Homosexual marriage...

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

At a recent talk I heard given by the University of Utah's president and by Bill Atkin, LDS General Counsel, both expressed tremendous concern over the stifling of minority cultures within Utah. Their theory, which I absolutely agree with, is that the LDS church and its members have no room to complain about their religious freedoms being stifled outside of Utah if they stifle minority views within Utah. As an example, public pools in Utah county are not allowed to be open on Sundays in Utah County as a direct result of the LDS members' influence in lawmaking there.

Agree with premise that Church members need to be more tolerant of the beliefs of others, particularly in areas where Mormons dominate the culture. I seem to recall many talks and counsel given by the Brethren to that effect, and moves by the Church in Utah to reach out across denominational lines. At some point, however, people create tolerance boundaries. I'm not that uncomfortable with the Church's position on gay marriage.

I'm curious. Did they provide examples of LDS religious freedoms being stifled outside of Utah? If so, what are they? Why couldn't this be resolved via the courts?

Conversely, how are minority views stifled in Utah? I can understand how a predominant culture can make acceptance of views that run counter to that culture difficult, but is "stifled" the best word? Or are we talking about preferences? The Utah County swimming pool Sunday closure law example seems pretty weak, or perhaps my tolerance level is way out of whack. I can give innumerable examples of where my LDS view/preference takes second place to the predominant culture. I just seem to roll with it. How can I react otherwise?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You haven't made an argument based on the issues here, you have made an argument against a person bringing up the issues (a logical fallacy). I most certainly am not disputing that the church leaders are more intelligent and capable than I am. But if that is the end of the debate, then you have set them up as being infallible, despite your statement that they are fallible. We do not believe that they are infallible men, therefore their intelligence and ability to receive inspiration are not at issue here. Make an argument on the issue and I will get back to you.

You opened the door to the argument against a person (namely Hoyacoug) by, questioning the individual and or collective rational, capability, intelligence and understanding of leaders of the church by stating that they (the word church being assumed to mean church leadership) were wrong. (Your exact words: “I think the church is completely wrong to fight for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.” & “The church has been wrong on a lot of social issues over the years. I think this is yet another example.”

Therefore their (church leadership, specifically the brethren) intelligence and ability to receive inspiration ARE at issue here!

I did make an argument on the issue –will you get back to me?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You opened the door to the argument against a person (namely Hoyacoug) by, questioning the individual and or collective rational, capability, intelligence and understanding of leaders of the church by stating that they (the word church being assumed to mean church leadership) were wrong. (Your exact words: “I think the church is completely wrong to fight for a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.” & “The church has been wrong on a lot of social issues over the years. I think this is yet another example.”

Therefore their (church leadership, specifically the brethren) intelligence and ability to receive inspiration ARE at issue here!

I did make an argument on the issue –will you get back to me?

You haven't made an argument on the issue. The issue is gay marriage, not the intelligence and level of inspiration of those leading the Church. There are many arguments that can be made in support of and in opposition to gay marriage, but to simply say that the Church opposes opposes gay marriage and leave it at that, is to dodge the issue entirely.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

You haven't made an argument on the issue. The issue is gay marriage, not the intelligence and level of inspiration of those leading the Church. There are many arguments that can be made in support of and in opposition to gay marriage, but to simply say that the Church opposes opposes gay marriage and leave it at that, is to dodge the issue entirely.

Exactly. Tooblue: your position implies infallability of church leaders, a premise that neither they nor I accept. If saying that the church is wrong on a position necessarily involves questioning the intelligence and inspiration of church leaders, then you have created a system whereby blind obedience is required and no amount of dissent is tolerated (i.e. the church is infallible and we must simply obey).

You have not yet provided any arguments on the issues; rather, you have simply attacked my person (something that is rarely hard to do! ).

[Cali Coug]

Someone just boardmailed me and noted how acrimonious my exchanges with Archaea have become. I re-read through my posts, and, while I knew I was being acrimonious to a degree, I think I have allowed our disagreements to lead me to a lower degree of discourse than should be expected here.

Apologies to Archaea and the rest for having to wade through all that crap.

(By the way Archaea, you are still wrong! )

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Exactly. Tooblue: your position implies infallability of church leaders, a premise that neither they nor I accept. If saying that the church is wrong on a position necessarily involves questioning the intelligence and inspiration of church leaders, then you have created a system whereby blind obedience is required and no amount of dissent is tolerated (i.e. the church is infallible and we must simply obey).

You have not yet provided any arguments on the issues; rather, you have simply attacked my person (something that is rarely hard to do! ).

to Non Sequiter and Hoya

The very basis for his argument is that the church or brethren are wrong. In so doing he has propped up his rational as superior to the church’s (brethren) rational. That is a fundamental aspect of this issue that he introduced and I choose to argue. I did not write; ‘the church opposes gay marriage, let’s leave at that’, I question the fallibility of Hoya’s rational verses the fallibility of the rational of the church (brethren).

