Prop. 8 armageddon?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

The alleged merits are the same rehashed hatred you have for the Mormon Church. There is nothing to address.

What do you mean? I'm trying to help the LDS Church here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Kind of like, "Prop. 8 is our Gettsyburg?" Is that what you mean by "hyperbole"?

Yes, I would consider that to be hyperbole. As is your "death knell" comment. I would imagine you would have considered polygamy to be the death knell of the church. Ditto for the priesthood ban. This too shall pass.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What do you mean? I'm trying to help the LDS Church here.

What do I mean?

You hate the Mormon Church and your post isn't even an attempt to hide that hatred. You are assuming that the leaders of the LDS Church believe that gay marriage will bring down the LDS Church. You are stating your opinion and your opinion only, but are trying to pass it off as fact. It is incumbent on you to prove that that is what LDS leaders believe. You're a lawyer, you know that the burden of proof falls on the accuser. So back up your claims with fact, not opinion.

Your posts are all the same - "The LDS Church will collapse because......."

All of your posts are based on your emotional ties to the religion you despise more than any other religion.

[TripletDaddy]

If the Church has survived....nay...thrived.....with all of us knuckleheads on the rosters....I would dare say that the Church will be just fine.

No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing, my friends. I believe that to be true.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

What do you mean? I'm trying to help the LDS Church here.

By making the necessary funeral arrangements?

Rumors of the Mormon church's demise have been greatly exaggerated. We're not quite dead yet.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yes, I would consider that to be hyperbole. As is your "death knell" comment. I would imagine you would have considered polygamy to be the death knell of the church. Ditto for the priesthood ban. This too shall pass.

Do you mean, for the Church, this issue will go the way of polygamy and the priesthood ban? That is, that the Church will come to accept gay sex within the bonds of marriage as permissible under the law of chastity?

I don't think so.

I think SU is indeed onto something, but not for the reason he identified. Here's why. Let's do a little thought experiment: The year is 2008 and the Church still has the ban on blacks and the Priesthood. What would the social status of the Church be? The rate of conversion? The likelihood that a rapidly progressing society would tolerate such an organization? Its tax-exempt status? Gone. Its public good will? Gone. Community support? Gone. Affiliation with the Boy Scouts (not even they would tolerate official racism)? Gone. BYU's tax-exempt status? Gone. And so forth. Project that out twenty years, to 2028, and the repercussions would be even more immense.

The same will be true with gay marriage and gay rights. The writing is on the wall. The end result is a given. Even if Prop. 8 passes, so what. Give it a decade (or less), and Californians will amend their constitution again. At some point, the Church's stance on gay sex and gay marriage will be so out of the mainstream, that it will be forced into a sort of exile. For now, many other religions stand with the Church, but they too will change policies and stances one by one. Once the Catholic Church changes, the end will be near.

Don't dismiss SU . . . I think he's uncovering the reason the leaders of the Church most fear gay marriage: it will make the Church a pariah in the centuries to come, reversing the hard fought gains in social acceptance.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Levin

Do you mean, for the Church, this issue will go the way of polygamy and the priesthood ban? That is, that the Church will come to accept gay sex within the bonds of marriage as permissible under the law of chastity?

I don't think so.

Yes, I think that will eventually happen in some kind of fashion. But it may take a long time.

Originally Posted by Levin

I think SU is indeed onto something, but not for the reason he identified. Here's why. Let's do a little thought experiment: The year is 2008 and the Church still has the ban on blacks and the Priesthood. What would the social status of the Church be? The rate of conversion? The likelihood that a rapidly progressing society would tolerate such an organization? Its tax-exempt status? Gone. Its public good will? Gone. Community support? Gone. Affiliation with the Boy Scouts (not even they would tolerate official racism)? Gone. BYU's tax-exempt status? Gone. And so forth. Project that out twenty years, to 2028, and the repercussions would be even more immense.

