The church has spoken...

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by exUte

How can you support a gospel or a prophet if they say your behavior is against the will of God?

You say you support the Prophet. Is there nothing in your behavior that he would say is against the will of God?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Ex I think it is obvious that I think the first presidency is very wrong on this issue. Your supposed moral high ground does not frighten me. Its like you are trying to paint me into a corner. This corner has a comfy love seat so to speak. I have been comfortable here for a long time.

And the Proclamation on the Family? Not inspired?

Did you baptize any members who then had their families sever their ties with them because of their conversion?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

You say you support the Prophet. Is there nothing in your behavior that he would say is against the will of God?

I'm not even certain what "support" means now. Does it mean our tithes and offerings pay his stipend? Does it mean we never disagree?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Ex I think it is obvious that I think the first presidency is very wrong on this issue. Your supposed moral high ground does not frighten me. Its like you are trying to paint me into a corner. This corner has a comfy love seat so to speak. I have been comfortable here for a long time.

I feel comfortable following our prophet and twelve apostles. I guess you consider that the moral high ground? I do too.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

oh brother

Based on your association with the gays, what is their opinion of religion?

Follow the gay agenda instead of the Prophet's agenda. It's called agency.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by bluegoose

You say you support the Prophet. Is there nothing in your behavior that he would say is against the will of God?

At times. My lifestyle isn't against the very core of the very first commandment he gave Adam and Eve. or did I miss something?

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Once again, it is a hollow victory. This fact that they even feel the need to issue a statement like this illustrates that the battle was "won" but at tremendous cost. The church will be paying for this for a long time, IMO.

Sorry Lebowski - nothing hollow about the victory. It is good to see people stand up for something they believe to be a moral issue against a group of very influential liberals. The only cost was to those who contributed $s and time to the cause and I appreciate their efforts. Those who are the Church's enemies today, were enemies yesterday, and will be enemies tomorrow. The Church's position on this issue has been well documented for years. The Church took a stand and encouraged its members to support the prop with time and $s. Many Church members responded positively and excercised their rights as Americans to do so. Some did so because of a personal belief that it was the right thing to do, some did so because of a sense of duty, and some may have done it because of ignorance, yet, they answered the call of their Church leaders and invested their dollars and time. Similar to what the Youngs did in opposition of prop 8. Many on this board were in opposition to prop 8 and they had every right to do so and could have contributed $$s and time to further their position.

The Church is not going to suffer any long term consequences for its position on gay marriage. Again, its position has been well documented for years. What amazes me about the outcome is that black voters supported the proposition 70/30. I don't think the opposition expected that large of a margin.

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm not even certain what "support" means now. Does it mean our tithes and offerings pay his stipend? Does it mean we never disagree?

Ask exie. He seems to think that he knows the definition of supporting and sustaining the Prophet better than even the Prophet himself does.

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by creekster

ANd they are bigoted simply becaseu you say so? Sholdn't you apply the same standards of proof to yourself that you are whining about when broadly painting the church? SU has gotten to you, and it is not pretty.

Yes it's the Solon argument. Therefore it is bigoted.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Yes it's the Solon argument. Therefore it is bigoted.

The question is manifold. Are they subjectively bigoted based on Solon's interpretation? based upon the community standard? based upon a seeming third party objective standard?

Will all three examinations arrive at the same result?