Let's stop beating around the bush

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

The problem is that by any objective measure this board just dies when he is not around. The rest of us are for the most part too nice to make things interesting. Who else has quarreled with virtually everyone? Mike's psychoses are what makes this little world go 'round.

While it's clear you're not a homo, you sure like a good dick every now and then.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You can be pretty entertaining yourself, so go ahead and straighten out your nose. But when Mike went on vacation you turned into a barnacle. That's just a fact.

That week (for a few days) I was out at a client and stated such. I believe you were, too.

Let's give it another test.....mikewaters can go away for another week and let's see if people here find things to talk about. My guess is that they will. Replace "mikewaters" in that field experiment with every other CG regular and the result will be similar.

Ob La Di, Ob La Da, life goes on........La La how the life goes on....

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

of course not. that's why I am requesting a response.

Having said that, do I think the average person on this site can come up with a meaningful response? No.

The only responses in support of the statement have been of the quality of a certain NBA analyst I know in Idaho.

Well, you asked. Here goes.

For the record, I am not on one side or the other of this debate. I am genuinely undecided on the issue, and I find arguments on both side to be somewhat lacking. So if you think this is going to be an apologist’s response, void of ability to see anything except the church-mandated position, please save your breath. If I find an argument to be entirely sans-holes, I’m not afraid to acknowledge it as such.

I suspect you will find my response to your response insufficient. I hope not. We'll see.

Here goes:

Originally Posted by The Statement

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The thing that they don't say is that the church supported Proposition 2 in Utah that prohibited the recognition of "any legal status identical or similar to marriage." In other words, there is a strong argument there that the church is also opposed to civil unions. They would have gay couples hire a lawyer and pay thousands of dollars to achieve some of the rights that would be accorded in a civil union. Someone is welcome to provide an alternative viewpoint that the church supports or is willing to tolerate civil unions, but I don't believe it can be made. So the above paragraph in my opinion, is disingenuous.

Had Utah’s Proposition 2 been written by the church, you’d have an argument.

Just for fun, let’s suppose that the church is NOT being disingenuous when they say they do not object to the already established rights. Would you expect them to rise up in opposition to a proposition that advances so many of the goals that they clearly feel are important, but also includes some that they genuinely were not seeking? I don’t think support of a piece of legislation necessitates 100% approval thereof; the legislators themselves will often make deals and compromises to get what they want through the process. The church’s publicly stated position is that it does not object to the already established rights. Whether that is their longstanding position or a recent concession, I see no reason not to take them at their word.

Originally Posted by The Statement

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Obviously, historically, this is not true. See polygamy.

Polygamy allowed for multiple marriages of a man and a woman. Polygamy did not allow for sexual relations outside of marriage.

Originally Posted by The Statement

As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm pleased with this paragraph, as I choose to assume it means that my involvement can be zero. I'm not as pleased that they do not offer the notion that church members can disagree. But it's a start.

Agreed, by and large.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric.[4] Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”[5]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is a minor point, however I think it is still interesting. Why the dictum that General Authorities get married as soon as possible after their spouses die, when such unions, biologically speaking, because of age, cannot produce children. Of course, we all know that there are other reasons for marriage. But this is ignored in this paragraph.

I apologize if I sound somewhat disrespectful, but I find this point to be utterly distasteful. You are completely out of your element on this one. Suffice it so say, no such dictum exists, and the instance of a General Authority remarrying soon after the death of a spouse is not to be taken as evidence of such.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

And here we see that the church rejects the notion of intimacy as not "primary" to marriage. I don't think most church members, or human beings in the United States, would agree with this.

I don’t see what you’re seeing here. To me, it appears that the church is decrying the mindset that marriage is to be considered as a sort of business contract, where both parties are benefited by the exchange. It’s a “me-first” approach that results in marriage ending as soon as one party perceives that they give more than they receive, and abandon their responsibilities to spouse and children. It’s not intimacy they deny as primary to marriage—it’s selfishness.

I will grant, however, that if the aim was to set forth that line of thought, it was insufficiently worded, and can give the impression you received from it.

[quote=The Statement]High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised.[6]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is an aside: this reminds me of the church's strong urging (command, almost) for children born out of wedlock to be given up for adoption. Yet, science tells us (see Freakonomics), that adopted kids do worse than their non-adopted peers. Of course, the factors are complex, but I think this is worth noting.

