this is the wrong approach to take - The sprit, as I understand it, confirms that this is the wrong stance. As the result of hours of sincere soul searching,thats the conclusion that I've come to - so that is what I can do. I'm not campaigning against it. I'm not donating money or time either way, I'm not picketing. The most dramatic thing I've done is what I'm doing now. I'm stating my sincere feelings in a public forum. Does that put me on the wrong side of the line, Coy? I'm scratching my head and saying, "boy that's too bad." So there, I've done what Pres. Monson asked - I've done all I can do - with a clear conscience. Anymore would see me acting against the spirit as I've come to know it. So I can do no more.
Here's the thing about that article, FD. The author assumes that the "Mormon authorities" decide what issues to become involved in. If we truly believe (as President Hinckley said) that "Christ is at the helm of this church", then we have to believe that Christ/God are calling the shots on when to get involved and when not to.
I am not sure why God instructs us on certain issues and does not instruct on others. Perhaps He knows that most of us will figure it out on what we've been given up to this point, but on other things we need more direct guidance. (For example, I wasn't really sure what to think about the Iraq War and the idea of pre-emptive strikes until I read the BofM where it says that the Nephites wanted to do a pre-emptive strike and the Lord said no. It sounded like a good idea and the Nephites desired it, but the Lord said He would not preserve them if they did it. For me, that was my answer. That doesn't mean that I definitely know the Lord's will either way, but I am going on what I know since He hasn't used His prophet to tell us yet).
This is different from blacks and the priesthood. In that case, as the author points out "the Mormon church stubbornly held" to its policy. Why? The Lord hadn't commanded yet. The author says this:
It hasn't helped that the Church still hasn't publicly acknowledged or apologized for its racist past.
What is "the church" going to apologize for? If we are run by the Lord, then the Lord would issue an apology through the prophet if/when He feels necessary.
Prop 8 is different from the priesthood issue because instead of the church being silent until the Lord speaks, the Lord has spoken! He told President Monson what He wants to have happen.
Here is what the author of that blogs asks:
So to my fellow Mormons: I ask you to please re-consider. Take the time you would spend fighting this errant cause with your family. Go to a movie. Take a drive together. Watch the World Series.
So, whose advice am I going to take? Joe Vogel: liberal blogger, or Thomas S. Monson: prophet of God whom I sustained?
I really like both of those points just made by Rick and Coy.
Rick - that the Prophet asked us to "do all we can do" and that means different things for different people. I can respect that.
Coy - that the citizens of the nation should work (and vote) for government to make moral choices.
Both great points.
So is it just me or is this post back on track? Or at least back on positive discussion?
*cheers*
Hello,
Stephanie, thank you for posting my post for me.
I was actually surprised that this post set off another round of attacks on Proposition 8. My objective was not to comment on the merits of Prop 8 or anything of the sort; I thought my post was just a general observation of the nature of our nation and it's current state in the pride cycle. Here in California Prop 8 will come up in every conversation between Mormons and I didn't even think of Prop 8 as the topic, I just mentioned Prop 8 as context.
I think that "Coy's" comment about Ezra Taft Benson and our country turning socialist and then communist is the most on target response to my post and I would like to reply to his question...
In Sunday school when learning about morality I was taught that the Devil works with a silk scarf to bind us to his will. At first it feels soothing and nice; however, when he has us where he wants us he quickly pulls the scarf tight and strangles all life out of you. This imagery kept me safe when I was in tempting situations.
I think we are in a tempting situation now as a nation. I believe that silken scarves are wrapped around everything and it has been shocking to see the scarves pulled tight and ruin the lives of once respected political leaders. I think our economy is now feeling the pain of gluttony from our over dependence on oil and credit.
Specifically regarding socialism and communism I believe this is the smoothest silk scarf of all. It is slowly slipping around our necks. It may seem like a good idea to "bail out" everyone; and it may seem like a good idea to elect a president with socialistic principles of spreading around wealth; however, based on the track we are on there will soon be nothing to spread around.
If you stand quietly and listen to the sound of the autumn wind whipping around your body you can almost hear a tempting whisper which says, "Now, is the great day of my power!"
I take comfort in knowing how this pride cycle will end and I do my best to remain humble to the Lord's will. I have faith that as long as I pay my tithing that I will have sufficient for my needs.
...
One last comment, I am actually surprised that no one attacked the idea that the current pestilence, economic and global power losses of our nation are happening for the good of the people. I inferred this in both the Egypt and US analogies and no one attacked it.
Ok, now that I have called it out, go ahead... attack!
Ya know, I wrote a post that appears to have been erased before published, I think my computer erred, so I will attempt to do so again...
Rick, I am not in ANY way making light of your experience with the spirit, or judging you in any way.
Now when you tell me the spirit confirmed to you that the church has the "wrong stance", I have to question 1. which spirit you are listening to and 2. Why on earth, if the prophet is gone astray, would God choose liberal mormons who criticize his prophets to reveal it to, instead of one of the 12, 70, or other authorities of the church? Does it make any sense? If the same spirit is telling Thomas Monson to lead the church one way, and Rick to go another, I must question which person is hearing the spirit of God, and I don't have ANY problem making that decision.
