DiscussMormonism.com

Iam not a supporter of SSM but not for the moral issues being raised. However I find the LDS Church on the issue and that of proxy baptisms so ironic in a conflicting sort of way.

I see over at the MAD board where a member talks about standing up for principles and wants protestors of SSM to "bring on the fight"

So the LDS church and its members spend millions on a civil issue, the outcome of which will have no impact on its doctrines or requirements of membership. Yet on the doctrine of proxy baptism, they are willing to capitulate to the Jewish community, agree not to perform on some people that practice they claim is a doctrine and command of God. Obviously if other groups made the same vocal request that the Jewish community has, they would further capitulate on this practice of doctrine.

How can anyone make a statement that the LDS church stands up for "principle". They have a long history of bowing to public pressure.

A very good observation.

I wonder if we can get any members to explain it?

I would love to see this irony posed over at the MAD board under the topic of "Uncompromising Principles"!

I think the observation alone would get banned there!

you would either get banned or the thread locked immediately. If it weren't to be locked immediately, then a lame attempt or two by mid-level apologists would show up and if one continued to point out flaws it would then be locked as the issue has been "asked and answered".

I see this as a case of the church picking it's battles.

It probably could have gone to war with the jewish community, but decided not to.

Scottie wrote:I see this as a case of the church picking it's battles.

It probably could have gone to war with the jewish community, but decided not to.

And...?

Well, Scottie, obviously it's a matter of picking its battles. Obviously it decided not to. But if it were truly a matter of principle, then it would pick up the battle. That's the whole idea about "matters of principle". You don't pick battles when matters of principle are concerned. It makes no sense to say, "I pick my battles where matters of principle are concerned".

Scottie wrote:I see this as a case of the church picking it's battles.

It probably could have gone to war with the jewish community, but decided not to.

So which commands of God does the LDS church believe it should stand up for (in principle of course!)

Sounds to me that when a church no longer upholds the commands of God, it is in apostacy. How can the LDS church not be in apostacy now that it has abandoned God's command. Is proxy baptism a command of God only when it does not bring on public pressure or outcry?


Scottie, still there?????

The church has a long history of caving in.

Polygamy.

Blacks and the priesthood.

Abortion.

The SSM folks just have to wait until it becomes fiscally necessary, and they will have their "revelation".

The Church caved on Abortion?