I think it’s well short of a command. At any rate, I do not see here an objection to the Church’s position, so I move on.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

That the institution of marriage will be weakened and adults and children will be hurt is stated, as if obvious, with no explanation. This is a critical flaw.

You would be right if the statement ended here. It goes on with several pages worth of explanation. Patience.

[quote=The Statement]Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida.[12]

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The argument here is that the church is with majority opinion in the United States, and that the defenders of traditional marriage are honorable in their tactics, while the proponents of gay marriage use liberal courts to achieve their ends, which is a form of subterfuge, they are basically saying. This argument evaporates if Proposition 8 fails. It would mean that this "moral high ground" of going to be the plebes and winning would be undone. Hence the strong feelings, and I daresay, panic. I believe that the Massachusetts legislators and people have considered amendments to undo gay marriage, but have rejected them. Are we next to hear about the tyranny of representative government and legislators?

You’re right in arguing that if the people cast their vote against Proposition 8, the legal argument is toast. I don’t think you need to worry about the church trying to be rid of a democratic government, though.

Originally Posted by The Statement

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is "the people are on our side" argument. What they neglect to say is that American opinion is increasingly shifting towards acceptance of the idea of gay marriage and civil unions. A poll in June 2008 by CBS News showed that 58% of Americans support either gay marriage or civil unions. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/MAYB-GAYMARRIAGE.pdf

The fact that such a strong contingency supports civil unions, but not marriage, suggests something.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This of course is one of my pet peeves: the church's political inaction on the great moral issues of our times. Can we come up with just one other political issue, that is one of the great moral challenges of our times, that the church as involved itself in?

ERA?

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Earlier in the article, abortion is described as killing of "taking the lives of 45 million innocents." That's a curious description based on the church's political actions and it's own policy regarding abortions, and the implied theoligical beliefs that underpin the policy. Is abortion not more important than gay marriage, in terms of moral issues of the past 30 years?

For one, you read way too much into the nuances of the Church’s abortion policy. There just aren’t that many out there that are confused about where the church stands on abortion. You tell me: would you rather they back off altogether, or dictate that it is off limits even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother? You’ve got plenty to say by way of criticism on the current stance, but I haven’t seen your proposed alternative.

Is abortion more important than gay marriage? I couldn’t say. But even if it were, that’s not what’s on the ballot this November. You don’t win wars merely by defending ground; you win them by defeating the armies where they stand.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished.[13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.”[14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Does not adultery require participation from a married individual? Isn't marriage a hedge against promiscuity? So for gays, wouldn't marriage be a hedge against promiscuity? Isn't marriage a promise to be monogamous? Of course, like IndyCoug has shown in a different thread, there is no distinction in the minds of these folks between a monogamous gay man, and one that is promiscuous. They are both involved in a revolting act, and anyon that would say it is different is a "moral relativist" which God is not. They out of hand reject the notion that gay marriage can improve the moral life of gays.

I’m not sure I see the connection between what you’re arguing and the statement to which you are responding. The statement concerns itself with condoning transgression, not whether the leaders of the church view gay sex with one man as any better or worse than gay sex with many men.

Originally Posted by The Statement

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Again, another disingenuous passage, which DDD has pointed out. The Catholic charities were required state non-discrimination laws because they accepted public moneys, and since they didn't want to follow the rules, they lost the money, and decided to close shop. This is fear-mongering.

Does anybody know for certain that LDS Family Services does NOT accept public moneys? I don’t know if they do or not. At any rate, no matter how you want to paint it, the issue of same-sex marriage elbowed Catholic Charities out of the game in Boston, and it doesn’t seem too great a stretch to say that the same thing could not happen elsewhere.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions.[17]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If this is the most important moral issue of our time, I think the church ought to be willing to lose it's tax exemption over it.

I think you ought to be willing to lose your job over abortion, too.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.[18]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Didn't Salt Lake City schools close down all extra-curricular clubs in order to prevent gay students from having their own club? Talk about oppressive. The student who organized the effort on behalf of the gay club committed suicide, lest we think there are no consequences to such actions.

I’m not certain I am against you on this one. I don’t see why Student religious organizations should exclude anybody from membership. Now, if the church was unable to do so, that’d raise problems. I wouldn’t want Uncle Sam telling the church that Big Brother will be sitting in on Church councils. At the present, however, that doesn’t seem to be an issue.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's nice that the church acknowledges there is validity to the statement that gay marriage will likely not harm existing marriages. Where is the evidence that gay marriage has harmed European societies? They are using a circular argument and are wholly unconvincing, citing nothing.