As I said before, we may disagree with the church, but if this is truly Gods church, and Gods plan, well what good does it do for us to argue against it, to kick against the pricks?
Now again, I am not judging you, but if the spirit tells you for whatever reason in gods plan, to disobey his prophet, that is something you should not share with us. That is between you and God, and because we love you, we pray is truly is God telling you to disobey him.
For some reason on Gods big universe he chose Rick to go against what he told the prophet and the church to do? It's not my judgment, its Gods, but as a friend and blogger on this site, I will defend the truth and ask respectfully to please, if the spirit moves to tell you to disobey, please keep it personal and private, it surely is sacred if true. (no disrespect Rick, but sharing with us that a spirit told you to disobey Gods mouthpiece on this earth puts ___ on Dangerous grounds. If you only knew how Tanya prays for you and cares for your spiritual welfare Rick, a truer friend you will ne'er find, I can testify to it. We care, that's why we share ;)
Here is something interesting..
News Story about Kindergarteners signing Pledge Cards
Whats more interesting is that I cannot locate ANY story on this on CNN.
Similarly, all day I have been hearing Fox report about how Obama's "Middle Class" is moving down to $150,000 according to some Dems, and CNN isn't touching it.
(Wow the media is splitting!)
How is this going to pan out after the elections, there is such a clearer divide now.
But not to detract from the story linked. crazy stuff.
That is sweet - your wife is sweet, and I appreciate her. As to your concern about God revelaing his word to Thomas S. Monson, or to Rick - I would never want Coy Johnston to do something because God revealed it to Rick. I would never claim that God revealed to me that I need to rebel nor that you need to follow me. What I do claim is that for me - for my position in life, the spirit has testified that my stance needs to be what it is. Maybe I'm not right - maybe my approach is wrong in general - but for this time of my life, for the place that I am at, and the understanding of the gospel that I have, this is the only approach that I can feel comfortable with. Maybe someday it will change - if that did happen, I wouldn't regret the stance I took at this time, because I was sincere and honest with myself.
My wish is that each person makes their decisions about this and all other matters where conflict arises not due to an arbitrary judgement of the Prophet or the 12 and the expectation that we follow thier dictates, but, instead, taking that council and praying about it and pondering and engaging in sincere introspection and seeking after personal revelation - When they've done that, I'm sure that each person will line up exactly where they, as an individual should. Let the Prophet take a stand - that is totally fine - take a stand where you need to - but for me, I need to be where I am - It is not healthy for people to repress their personal convictions in order to be culturally in line with what they or their peers percieve is expected of them. I sincerely feel that people have been given the light of Christ and the Gift of the Holy Ghost and access to personal revelation so that they can recive help on these problems - now, what is right for me may not be right for you - I haven't asked you to change I've never been of the mindset that, "Proposition 8 is evil and supporting it is wrong!!!"- I am fine with people lining up where they have on this - its natural that there will be an arc encompassing the whole spectrum - but when someone arbitrarily draws a line in that arc that doesn't need to be there, in a forum of peers, and says, "who's on the Lord's side who" where they literally have no authority to be calling that judgement, it can get a little frusterating.
I finally found the scripture I was trying to find earlier. Alma 12:9 It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give him.
To me, this means two things:
1. The Prophet and other general authorities know a lot more than they tell us.
2. Sharing spiritual knowledge you gain from scripture study may not always help everyone else. Everyone is not ready for it because we learn "line upon line, precept upon precept". Therefore, you can't really debate or argue when your reasoning is spiritual knowledge. You can only share what you have learned, and sometimes others will understand and sometimes they won't.
Coy, I think we're all mature enough to be able to listen to a viewpoint that we may disagree with, such as your view of Rick's personal spiritual experiences. This is a blog for expressing different views, opinions, and beliefs. It's not like Rick is speaking from the pulpit and, like he pointed out, he's never said that any of us should take his word for it.
Stephanie said:
"Here's the thing about that article, FD. The author assumes that the "Mormon authorities" decide what issues to become involved in. If we truly believe (as President Hinckley said) that "Christ is at the helm of this church", then we have to believe that Christ/God are calling the shots on when to get involved and when not to."
I agree with that statement. That's what it all boils down to for me. Do I believe that Christ/God are calling the shots? Or do I believe that "the Mormon authorities" are calling the shots? I suppose I believe a bit of both. I'd like to completely believe the former, but I truly believe that, at the very least in a few cases, that it's the latter. I cannot for the life of me believe that it was the Lord's intention to have civil rights withheld from blacks. I have gone into this with an open mind and I have probably read most of what is to be read about the priesthood ban, black civil rights, etc, and to me, the evidence appears overwhelming that it was simply a policy based on error, mixed in with the racist views of certain Church leaders. As well, the silence on the Iraq war (especially since Church leaders were so vocal against things like WWII and communism) speaks volumes.
