You could see this coming from about a mile off - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Sleeping in EQ · 07-02-2008, 02:28 PM

http://www.contracostatimes.com/bayandstate/ci_9756284

I like that Shipps, unlike way too many Mormons, knows our history. She's absolutely correct that in 1932 President Grant tried to coerce the Church to vote against Roosevelt and the effort backfired in a major way (and the moral issue of the day was prohibition).

I don't see quite the same indignance over this California thing, but for me the interesting issue will be a difference between the 1932 Church and the 2008 Church. There was little to no fallout for those who disparaged the Church's intrusion into politics in 1932, but with today's mullah mentality and a pervasive lack of historical perspective, in the present situation there could be plenty of fallout.

The short of this is that this could get ugly. Very ugly.

MikeWaters · 07-02-2008, 02:33 PM

I venture to say that a lot of Mormons don't like the dictum, but they are not speaking to the papers.

I honestly don't think the church has any moral gravitas, and therefore it is hard to take the church seriously. Look at all the issues the church has not commented on or supported.

Tex · 07-02-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The short of this is that this could get ugly. Very ugly.

I predict nothing happens at all.

MikeWaters · 07-02-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

I predict nothing happens at all.

I agree with Tex. I bet they don't even discipline the people quoted in the article.

BYU71 · 07-02-2008, 02:51 PM

Everyone knows I am a proponent of the "there is a difference between counsel and commandment."

That being said, I sustain the brethern as the spokesman for the church, maybe not for me in every instance, but certainly for the church.

I personally believe a line is drawn between speaking amongst ourselves about a disagreement and going public with the disagreement.

Personally, before proclaiming to be an active Latter Day Saint and then publicly repudiating something the church has taken a strong stand on, I would renounce my membership.

myboynoah · 07-02-2008, 02:53 PM

Well, at least Nielsen has achieved in print what he never did in real life.

MikeWaters · 07-02-2008, 03:05 PM

When the church came out supporting the constitutional amendment, my stake president was very clear, and emphasized, that we were not being asked to vote for the amendment.

I like my stake president. If he excommunicated me, I think I would respect that excommunication.

scottie · 07-02-2008, 06:40 PM

The story has been removed:

Quote:

The story on which people below are commenting has been temporarily removed because it inadvertently was posted before being edited. We will repost as soon as possible the story examining the Mormon reaction to a call to support a gay-marriage ban in California.

PaloAltoCougar · 07-02-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

http://www.contracostatimes.com/bayandstate/ci_9756284

I like that Shipps, unlike way too many Mormons, knows our history. She's absolutely correct that in 1932 President Grant tried to coerce the Church to vote against Roosevelt and the effort backfired in a major way (and the moral issue of the day was prohibition).

I don't see quite the same indignance over this California thing, but for me the interesting issue will be a difference between the 1932 Church and the 2008 Church. There was little to no fallout for those who disparaged the Church's intrusion into politics in 1932, but with today's mullah mentality and a pervasive lack of historical perspective, in the present situation there could be plenty of fallout.

The short of this is that this could get ugly. Very ugly.

I wish the article were still there, but I can't see it. It may have been similar to an AP wire story on the subject a few days ago. In that article, my nephew, Matt Thurston, was quoted as saying he was surprised the Church didn't sit on the sidelines on this one, and his disappointment was evident--and he's a good and faithful member, despite his authorship of Sunstone articles. The best part of the article was that the paragraph mentioning him ended with "...Matt Thurston of Corona, California, who is not gay." How often is one's straightness proclaimed in a national news story?

And despite my misgivings about the current issue, let me bear testimony that my feelings about the Church come closer to, and are perhaps even more devoted than, those of my nephew Matt, than to those of my cousin, Sandra Tanner and her late husband.

MikeWaters · 07-02-2008, 06:58 PM

That's cool for Matt. Hard to be the black sheep of the family with Sandra there.

07-02-2008, 02:28 PM	#1
Sleeping in EQ Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto Posts: 3,085	You could see this coming from about a mile off http://www.contracostatimes.com/bayandstate/ci_9756284 I like that Shipps, unlike way too many Mormons, knows our history. She's absolutely correct that in 1932 President Grant tried to coerce the Church to vote against Roosevelt and the effort backfired in a major way (and the moral issue of the day was prohibition). I don't see quite the same indignance over this California thing, but for me the interesting issue will be a difference between the 1932 Church and the 2008 Church. There was little to no fallout for those who disparaged the Church's intrusion into politics in 1932, but with today's mullah mentality and a pervasive lack of historical perspective, in the present situation there could be plenty of fallout. The short of this is that this could get ugly. Very ugly. __________________ "Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 07-02-2008 at 02:46 PM.

07-02-2008, 02:53 PM	#6
myboynoah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Memphis freakin' Tennessee!!!!! Posts: 4,530	Well, at least Nielsen has achieved in print what he never did in real life. __________________ Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!! Religion rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins. Of all religions that I know, the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Joseph Smith.

07-02-2008, 02:33 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I venture to say that a lot of Mormons don't like the dictum, but they are not speaking to the papers. I honestly don't think the church has any moral gravitas, and therefore it is hard to take the church seriously. Look at all the issues the church has not commented on or supported.

07-02-2008, 02:51 PM	#5
BYU71 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 5,084	Everyone knows I am a proponent of the "there is a difference between counsel and commandment." That being said, I sustain the brethern as the spokesman for the church, maybe not for me in every instance, but certainly for the church. I personally believe a line is drawn between speaking amongst ourselves about a disagreement and going public with the disagreement. Personally, before proclaiming to be an active Latter Day Saint and then publicly repudiating something the church has taken a strong stand on, I would renounce my membership.

07-02-2008, 03:05 PM	#7
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	When the church came out supporting the constitutional amendment, my stake president was very clear, and emphasized, that we were not being asked to vote for the amendment. I like my stake president. If he excommunicated me, I think I would respect that excommunication.

07-02-2008, 06:58 PM	#10
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	That's cool for Matt. Hard to be the black sheep of the family with Sandra there.