And yet, the scenario you are outlining did not happen. The ban was removed and the church survived. And it was clearly the right thing to do. Which is easy to say now, but in the sixties and seventies that would be a radical, minority viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Levin

The same will be true with gay marriage and gay rights. The writing is on the wall. The end result is a given. Even if Prop. 8 passes, so what. Give it a decade (or less), and Californians will amend their constitution again. At some point, the Church's stance on gay sex and gay marriage will be so out of the mainstream, that it will be forced into a sort of exile. For now, many other religions stand with the Church, but they too will change policies and stances one by one. Once the Catholic Church changes, the end will be near.

"the end will be near"? How so?

In case you haven't noticed, the church's stance on homosexuality has shifted quite significantly in recent years. Prop 8 notwithstanding, it will continue to evolve.

I believe the church is on the wrong side of this issue. I also believe in the inevitable triumph of truth. Things will work out. You may find that an odd kind of faith, but it works for me.

Originally Posted by Levin

Don't dismiss SU . . . I think he's uncovering the reason the leaders of the Church most fear gay marriage: it will make the Church a pariah in the centuries to come, reversing the hard fought gains in social acceptance.

"centuries"? Please.

I find it fascinating how frequently SU and the hardliners here seem to converge.

[Levin]

Your entire argument is premised on the fact that the Church will change its stance.

I don't think that will happen, and I think SU's argument assumes that it won't happen as well, at least in the short term.

So we're speaking past each other.

If the Church changes its stance, then of course you're right. That's easy.

The hard part is to predict what will happen if the Church doesn't change its stance, and I think the use of "centuries" is not glib -- in the next centuries, the Church will indeed be a pariah as the world comes to universally accept gay rights and gay marriage.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by Levin

Do you mean, for the Church, this issue will go the way of polygamy and the priesthood ban? That is, that the Church will come to accept gay sex within the bonds of marriage as permissible under the law of chastity?

I don't think so.

I think SU is indeed onto something, but not for the reason he identified. Here's why. Let's do a little thought experiment: The year is 2008 and the Church still has the ban on blacks and the Priesthood. What would the social status of the Church be? The rate of conversion? The likelihood that a rapidly progressing society would tolerate such an organization? Its tax-exempt status? Gone. Its public good will? Gone. Community support? Gone. Affiliation with the Boy Scouts (not even they would tolerate official racism)? Gone. BYU's tax-exempt status? Gone. And so forth. Project that out twenty years, to 2028, and the repercussions would be even more immense.

The same will be true with gay marriage and gay rights. The writing is on the wall. The end result is a given. Even if Prop. 8 passes, so what. Give it a decade (or less), and Californians will amend their constitution again. At some point, the Church's stance on gay sex and gay marriage will be so out of the mainstream, that it will be forced into a sort of exile. For now, many other religions stand with the Church, but they too will change policies and stances one by one. Once the Catholic Church changes, the end will be near.

Don't dismiss SU . . . I think he's uncovering the reason the leaders of the Church most fear gay marriage: it will make the Church a pariah in the centuries to come, reversing the hard fought gains in social acceptance.

The writing is on the wall, concerning gay marriage and the LDS Church?

You truly think the Brethren are "going to come around" to the worlds way of thinking in order to better fit into society?

Yeah I can clearly see the similarities to Blacks and the Priesthood and gay marriage, yeah they are virtually the same. LOL

Why don't you see if you can arrange a meeting with President Monson and tell him how wrong he is, tell him that the writing is on the wall and that somewhere in the not too distant future the Church is just going to have to come to it's senses and allow gays to get equal status before the lord, including temple sealings, etc..... Yeah I can see that meeting going over really well, but hey why not, after all you and a few of your fellow enlightened CG'ers have proven time and again to be smarter than those "old gray hairs in SLC".

[Flystripper]

circa 1960

Why don't you see if you can arrange a meeting with President Mckay and tell him how wrong he is, tell him that the writing is on the wall and that somewhere in the not too distant future the Church is just going to have to come to it's senses and allow blacks to get equal status before the lord, including temple sealings, etc..... Yeah I can see that meeting going over really well, but hey why not, after all you and a few of your fellow enlightened CG'ers have proven time and again to be smarter than those "old gray hairs in SLC".