Jonathan,
Once again, we're seeing how the term "socialism" is used as a blanket statement and is therefore misleading. I've encountered this so many times among people who just don't understand the difference between communism, socialism, and democratic socialism. The fear that people have for "socialism" is based on a lack of knowledge of what it's really about. Perhaps if you knew that most of the countries of the world who enjoy the highest standard of living operate under some degree of democratic socialism, then you would understand that we're not being slowly strangled by silken scarves. If it were so, then all of these countries would have been strangled to death long ago, when in fact they are thriving.
To outline the differences between the different forms of socialism (again) would be time-consuming, so if anyone is interested, I've written a post about it here on my blog. Take particular notice of the comments, where we get more into specifics.
" please, if the spirit moves to tell you to disobey, please keep it personal and private, it surely is sacred if true. (no disrespect Rick, but sharing with us that a spirit told you to disobey Gods mouthpiece on this earth puts ___ on Dangerous grounds."
I was thinking about it, and I want to reiterate that I never said "a spirit told me to disobay" anyone....that really is putting words in my mouth. The point of this website is to share viewpoints - but you have just respectfully implored me to not share mine because it puts me on "dangerous grounds." I really don't get that logic - its like, "share your viewpoint as long as I and everyone else agree with it, and if that isn't the case, keep quite." Doesn't work for me, Coy.
What I believe is close to communism....except that giving enforced by government is not giving at all, but coercion. We should all put all we have in one pot and redistribute it so that there are no poor among us. However, it would take a God, and people who worship that God, to go along with this successfully. If forced, people would lose motivation quickly; the ultimate result is seen in history as communistic states have not thrived. The playing field is leveled; this is true. However, it is leveled in a way that leaves everyone not only oppressed, but poor.
However, if not forced, if given in love, if given in a spirit of shared responsibility, the opposite is true. Everyone is equally rich. This is not my idea; but I believe it and am excited for the day when I believe it will come true...
Obama, though not admitting he is a socialist, (much less communist), has implied I am selfish if I do not want to "share my peanut-butter sandwich". He misses the entire point. I do want to share my peanut-butter sandwich, and in fact, I do! I just don't think everyone should be forced to share theirs too; that has not ever worked and can not.
The Republicans are doing a lousy job defending their position. Their idea that the wealthy should not have to share because they already pay most of the taxes sounds selfish and is not conducive to unity. I heard Schwarzneggar (sp?) defend McCain's position yesterday; he did a great job, but way too late, and not heard by nearly enough people.
He explained that he left Europe because of ideologies like Obama's; that his successes in body building, acting, and in politics would not have been possible in Europe. He pointed out that Europe is now seeing this and has been moving away from socialism and towards democratization for years.
I disagree with the Republicans for not taking a stronger stand against greed and corruption; I do not know what to do but I have a keen sense that what has been done is not enough. Is it true that capitalism can not flourish if there is no integrity? I am afraid this is true. However, I am not desperate enough to opt for bigger government yet. Maybe if I had been more hurt...
Which brings up an obvious point: Does Obama really want bigger government? He says he wants to get rid of waste, etc. I propose you simply look up his voting record. It does not support his statements. As far as taxing the wealthy; even if he greatly increased the taxes on all those making $75,000 and above, it would not come anywhere close to paying for all the government programs he proposes, much less begin to eliminate the atrocious debt. (Go to his website and do the math yourself. Don't take my word for it).
He will either have to scrap his promises (more programs, get out of debt), or raise taxes on everyone who pays them, and raise them substantially.
Supporters of Obama should realize that in the real world, the numbers must add up. Hope is not without merit; it is necessary. But true hope has the audacity to also actually run the numbers, not shoving them under the rug.
Rick, you ARE on dangerous grounds when you clearly imply that you have "soul searched" and "The sprit, as I understand it, confirms that this is the wrong stance"..
Lets not play games! Don't try to make me sound intolerant of hearing your views. You have entered a dangerous place by openly sharing something like that, much like Nehor, You made it very clear that you felt the spirit tell you the stance of the church is wrong.
So, as long as you share you revelations against the churches stance, I will remind you what Stephanie so perfectly quoted, in Alma, they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men.
That means. He didn't tell the Children of men that Pres. Monson was wrong, so as a friend, I implre you be careful, and if you truly feel guided another way, make sure you are right, and keep it to yourself. Don't play games Rick, and make me sound intolerant of your views. I made it clear... please keep sacred things sacred. If you started sharing your endowment session thoughts on here, I would tell you the same thing.
Please... shall not impart those things openly here. Those are't my rules, they are the lords.