Hoya suggested that I contradicted my self when I stated that the brethren were fallible and then pitted their collective abilities, experience, intelligence against his … I contend that the brethren are in fact less fallible than he –in other words they are NOT infallible, merely more capable than he to discern and make judgments on this issue on behalf of the church ;-)

Furthermore you will find an introduction to my arguments elsewhere in this string, in response to a post by Hazzard. I have not dodged the issue but rather prefer Hoya defend his position that his rational --again, he declared they were wrong and as a consequence, subsequent statements made by Hoya contend that his opinion is more correct, therefore it can be assumed that such statements purport to be delivered by a more capable, experienced knowledgeable individual than the church (brethren)—is less fallible than the church’s rational.

The intro to my arguments as previously posted:

I am not a lawyer but such legal maneuverings in the fight to legalize gay marriage do not remain in the neat little bubble you have constructed. The ramifications for legalizing same sex marriage are far reaching and will affect future efforts to legalize polygamy.

Precedence in such cases will in fact be relied upon as momentum to drive any argument in favor of any other type of government sanctioned marriage.

The ultimate question is at what point do the rights of one group usurp the rights of another group? This will become an issue of free speech … is it possible for a government to sanction gay marriage and at the same time sanction the freedom of religious worship to vocally condemn it? You are naïve if you believe that the fight is truly about the right to marry!

[tooblue]

What's more I am sorry if you took my words as an attack ... You are one individual verse twelve individuals ... it is not an attack to state that you are less experienced, capable and intellingent than 12, it is a statement of fact.

[tooblue]

Exactly. Tooblue: your position implies infallability of church leaders, a premise that neither they nor I accept. If saying that the church is wrong on a position necessarily involves questioning the intelligence and inspiration of church leaders, then you have created a system whereby blind obedience is required and no amount of dissent is tolerated (i.e. the church is infallible and we must simply obey).

Besides, when did I mention blind obedience? Do I really come across as that sanctimonious or have you spent too much time on CougarBoard :P

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Besides, when did I mention blind obedience? Do I really come across as that santimonous or have you spent too much time on CougarBoard :P

Your arguments are circular.

Under your premise, any person questioning whether or not the church is right or wrong on any issue is actually questioning the intelligence and inspiration of the church leaders. To resolve whether or not I am right in questioning them, you simply look to my intelligence and ability to receive inspiration (undoubtedly lower). After that comparison, you claim that they must be right because they are, as a whole, smarter and more open to inspiration.

Answer me this: what group in the world would you consider to be more intelligent and more receptive to inspiration than the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency? If you name a group, you are indicating that only that group is qualified to question the church. You are also indicating that since they are smarter and more receptive to inspiration, the church actually has no grounds to question that group, and that group becomes infallible. If you don't name a group (and I imagine you won't) then you are saying that no group or person is qualified to question the church. If no group is qualified to question the church, then the church is infallible. If the church is infallible (i.e. we should blindly follow).

You aren't focusing on the actual issue. The issue isn't (as you have characterized it) whether or not the church is wrong. The issue is whether or not the church should be involved in pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

ANY question about ANY church policy could invariably come back to your argument that it is actually about whether the church is wrong (and whether the leaders are smarter than the person questioning the church).

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Your arguments are circular.

Under your premise, any person questioning whether or not the church is right or wrong on any issue is actually questioning the intelligence and inspiration of the church leaders. To resolve whether or not I am right in questioning them, you simply look to my intelligence and ability to receive inspiration (undoubtedly lower). After that comparison, you claim that they must be right because they are, as a whole, smarter and more open to inspiration.

Answer me this: what group in the world would you consider to be more intelligent and more receptive to inspiration than the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency? If you name a group, you are indicating that only that group is qualified to question the church. You are also indicating that since they are smarter and more receptive to inspiration, the church actually has no grounds to question that group, and that group becomes infallible. If you don't name a group (and I imagine you won't) then you are saying that no group or person is qualified to question the church. If no group is qualified to question the church, then the church is infallible. If the church is infallible (i.e. we should blindly follow).

You aren't focusing on the actual issue. The issue isn't (as you have characterized it) whether or not the church is wrong. The issue is whether or not the church should be involved in pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

ANY question about ANY church policy could invariably come back to your argument that it is actually about whether the church is wrong (and whether the leaders are smarter than the person questioning the church).

You stated they were wrong, I stated they were slow to react, I did not say they were right, only that they are less fallible!

By summarily stating the church was wrong you introduce the idea that there is a correct answer, I contend that there are answers ...

My argument is no more circular than yours … you just happen to take longer to get back to where you began ;-)

Furthermore we are not talking about any other groups that one might introduce as capable of contending with twelve –I am talking about you verses a body of twelve men!