05-30-2006, 07:10 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. Last edited by creekster; 05-30-2006 at 07:13 PM. |
|
05-30-2006, 07:21 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Again, it just comes down to whether or not taking political action to legislatively define what is a family is appropriate or not. You claim that supporting political policies that support the family has long been the policy of the church. Let me ask you this: if that is true, should we support ANY policy that would support the family? Presumably there are a lot of things that could be done to protect families. Should we imprison adulterers? Why not, if you would say no? What about just making adultery illegal? Should divorce be illegal? Each of these would "protect the family." Point being, legislating our moral issues is a very dangerous game to play. In terms of explaining how geography fits into defining doctrine, I think we have already gone over that way too much for it to be interesting to anyone. Last edited by Cali Coug; 05-30-2006 at 07:57 PM. |
|
05-30-2006, 07:28 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
OTOH, you never did answer my question. ;-)
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
05-30-2006, 07:52 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Quote:
You sustain through actions that in turn support the individual, not merely offering meaningless acknowledgment. |
|
05-30-2006, 08:01 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
Quote:
The church has responded in identical fashion to this very issue in many different countries. The only thing that seperates the church's response to this issue in those countries verses the US is time. |
|
05-30-2006, 08:02 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I don't really know the answer to your question. My initial reaction was that they wanted us to support the measure. The language, after closer scrutiny, is very craftily worded, however. I suppose there could be several reasons for this: 1. The church did not want to say "support this amendment" for fear that the language of this amendment could change and become something the church would not support (but they would be on record asking for support). 2. They want civic involvement, one way or another, and feel that most Mormons, when asked, would favor the amendment anyways, resulting in a response along the lines of what they wanted without actually saying the words. 3. Not specifically asking for support was merely an oversight (doubtful, since I am sure this letter was vetted at many levels). OTOH, the extensive vetting could have led to several drafts by several people, resulting in odd language at the end. 4. The church is concerned about its tax status, and wants to be able to say later that they weren't asking for specific action on this issue (which would be duplicitous if you assume they actually do want specific action on this issue). I find this to be unlikely. In short, I don't have a clue. |
|
05-30-2006, 08:03 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Take that, loser junior members!!! |
|
05-30-2006, 08:05 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 961
|
Quote:
I mean how many people really need a lime-Jello caserole after delivering a baby? But in the mind of many a relief society president, that gesture is meaningful service. If Mike thinks that he is honoring and obeying and sustaining the leaders of the church by sending them his letter rather than agreeing with them, then who is anyone here to challenge his intent? |
|
05-30-2006, 08:12 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
I sat here reading your (Hoyacoug's) reposnse and had to ask myself if this was really rwoth another message, but what the heck, eh?
Your answer was good, it just wasn't an answer to my question. My question was not why the church didn't tell us what to say, but my question was whether you believe the prophet doesn't care what you say, or whether you think the context fo the letter is sufficiently clear to discern that he wants one to support the amendment, given the refernce to the proclamation on the family. (Of your choices, btw, I lean to 1 and maybe 4, but definely not 3. 2 I think is unlikley but I suppose not impossible.) Iow, you again evaded the question. That's ok, as nothing about anything either of us could say would persuade the other at this point, but I suspect you knew you had answered a diffeent question and I just wanted you to know I knew it too.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
05-30-2006, 08:12 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,016
|
I only wish to make a distinction ... The Lord will judge Mike's intent.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|