Welcome, Elaine. I agree with your comment. I feel that if all people had integrity, were honest, put their fellow man above themself (basically lived as Christ would), then it wouldn't matter what system of government we have. As it is, I feel capitalism protects individuals better than socialism because individuals retain more control. When we give our control (and money) to the government, we are left at the whim of the integrity of the politicians (or whoever is calling the shots on where that money is redistributed). Sure, it would be great if it were redistributed correctly to those who need it. Do we believe that will actually happen? I don't have much faith in the integrity of the people calling the shots. I feel it leaves us more open to the consequences of corruption. And, I am right there with you on the Republicans. The Republicans blew this big time. They have NOT been protecting the interests of individuals. They deserve every criticism and name thrown at them. I feel Obama will win this election easily because all he has to do is point to the Republicans and say, "See what they have done? I'll give you change". YES, we all want change! We don't want the greed and corruption and more spending and bigger government we've seen. But, the solution to that is not more government (as Obama is promising), but less!
John David Wells of KLIF said this to government: You have two jobs - pave the roads and protect us. When you get those two right, come and ask me about more jobs. Until then, work on perfecting those two jobs.
I like that a lot.
Maybe I am not as informed as you all, but I recently have done some work with financial geniuses in the accounting industry, and hearing them speak, I am convinced this financial crisis is not soley Dem or Rep.
However, Fannie and Freddie Mac troubles are another story.
Check out this 8 min recap of a hearing on Fan/Fred before this crisis.
Click Here
It's clear the republicans were raising the red flag, and the Dems were covering up the problems.
Doesn't this seem pretty clear (at least on this issue) that the Reps were right?
Elaine, you're already sharing your peanut butter sandwich. It's going to fund your local police, build the roads you drive on, and the school you went to (if it was a public one). So people are just fooling themselves if they think that there wealth isn't already being redistributed to things that they may personally never use or have no interest in. So at what tax rate percentage or in what income tax bracket do you start labelling it "socialism?"
For Arnie to say that he couldn't become a bodybuilder or a movie star because of socialism is just bogus. What, socialists can't be bodybuilders? Or actors? He was born in post-war Austria which understandably had a big mess to clean up after WWII. His family didn't have much and he grew up in a strict Catholic home with a father who was a member of the Nazi party. Perhaps that was holding him back. If he couldn't attain his movie success in Austria it's because AUSTRIA IS NOT HOLLYWOOD! Austria has actors and a film industry, believe me. But it's not the big-time that Hollywood is. There's only one Hollywood and Americans are the kings of the film industry. What on earth does that have to do with socialism?
As for his political success, once again, is he saying that socialist countries don't have politics? No, what he's saying is that his Republican views would probably not be very popular in Europe and so yes, he may not have been as successful as he is in the USA.
Arnie "pointed out that Europe is now seeing this and has been moving away from socialism and towards democratization for years."
Yes, Europe HAS been moving away from socialism (i.e. communism) for years. That's why the Iron Curtain fell and that's why we have countries like Poland and the Czech Rep. in the EU now. And yes, European countries HAVE been moving towards democratization -- SOCIAL democratization. Once again, by using the blanket term "socialism," the actual meaning is lost.
I think Arnie has been living too long in the US and has no idea what's really going on in Europe these days if he thinks that Europeans are turning their noses at social democracy. What they HAVE rejected is communism, which is NOT the same thing.
So at what tax rate percentage or in what income tax bracket do you start labelling it "socialism?"
This is a brilliant question, FD. As a conservative who wants low taxes and less government, I am tired of people telling me "What you don't want a post office? You don't want paved roads?" Um, no. I just want the government to have minimal involvement - not no involvement. And, as a social democrat, I am sure that you (and mfranti) are tired of being called socialists.
So, what is the appropriate tax rate? Isn't that the million dollar question that separates us? We both agree in some amount of government involvement, some amount of taxation - we just disagree to the extent. Pretty silly that we can't sit down and work out a compromise instead of spending all our time calling each other names.
Now, do I think Obama will sit down with Republicans and work out a compromise? I am doubtful. Do I think McCain would sit down with Democrats and work out a compromise? Most definitely.
Stephanie said:
"As it is, I feel capitalism protects individuals better than socialism because individuals retain more control."
Who is it protecting? 100% pure capitalism is survival of the fittest. The sky is the limit, but someone has to be left in the gutter for it to work. 100% pure socialism or communism will always put a cap on what we can do as individuals, thereby stifling innovation, freedom, and creativity. So why not take the positive from each, combine them into a social democracy and make sure that no one ends up in the gutter, while still allowing individuals the freedom and ability to enjoy the fruits of their labour?
FD, that has been my position all along. I have never argued for 100% capitalism with no regulation. But, I think that retaining as much free market as possible coupled with appropriate regulations and appropriate government involvement (that is the key that has been missing) protects individuals more than social democracy.
So when does gov't intervention go from just "gov't intervention" to "socialism?"
"retaining as much free market as possible coupled with appropriate regulations and appropriate government involvement"
How is that any different from the mixed market economies of western Europe? When does it go from being OK to being "socialism?"
