Moniker wrote:Well all I can say to that is "Good grief!"
Hey Nehor, do you have a problem with the Church (through the means of public policy in Utah) controlling how those not LDS can spend their money?
Down here in Texas we call that majority rule and we call them elected representatives not the Church. If you find Utah unpalatable and are unable to change it there are 49 other options out there. I would advise against California though ;)
Oh haha. Yer so clever!
For sure the elected representatives are enacting policy that reflect their constituents desires. You want to make a case that the majority rule in Utah is not LDS and are not attempting to control how those that are not LDS may spend their money? Sure, there is plenty of legislation that attempts to reign in people in their quest to be naughty. But in the case of Utah it's obvious that there is an agenda from those that see drinking and the nightlife as sinful. I have no problem with people choosing how they want legislation to reflect their morality -- yet, YOU were the one that chided others for telling you how to spend your money. Is there no double standard here? The LDS in Utah (through legislation) have enacted barriers from others spending their money as they choose.
I like to think I'm clever ;)
I don't want to make any such case. I know virtually nothing about Utah politics. I don't see a double standard. The point of this thread seems to be that one must be a moron or grossly ignorant to pay their tithing and that it is not going where the payers want it to go. Legislation restricts options for the (theoretically at least) good of the community. Hence why I'm not allowed to buy surplus Soviet ICBMs :(
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Moniker wrote:Well all I can say to that is "Good grief!"
Hey Nehor, do you have a problem with the Church (through the means of public policy in Utah) controlling how those not LDS can spend their money?
Down here in Texas we call that majority rule and we call them elected representatives not the Church. If you find Utah unpalatable and are unable to change it there are 49 other options out there. I would advise against California though ;)
Oh haha. Yer so clever!
For sure the elected representatives are enacting policy that reflect their constituents desires. You want to make a case that the majority rule in Utah is not LDS and are not attempting to control how those that are not LDS may spend their money? Sure, there is plenty of legislation that attempts to reign in people in their quest to be naughty. But in the case of Utah it's obvious that there is an agenda from those that see drinking and the nightlife as sinful. I have no problem with people choosing how they want legislation to reflect their morality -- yet, YOU were the one that chided others for telling you how to spend your money. Is there no double standard here? The LDS in Utah (through legislation) have enacted barriers from others spending their money as they choose.
I like to think I'm clever ;)
I don't want to make any such case. I know virtually nothing about Utah politics. I don't see a double standard. The point of this thread seems to be that one must be a moron or grossly ignorant to pay their tithing and that it is not going where the payers want it to go. Legislation restricts options for the (theoretically at least) good of the community. Hence why I'm not allowed to buy surplus Soviet ICBMs :(
No, I think the point of the thread was that it is odd to think of spending lavishly on man made structures in the name of God when there is humanity all about us in need of attention and care. Interesting that you bring up good of the community: That is the point of this thread too! LDS see good of the community as erecting temples and others disagree that money should be spent in that manner. Of course as an outsider I can try to understand the mindset -- yet it would have to be the "constituents" ;) in the Church that tell their representatives that they desire to spend their money in a different manner.
Moniker wrote:The LDS in Utah (through legislation) have enacted barriers from others spending their money as they choose.
No, the state just gets more money personally for it. Liquor has to be purchased in state owned and operated liquor stores.
Liquor laws in Utah have been a hotbed of controversy for decades. In the 1968 election, a proposal to allow liquor by the drink in the state of Utah was defeated by a vote of 320,000 to 97,000, after LDS Church leadership came out openly in opposition to passage of the measure.
However, Utah actually has far more moderate liquor laws than they used to a couple of decades ago.
Moniker wrote:No, I think the point of the thread was that it is odd to think of spending lavishly on man made structures in the name of God when there is humanity all about us in need of attention and care. Interesting that you bring up good of the community: That is the point of this thread too! LDS see good of the community as erecting temples and others disagree that money should be spent in that manner. Of course as an outsider I can try to understand the mindset -- yet it would have to be the "constituents" ;) in the Church that tell their representatives that they desire to spend their money in a different manner.
Well, I was hoping you'd support my 2nd Amendment right to wield Nuclear ICBM's. One day we'll really live that amendment.