Will not IMMEDIATELY harm existing marriages.

I would have liked to have seen a citation as well, to be honest.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation?

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This is kind of amusing. First the argument is made that gays can't form families. Then the next paragraph admits that gays can form families. But bascially says they are inferior families.

Well, YOU said yourself that adopted kids don’t tend to fare as well as their non-adopted peers. So being adopted into a same-sex marriage is generally inferior to being raised by a biological mother and father, by that token.

Admittedly, the issue with adoption is USUALLY over what to with a child that has already been born and for whom being raised by a biological mother and father is not a possibility. The issue, then, is whether a same-sex marriage is as suitable an alternative as a heterosexual marriage, which the next paragraph attempts to address:

Originally Posted by The Statement

Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I have already referred to studies that show children of gay couples are not more likely to be gay. That's why the assertion of "gender identity" is uncited. Is there any evidence that gay couples produce children with inferior "moral character." I think that is offensive.

You’ve referred to them. Do you have them at hand? Could you show me where to find them? I’m being sincere in this request. I had heard that such studies had shown the opposite to be the case, but I haven’t actually seen the studies. If you or anybody else still reading know where to find those studies and wouldn’t mind passing them along, I’d appreciate it.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

We have a federalist system. States experiment. Not all states have to follow suit. Is it so bad for two states to try something out? If gay marriage is as terrible as the church says, and is as damaging as they say, won't the evidence become apparent to other states over time? Fear-mongering.

Let’s say, just for fun, that any results, ill or good, from this experiment will manifest themselves within twenty years, if they exist at all. Do you really think that all of 48 other states will wait that long to follow suit? At any rate, it seems a little reckless to be rolling the dice with people’s lives, especially if the effects aren’t easily reversed should we come to regret it.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by The Statement

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

40 years ago, I bet the church was very upset about sex ed curriculums stating that masturbation is normal. What has been the societal effect of this? What are supposed to teach? That it's not ok to be gay?

That seems to be exactly what they are supposed to teach—at least, that it’s not okay to act upon homosexual desires and urges. How you or I personally feel about that is a matter for a different discussion, so I’ll move on for now.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Remember the earlier section where the church argued that courts are bad, but votes from the people and state legislators are good? Well, predictably, they come to the conclusion that "governments", i.e. the voice of the people, are bad. That the people should not in fact be able to decide to institute gay marriage. "A step closer"--what does that mean. It means "while they haven't intervened in the moral education of children in the home" it sure does make us uncomfortable? I think what is implied is a threat to disengage with public life, to give strength to homeschoolers, voucher advocates, and people who believe that laws only apply to other people. Does the church get upset when states mandate that "intelligent design" be taught in schools? Of course not. Because for them, it is not a governmental abuse, and has nothing to do with injecting values that some parents might find abhorrent.

First of all, it does say “government,” and NOT “the voice of the people.” I don’t think they’ve abandoned the “courts are bad” argument just yet. I don’t think the church is beyond reason in depicting gay marriage as a right granted by government acting beyond the mandate of the people. Even the changed wording by Attorney General Jerry Brown suggests as much: Proposition 8 “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry”—which right was granted by a court decision, not by a popular vote. If, in fact, gay marriage is legal at the end of November, it will not be because the voice of the people granted that right, but because they refused to oppose the government’s reversal of their voice.

I don’t see the implied threat that you do, but I tend to be more afraid of the government than the church. I do see a step in the direction of infringing upon the sphere of domestic life, but it seems to me a small one that must be followed by a good many more steps preceding the foreseen danger. But it looks like another tug-o-war between freedom of worship and the equal protection clause is underway, and history has thus far shown that the church doesn’t win in those fights.

Originally Posted by The Statement

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Interesting and ironic that the words "confusion" and "distortions" are used. I think those words apply to this editorial.

Now you’re just mudslinging.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't know, maybe kids in Massaschusetts are finding it hard to find their gender identity. Haven't heard anything about it though. Maybe people in Massachusetts have called off heterosexual weddings, have started being more promiscuous, and have disregarded their own moral codes as a result of gay marriage. Maybe. But it certainly doesn't strike me as an obvious conclusion.