For me, it goes too far when the U.S. adopts a single-payer universal healthcare system (yes, I know that is not Obama's proposal, but it is coming). It also goes too far when 95% of people get a tax break while 5% get an increase. Sure, the talk is good. But the idea of "spreading the wealth" doesn't sit well with me.
Stephanie and Elaine, you are using the word Socialism to scare each other into a mindset that you consider safe - HOnestly folks, FD knows what she's talking about - its life experience vs. imaginations running wild - do you really think that an obama presidency will really put us into some soviet type communist state where we can't celebrate Christmas? Lets be realistic - the only think it will do is ask you to share your peanut butter sandwitch just a little more so more people can have access to good medical care and better education. Big freaking whoop.
Coy, I'm curious. Looking back in history to George Romney's defiance of Church leaders in fighting for black civil rights in the 1960's, if you had had a conversation with him, would you have given him the same advice and warnings that you've given Rick? Or would your response have been different? And why?
Rick, you crack me up. :)
Actually, I think Elaine should be entitled to eat her peanut butter sandwich or save it for later if she wants. Obama just wants to skim off the jelly. :)
Actually, according to Obama, I would get to keep a bit more of my PB sandwich.
Funny how I could be opposed to something when supposedly I am supposed to benefit so much from it.
Some people just don't like PB&J and probably never will, even if others think it's delicious. :)
Sure, FD. Either that or I'm just stupid. I mean, who wouldn't vote for a politician promising to give them more?
The truth is that I just don't feel good about endorsing the government taking someone else's PB&J to give to me or anyone else. Plus, I don't think it will benefit me in the long run. I agree with Jon about the silk scarf analogy.
Thanks for the question FD.
I don't know a lot about George Romney, nor do I claim to be an authority on the church history and Blacks, so all I can share is an opinion for an answer to your question.
My words to Rick are a different topic. I "warned" Rick about sharing spiritual and sacred things that he truly should not share. He was clearly not asked by the spirit to share it, and admits he is not trying to change our minds, so it was a claimed personal revelation to him, and it should stay with him. We are welcome to discuss anything, but sacred things stay sacred.
There really isn't much comparison here to the blacks in my comments, but I will say this...
When the church comes out and apologizes and says it was wrong (which it wont) for making the blacks wait a bit for the priesthood, then there may be comparison if the church apologizes to Rick and says he was right too.
However, we don't know Gods ways, plans and purposes. Perhaps God was waiting for the right time to reveal that new movement. Perhaps not, and we may never know. Why did the lord choose Joseph Smith as his restoring prophet? An imperfect young boy? There is wisdom in this, while many can find a million reasons why not to, but the Lord chose when, where and how to restore the Gospel. He chose an immature boy, with imperfections and flaws, and molded him into his prophet of the restoration. In due time.
Now, giving the blacks the priesthood was just a matter of waiting, and when approved, did NOT break any of Gods laws. There were no eternal laws against blacks holding the priesthood in Gods plan.
However, giving gays the right to marry WILL break Gods law, and eternal plan. This is not a waiting game, no more than killing another person for fun is allowed, it is against Gods eternal law. Polygamy is one of Gods eternal laws that are only practiced in certain times. Is this a difficult concept to come around? YES! But is it one of Gods eternal laws? yes, and we will be asked to live it or not live it in Gods due time. *(please not in my time ;) But Gays being eternally married is not one of Gods laws, but in every way breaks Gods law, and it cannot be allowed in our church, or our country. Same as murder, raping, abusing, and other obvious laws of God which were accepted by our country.
In summary...
Blacks allowed to have the priesthood DOES NOT break gods law, but was just a waiting game, perhaps not so different than the 40 years in the wilderness, and WE DON'T KNOW WHY! But Gay marriage BREAKS GODS LAW, and therefor will never be allowed.
[G]iving gays the right to marry WILL break God's law.
How so, Coy? There's a crucial difference between permitting an activity that breaks God's law, and actually breaking God's law.
We have already given people the right to do many things that (from your perspective) break God's law, but again, legalizing behavior that breaks God's law is not the same as breaking God's law. Favoring the continued legalization of alcohol is not the same as consuming alcohol.
Here's a better example. Does it break God's law to join the Church of Satan? If so, is that really an argument against giving people the right to worship as they please?
Your comparison of gay marriage to murder and rape is poorly chosen, not to mention insulting to gay people--imagine if I had made a similar comparison involving Mormons!
Anyway, why can't gay marriage be allowed, just as joining the Church of Satan is allowed? The result will not be to compel the Church to marry those it doesn't want to marry.
--David
But Coy, my question had nothing to do with the priesthood. The priesthood ban is a totally separate issue from black CIVIL rights -- under the law of the US, not the Church. I could pretty much guess your view on the priesthood ban, but I wanted to know what you thought about Romney's defiance of the GA's in defence if black CIVIL RIGHTS. Go to this link and read the pdf file under the notes section. Then come back and tell me the difference between Rick and George Romney. I'm honestly just curious because to me, it seems like basically the same thing. I want to know why it's different for you.
