Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hoyacoug
As to your last question, it could be. What do I know? If the purpose of the letter is, as many supporters have suggested here, to get Mormons involved in civics, then any letter would accomplish that task. The amendment isn't going to pass, so I can't imagine the purpose is to get it to pass (or it is already a lost cause).
As to geographics, here is why it is important. I am not disputing that marriage, according to God, should be between a man and a woman. I am suggesting that the appropriate path to take to accomplish that goal is through persuasion and missionary efforts, not through a constitutional amendment.
Opposing the course the church has adopted to accomplish a task is not the same as opposing the underlying purpose of the adopted course. If the course the church is proposing was required or doctrinal, then everyone would be required to do something similar. My remark about geography isn't to be taken as asking everyone in the world to write a US Senator. It is a question as to why everyone in the world hasn't been asked to push their country for a similar proposition. The fact that only a few countries have been asked to do something on this issue leads me to conclude that this approach has been deemed advisable here, but not elsewhere (which means it can hardly be construed as doctrinal).
I disagree with their analysis that this is a good course of action to take.
|
But what is 'their' analysis? You are disagreeing with your conjecture about what their analysis is. That is an argument you better be able to win, btw. ;-) Without knowing what their analysis is, how can you reach any conclusion about why they did or did not make a simialr request (and assuming their is such a beast in any given country) in other countries? Moreover, who is 'they?' If 'they' is the leadership of this useful and fulfilling club you are in, then I see your point. IF 'they' is God's mouthpiece on earth, it seems you are taking a difficult to reconcile stance. And yes, I appreciate their are positions in between (perhaps) and these have been discussed, but I am sure you see my point.
At least we agree that for THIS amendment, geography is not at issue, as only those in the US make a difference herre.
Moreover, everyone IS required to do something simialr. That is, required to support the family, and to support politcal policies that support the family. This has long been the policy of the church.
As toi my last question, you evade it coimpletely. You are a bright guy. Do you mean to tell me that you think after having read the prophet's letter, that you truly believe it is a reasonable contruction of the letter that the prohpet is asking for ANY action, even if it is opposed tot he amendment? Really, is that how you read that letter? If so, what does the reference to the Proclamation mean?