It will take a generation or so before we see any results, if in fact there are any. That’s what happens with an ideological struggle.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

One thing that is obviously missing from the editorial is this: if gay marriage is evil, shouldn't it harm those that participate in it? In other words, for a gay couple, marriage should be even more damaging to their morality than just living together.

For me, the opposite conclusion makes more sense. If a gay couple legally commits to each other, with attendant legal responsibilities, then I think they have improved their lives. Because my bias is that commitment is good. It's what I have been taught my whole life. By the church!

I won’t argue that gay sex with one partner is just as bad as gay sex with many partners. We shouldn’t necessarily condone the former just because it’s better than the latter.

Originally Posted by Mikewaters

The greatest moral threat of our lifetimes, if the editorial is correct that it is,

You’re exaggerating here.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

ought to be somewhat more self-apparent. The editorial ought to have been more compelling. At least, in my opinion. I do acknowledge the possibility that the church is completely right on this. But I am in the situation where neither my heart nor my mind agrees, and the only counter I have is a poorly argued editorial.

I admit that I don’t find the statement to be particularly good either, but I think in many instances, you’ve made it out to be a lot worse than it actually is. Has it its weaknesses? Absolutely. But I don’t find it to be any less compelling or any more free of error or weakness than your critique thereof.

As a result, I find myself much in the position you are in. There ought to be more upon which to place one’s feet, and thus far, there isn’t. Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong. So far, I’m not finding sufficient answers from anybody.

[SeattleUte]

AA, thanks for your contribution and your candor. Here's just an initial reaction to your first comment, addressing the LDS Church's position on Proposition 2. First, the initial statement quoted by Waters has a huge proviso at the end that you could drive a truck through, i.e., they support existing laws if they don't injure the institution of marriage (I'm paraphrasing). Second, the statement nowhere states that the LDS Church supports civil unions or even "the status quo." Third, do you doubt that the LDS Church would oppose civil unions in California if it had a ghost of a chance of succeeding?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

AA, thanks for your contribution and your candor. Here's just an initial reaction to your first comment, addressing the LDS Church's position on Proposition 2. First, the initial statement quoted by Waters has a huge proviso at the end that you could drive a truck through, i.e., they support existing laws if they don't injure the institution of marriage (I'm paraphrasing).

Yeah, that's a big loop hole. I don't know what they would argue would injure the institution of marriage and what would not, as far as those rights are concerned, but since they didn't elaborate, I don't know what more I can say about it.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Second, the statement nowhere states that the LDS Church supports civil unions or even "the status quo."

No, it does say they support "existing laws"-- but again, with that proviso, the consequences of which are largely left undefined.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Third, do you doubt that the LDS Church would oppose civil unions in California if it had a ghost of a chance of succeeding?

Honestly, probably not. But that's a hypothetical situation, not the one before us now. At the present, the church doesn't seem to be fighting it. I don't think it condones civil unions, but neither do I think it is waiting for an opportunity to strike against it. It's picking its battles. If you don't like what the church is currently doing, by all means, speak out, but I don't see any reason to condemn the church for what it probably would do under different circumstances.

[MikeWaters]

quick question AA--do you think there is a strong moral argument for allowing civil unions for gays, but not a strong moral argument for allowing marriage for gays?

It seems to me, that a true supporter of the church's position should have zero problem with banning civil unions as well. Or at the very least, a true supporter ought not be trying to say, "well, I really, really do think that they support civil unions."

The other fundamental thing, that I don't think you addressed, is whether gay marriage damages the gays that participate in it.

The Mike Waters' law of morality: if something is immoral, it ought to be most damaging to the persons closest to its practice, i.e. the participants. If the law isn't fulfilled, then you have an argument that is false.

[TripletDaddy]

One thing about reading about 2 paragraphs of this incredibly boring interchange has made something very clear.....until someone raises some new issues on this topic, the subject has become incredibly stale.

We have AA commentating on mikewaters's commentary on the Church's press release discussing its previous FP Letter to the LDS in California.

Yawn.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

One thing about reading about 2 paragraphs of this incredibly boring interchange has made something very clear.....until someone raises some new issues on this topic, the subject has become incredibly stale.

We have AA commentating on mikewaters's commentary on the Church's press release discussing its previous FP Letter to the LDS in California.

Yawn.

Yawn.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Yawn.

I suggest you start a thread on a topic that interests you and cease reading this one.