Stephanie, I was thinking about something that you had mentioned in an old discussion, where you voiced support for paid maternity leave. Now, you have 4 kids, right? Let's say you worked full time outside of the house (I know you already work full time INSIDE of the house -- do doubt about that :) and had 4 kids (or perhaps even more down the road) and got paid maternity leave for all of them. Let's say that I'm some childless tax payer who has no intention of ever having any kids. Couldn't I argue that my tax dollars are going to fund your opportunity to stay home and watch your kids during a maternity leave, and that this is taking away my freedom or that it's taking away my hard-earned money and redistributing it to you, a woman who can have as many kids as she wants and expect the tax payer to pay for her time off? Especially since I will never use this benefit myself?
I'm not saying that I really feel this way (I'm totally in favour of paid maternity leave, no matter how many kids you have), I'm just making up a scenario to hear your opinion because I'm having a hard time understanding what you regard as "socialism" and "redistributing wealth" compared to something that you think is OK. I would argue that paid maternity leave IS one of those social benefits that only benefits certain people -- unlike health care, which benefits all.
So what's the difference?
PS: And Coy, don't say that the difference is that Stapley wasn't speaking on behalf of the Church. I already know that. But he did give doctrinal reasons to defend his opinion, and how else was Romney supposed to understand it, especially coming from a general authority? If a GA told you that you should/shouldn't be doing something, I'm guessing that you would listen -- especially if it was stated to you privately. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Yes, FD, I am in favor of paid maternity leave (and paternity leave). I know that is a more "socialist" tenet, but it is one area of compromise for me because I know that babies need their moms at home, so I am okay with society supporting that.
And (as I mentioned in a previous post), I am in favor of some aspects of universal healthcare - just not a single-payer system.
I totally consider myself a "common-sense conservative". Between socialism and capitalism, I favor capitalism. I favor protections and rights for the individual. However, issue by issue, I try to think about it and decide what I feel is right for individuals. And, a lot of the time, my opinions are affected by what I feel is best for children, not adults. I support paid maternity leave because of the children. I support Prop 8 because of children. I would like some kind of universal healthcare provision for children (but I am not sure how to work it out yet. Hawaii tried and failed).
So, I recognize I am on the spectrum. You asked what I thought was too far toward socialism, and I said single-payer universal healthcare and Obama's plan to cut taxes for 95% and raise them for 5%. That's where I am on the spectrum. And, frankly, I am kind of tired of liberals always saying, "Well, that's not enough". I am willing to compromise. Why isn't anyone from the other side?
Just got home from the Arizona-wide stake conference broadcast from SLC. Pres. Packer spoke among others.
Plain and simple...
A vote YES on Prop 8, 102, and 2 is Gods will. There is no mincing words here. Pres. Packer told us in plain english... There is a spirit of the devil which rebelled before this world, who desires to persuade us away from God. Right now he speaks to us "VIA THE SAME PATHWAYS" as the spirit of the Lord and desires us to break the earliest and first commandments, to multiply and replenish the earth and begin sacred marriage and families.
There is no mistake about it.
The prophets have spoken.
He clearly told us to follow the brethren, though many of us know not why this is so important. He spoke of the lies of "intolerance", that yes we tolerate people, but we do not tolerate the transgression.
There is not confusion... The Lord has spoken, and through his prophet he told us to support the marriage initiatives. Pres Packer told us beware of Satan's spirit telling us another way. NOT Coy, President Packer.
So, Rick, or anyone else stating that spirits have told you to go against the brethren... I AM NOT judging you, but I AM telling you to keep it to yourself, because when the prophet speaks, we best hearken. I have made no personal attack against you Rick, but I HAVE made a personal attack against that evil spirit which Pres. Packer warned of, and which clearly is telling many readers of this blog to ignore the brethren. If my words hit you personally, well, these words are hard to be heard, I completely understand. But I am no conservative who holds my tongue when something needs to be said.
The Lord has spoken, and these are the choices Gods judgments is made of.
Again, for those who scoffed me last time...
Who's on the Lords side Who. Now is the time to show.
Coy, I'd really love for you to answer my question. I'm really, really curious.
haha, FD. Sorry, I am working on it. I am studying for a board exam, and have so little time really. I may regret giving this much to this blog already. I know you guys do ;)
I will get back to you shortly, I am half way into my short answer in a word doc. lol.
Just as a teaser, I am not too bothered by the letter you referenced. It certainly is debatable, but I have a few thoughts that may be interesting.. or boring, depends on what you have better to read I guess.
lol
Remember though, Coy, it's not the letter itself that I'm interested in, but rather Romney's reaction to it (i.e. going against the counsel by the GA's and continuing to support black civil rights. I want to know whether you think it was OK for Romney and not OK for Rick, or whether you think that both Rick and Romney listened to Satan.