I think the consensus here seems to be that those who pay it don't mind where it's going (except for Harmony and I can't figure out where she's coming from and why).
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
I am just curious whether the critics who have become somewhat exercised over this issue may view themselves as waxing a bit judgemental and/or as having become somewhat of a "busy body" and a gossip?
Moniker wrote:The LDS in Utah (through legislation) have enacted barriers from others spending their money as they choose.
No, the state just gets more money personally for it. Liquor has to be purchased in state owned and operated liquor stores.
Liquor laws in Utah have been a hotbed of controversy for decades. In the 1968 election, a proposal to allow liquor by the drink in the state of Utah was defeated by a vote of 320,000 to 97,000, after LDS Church leadership came out openly in opposition to passage of the measure.
However, Utah actually has far more moderate liquor laws than they used to a couple of decades ago.
Is the rationale for opposing more liberal liquor laws moral in nature?
I know in some places in the South there are many laws that deal with liquor stores. For instance liquor stores are closed on Sunday. No liquor is sold in grocery stores (and most places I've lived that was the norm). A liquor store must be so many paces away from a Church (and that gets complicated when there's a Church on every corner). Oh! And the best one -- you can't buy a corkscrew at a liquor store (cause well then you'd probably be able to drink the wine).
wenglund wrote:I am just curious whether the critics who have become somewhat exercised over this issue may view themselves as waxing a bit judgemental and/or as having become somewhat of a "busy body" and a gossip?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
What precisely is gossipy in nature discussing how money is spent by the LDS Church? by the way, you might wanna head on over to a few other threads where people talk about the horrors of the apostates and how they're lazy louses that suck. That might fit your bill a bit more.
Of course is it judgmental to call someone out for being a gossip or a busy body? Maybe? Oh, the twisted web we weave. ;)
wenglund wrote:I am just curious whether the critics who have become somewhat exercised over this issue may view themselves as waxing a bit judgemental and/or as having become somewhat of a "busy body" and a gossip?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
What precisely is gossipy in nature discussing how money is spent by the LDS Church?
Since I am not here to judge or gossip, I will leave that to each individual to decide for themself.
by the way, you might wanna head on over to a few other threads where people talk about the horrors of the apostates and how they're lazy louses that suck.
Why?
That might fit your bill a bit more.
What are you presupposing is "my bill"?
Of course is it judgmental to call someone out for being a gossip or a busy body? Maybe?
Again, I will leave answering that to those doing the "calling out" to decide for themselves. I am not in a position to answer since I have done nothing of the sort.
Oh, the twisted web we weave. ;)
Who are you including in the "we", and what web are you supposing is being weaved?
wenglund wrote:I am just curious whether the critics who have become somewhat exercised over this issue may view themselves as waxing a bit judgemental and/or as having become somewhat of a "busy body" and a gossip?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
What precisely is gossipy in nature discussing how money is spent by the LDS Church?
Since I am not here to judge or gossip, I will leave that to each individual to decide for themself.
Then why in the world would you ask that question?
by the way, you might wanna head on over to a few other threads where people talk about the horrors of the apostates and how they're lazy louses that suck.
Why?
Because your post dealt with "gossip" and being "judgmental". I assumed that interested you! Apparently it only does in one instance?
That might fit your bill a bit more.
What are you presupposing is "my bill"?
Uh, you showed an interest in "gossip", etc... Can you read your first post again? I'm sorry, perhaps you stating that you want people to consider their actions made me assume you actually cared when people acted in the manner that you wanted them to consider. My bad!
Of course is it judgmental to call someone out for being a gossip or a busy body? Maybe?
Again, I will leave answering that to those doing the "calling out" to decide for themselves. I am not in a position to answer since I have done nothing of the sort.
Uh, then why bring it into the conversation? You want people to consider their actions and mention "busy body" etc... and yet are not intending to suggest that some of that is going on in this thread? That makes sense!
Oh, the twisted web we weave. ;)
Who are you including in the "we", and what web are you supposing is being weaved?
Well it's a quote. I should have said, "What a twisted web Wenglund weaves!" I actually like the alliteration of that! The twisted web would be where you ask others to consider their behavior and include in the behavior to be considered "judgemental" -- and of course that is in itself making a judgement call on whether gossip and being a busy body is something you frown upon. No?
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.