Boy am I naive

[MikeWaters]

I saw this title for an article: LDS Church critical of media reports on FLDS.

I thought "yeah, finally someone is stepping up and criticizing the media for their one-sided approach to this stuff."

And then I read it and see that it is nothing but criticizing media for not differentiating between FLDS and LDS, and furthermore it says that the LDS church says there is no such thing as a fundamental Mormon.

The church would deny these people the right to name themselves, which many have argued is a fundamental human right.

Why in the world would I have thought apostles would defend the FLDS right to a fair hearing, and fundamental human rights such as the right of reproduction?

LOL, I am an idiot.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...269713,00.html

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Why in the world would I have thought apostles would defend the FLDS right to a fair hearing, and fundamental human rights such as the right of reproduction?

Why is it the apostles' business to be fighting legal and political battles for the FLDS?

[FMCoug]

The Church is in a tough spot here from a PR perspective. If they say anything that can be construed as supportive of the FLDS, that is just ammunition to the crackpots who say we haven't really given up Polygamy, etc. The Church HAS to keep the FLDS at arms' length.

Why aren't you critical of other churches who are not defending them? Where is Jesse Jackson when you need him?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Why is it the apostles' business to be fighting legal and political battles for the FLDS?

The Church has it tough enough to fight for itself. Why would the Church stand up politically or PR for disenfranchised group, which undermines its authority?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The Church has it tough enough to fight for itself. Why would the Church stand up politically or PR for disenfranchised group, which undermines its authority?

Better question, when has the church ever fought for any civil rights or human rights?

Not in the modern era.

In fact, most of the stories I hear is how church members followed the law and supported their government, even in despotic states (Nazi Germany).

The church has a very narrow focus: perfecting the saints, preaching the gospel, and redeeming the dead. When the church tries to venture into politics, it seems to do so disastrously.

You could argue that the church's most recent political efforts are in fact to prevent civil rights (of gays). And of course we know the church did not lead out on Civil Rights for black Americans.

So, yes, I am REALLY naive. I freely admit it. I'm still chuckling about my interpretation of the headline.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So, yes, I am REALLY naive. I freely admit it. I'm still chuckling about my interpretation of the headline.

Not naive, just stupid.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Not naive, just stupid.

LOL, I agree. That the church would fight for human rights...LOL. Phew....it's called wishful thinking. We see what we want to see.

If Mormons believe in human rights, they will have to fight for them on their own during their own time.

[BYU71]

I don't think it is their fight. Seems like there are enough ordinary mormons out there fighting for them.

I do find it curious that they said "there are no fundamental mormons." That at least tells us they don't read the interenet boards.

Maybe they consider Tex, Indy and Lingo "orthodox mormons" not "fundamentalist mormons".

[Indy Coug]

Preaching to the world to live a more Christlike life IS fighting for human rights.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Better question, when has the church ever fought for any civil rights or human rights?

Not in the modern era.

In fact, most of the stories I hear is how church members followed the law and supported their government, even in despotic states (Nazi Germany).

The church has a very narrow focus: perfecting the saints, preaching the gospel, and redeeming the dead. When the church tries to venture into politics, it seems to do so disastrously.

You could argue that the church's most recent political efforts are in fact to prevent civil rights (of gays). And of course we know the church did not lead out on Civil Rights for black Americans.

So, yes, I am REALLY naive. I freely admit it. I'm still chuckling about my interpretation of the headline.

The church is no political leader, but given the distance the Church is trying to achieve between it and polygamy, could you ever see it stand up for an organization which undermines its own authority?

And yes, I wish the Church had taken a different stance on Civil Rights in the sixties, but I believe it's a misnomer to equate gay marriage with civil rights. You can run off on your tangent, but I disagree that gays are unfairly discriminated against.

You are not naive, perhaps politically naive, but not otherwise naive. Political capital is not something you expend lightly and right now the Church's political capital is in short supply.