Great question FD. I guess you are just looking for me to compare Rick and Romney? Sorry I have no comparison. In the case of Romney, the CHURCH did not come out and say it, and Elder Stapley’s letter as a personal friend is not the word of the lord. He even states that it is just his personal opinion. Now I do not know the reasons why the church held that position, and I don’t know why the lord sometimes chooses a race or group of people as hic chosen or cursed people. He has done this in every era, from the Bible on.
If I were asked to judge George Romney I would have to know a whole lot more than what I read on Wikipedia, and thank heavens I am not called to judge anyone. But remember, he went against a friendly advice, not the official stance of the church.
Prop 8 and 102 ARE the official stance of the church, and going against it is a different thing. I don’t need to talk about Rick anymore, we spoke privately outside this blog and have some agree with each other that it is better left private. My understanding is that Rick did not mean to say he was being told by the spirit to rebel against Gods word, as I suggested, and I am satisfied he is doing what he feels is right, and we agree that the differing opinion about the churches official stance is better left private. In this respect for Rick, I will not discuss this issue about him anymore. Though we see some things differently, we both desire to follow God, and can do so in a spirit of unity. I am not his judge, never will be, not interested, and surely I have just as many faults as the next guy, let God be our judge. I spoke out against the principle of going against the official word of God, which was given to us.
Hope that answers your questions.
OK, let's not talk about Rick anymore.
Just one more question for you, Coy. Does the Church's "official stance" = "doctrine?"
Anyone here as bothered by the spirit of meanness harbored in the No on Prop 8 commercials? Their latest atrocity: a commercial showing 2 LDS missionaries come to a lesbian couple's home and take their wedding rings, trash their home, and rip up their wedding certificate. Then the commercial ends by saying Don't Let a Church Dictate Your Government.
I know a lot of people who are not LDS who support Prop 8 and 102. I know people who are LDS who don't support Prop 8 and 102. Since when did it become ok for political campaigns to target a church or other institution without knowing if the individuals within support what it is being attacked for?
Mark my words all you LDS bloggers. Prop 8 and 102 is just the beginning. If you thought you were attacked for being LDS before, you have another thought coming because it is going to go downhill from here.
These sorts of dirty tactics became fair game the second the Church went public with an edict telling its members how to vote on specific propositions. Like it or not, it's true. I understand why it was done, but as I stated at the time, I certainly wish the Church would stay politically neutral, partially for this reason.
Fair game? When the catholic and christian denominations in California and other states have just as many people pulling for their same-sex marriage bans? Dirty politics and blatant lies are never fair game.
As I'm writing this, it looks like Prop 8 in CA is still too close to call, with the YES side with a small lead.
You know, even though I expressed my dismay at the approach that the Church has taken (which I still feel), I will have mixed feelings if the YES side wins. Part of me will be happy about the definition of marriage being protected. But part of me feels burdened (and maybe even ashamed) by the fact that it was probably our Church who tipped the vote, either via the sheer number of Mormon votes, or all the money that Mormons alone raised.
The part that makes me ashamed is because of the way that some Mormons have behaved regarding the issue. Yes, I know that the NO side has done horrible things as well, such as vandalizing and calling the YES side bigots. But I'm less concerned about what THEY did than I am about what WE did.
My best friend since kindergarten is a lesbian. I've noticed that she's been unusually quiet lately when it comes to communicating with me. I know that she has been active in some NO on 8 groups on the internet and I get the feeling that she is upset by the Mormon involvement in the issue. She knows that her sexuality has no impact on our friendship, in terms of whether I want to still be friends with her, and I think that she would perhaps even understand my belief in keeping the definition of marriage as it is. However, it's very, very hard for me to defend the Church's direct involvement, particularly since we are probably the ones who can take the "credit" for passing a YES vote. To be honest, if she flat-out asked me about it, I wouldn't even know where to start. Defending my religion is one thing, but attempting to defend this compromise of the separation of church and state is very, very hard to justify.
Anybody else experiencing any similar dilemmas with their gay friends?
I don't think we can really fathom right now the impact that our involvement in Prop 8 is going to have on the Church and on us as individual Mormons. Whether we are right or wrong, I guess only time will tell. But I think we're in for some very stormy weather as a church, at least in CA. Honestly, I would not want to be a missionary in CA right now. The anger is going to be intense and it's going to be directed at us because we have been the forerunner in this Yes on 8 campaign. Let's be honest, this coalition has been led by us, both financially and in terms of enthusiastic support.
FD, you don't even live in CA. Or America. You've made that clear. How would you know how this coalition for Prop 8 has been run? Too bad your bf is a lesbian. At this point it is safe to say we ALL have gay friends (whether some of you know it or not).
If your gay friends are going to not be your friend because of your church membership or religious affiliations then they are the true bigots.
How would you know how this coalition for Prop 8 has been run?
The same way everyone else who doesn't live in CA knows. We have the internet in Europe too, you know.
On top of that, I've read hundreds and hundreds of comments by Mormons regarding Prop 8 and some still harbour very deep resentments toward homosexuals, not to mention the constant rationalization by insisting that gays are not born that way, etc. They've lost sight of the issue and are getting caught up in the war of words. Although I think that many members do have great compassion and tolerance, even if they supported Prop 8, unfortunately there are those Mormons who really give us a bad name by engaging in immature, arrogant behaviour. Yes, I know that the NO side has done some terrible things, but this is irrelevant to me. I don't care how obnoxious they are, we should not stoop to that level.
If your gay friends are going to not be your friend because of your church membership or religious affiliations then they are the true bigots.
No, they're not bigots. They're hurt. As my brother said once, they feel their personhood has been rejected.
Poor behavior on one side of an issue doesn't make poor behavior on the other side okay. Like my 7-year-old is learning, we can't control what other people do, but we can always control how we act, so lets knock of the name calling and look to understand each other a little better.
Amen to that, Allie.
I will chime in as some one who was fairly involved in the Prop 8 campaing at a local level that the church was definitly the strongest organizing force in our area. We would receive the volunteer information of those that would sign up online and try to get them involved. We did some sign waving and we joined by a number of Catholics.
My personal feeling is that we had to take this stand and that we definitely let our light shine(some may agrue if it was light). I think that there will be those that may be turned off by this, but there are also those that are impressed when someone stand for their principles.
I am also saddened by the acts and attitudes of those supported who are not "Christ Like" in their approach. But Christ him self said that he came for those that need him. "They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick". So I think I will not judge them to harshly, I will pray that the lord softens their hearts.
Ruel
This is the kind of criticism I would just as soon the Church avoid by staying out of political campaigns. Our Church led this effort, and now the completely avoidable public relations nightmare begins. I voted for Prop 102 because the prophet asked me to, but I can't say I'm thrilled that it passed. This issue leaves me more conflicted than any in recent memory.
the church hasn't changed its stance on gay marriage. The world has. The world is now attacking the church for having the same values it had 100 years ago, because the world's values have changed.
The LDS church doesn't need to go out of its way to sidestep criticism. Especially when the criticism comes from encouraging members to stand politically where they should stand morally. In other words, love the sinners but don't pretend like the sins don't exist. Just love them anyway. Its a tough concept but it is possible to understand. Jonathan's post shows that the Lord's people through history have been asked to love sinners but not accept sin before, and I pray our nation will be blessed for refusing to normalize gay marriage.
Perhaps the Church should care a little more about what the rest of the world thinks of us. That link from BBD is a perfect example of what we're up against. People are seething mad at us now and although we should be able to be unapologetic in our religious beliefs, can't any of us see why we look like enormous hypocrites in the eyes of the world? I don't want to just hear you all say "oh, but we're NOT being hypocrites because things like polygamy and the priesthood ban were God's will." Even if these things were correct, it's totally irrelevant to the rest of the world because they don't see it as we do. Is there nobody else who sees why they have a very good reason, based on their perspective, to accuse us of being bigots? Let's be honest, if Mormons got as worked-up about the illegality of polygamy as they do about the illegality of same sex marriage, then the state of UT wouldn't be turning such a blind eye to what goes on there. Honestly, if we truly believe that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, then why are so many of us willing to say "leave them alone" to the FLDS and groups like them? This is one of those things, along with our past treatment of blacks, that makes us look like hypocrites and bigots. Why do we not get that? We have to see it from their perspective if we're truly going to understand it. We have to be willing to give a little and to build bridges. We can't do that if we simply say, "I was just carrying out God's will," and then end of story.
All the Mormons who think their job is done now that they've voted are wrong. Their real job is only beginning. And I think the focus should be on bridge-building.
Any ideas how we can actually do that now in a non-inflammatory way?
FD, I think the church's position regarding same sex marriage is very similar to the way the church is handling polygamy. Both are "illegal", but beyond that, the church says leave them alone.
I agree this is only the beginning.
FD, it sounds like you have some serious issues with the Church in the 60s and 70s. I suggest you try to get your own personal testimony of what happened then, and why, rather than continually rehash old news on this site. Everyone else seems to have made their peace and put it behind them. You should too. Then we can have some good political discussion on here instead of always reverting to the same argument of the Church and the blacks and the priesthood. If Gladys Knight (among others) could live through that time period and see the horribleness of it, and then find the Church and convert and make peace with the past then I have faith you will too. In other words, move on.
I suggest you try to get your own personal testimony of what happened then, and why, rather than continually rehash old news on this site. Everyone else seems to have made their peace and put it behind them. You should too.
Funny how even those who have been able to "put it behind them" still don't have any real answers as to the "what and why" things happened the way they did. I don't think we'll ever know. I'm happy for you that you've been able to "move on," but if "everyone" else seems to have really done so, then it's strange how I seem to find so many other Mormons in my position, who do see parallels between history and the present, struggle with them, and want to learn from them. If everyone else thinks the parallels I bring up truly are worthless, then please let me know. Personally, I think that we study history, whether religious or politcal, for a reason.
Sorry, but I'm not Gladys Knight.
Post a Comment