Jason Bourne wrote:I see nothing political about a Church encouraging the people to take a position on what it views as a moral issues. Why all the hub bub about Church's being silent on the issue?
Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue. What happens if a member takes a contrary view, and the Church finds out about it -- will that member be disciplined for going contrary to an explicit FP instruction? With this latest letter, is it even possible for a faithful member to put a "NO to the gay marriage amendment" in his/her front yard, or will that be considered public opposition to the Brethren, and grounds for discipline?
Unlikely to be any discipline. Following World War I the First Presidency and the Twelve made it clear that they were pro-League of Nations. We had LDS Congressmen that were against it. No discipline ensued.
I hope you're right, but the Prop. 22 battle showed otherwise.
The Church nowadays probably wouldn't risk the bad publicity of disciplining a congressman who disagreed with their stance. However, the rank and file displayers of lawn-signs are a completely different story.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Actually, it was not a hypothetical. The last time CA went through this, with Prop. 22, some LDS members who publicly voiced their opposition (and, yes, some with lawn signs) were called in by local LDS leaders (and some had their TR's taken).
I don't believe it. I am willing to be educated to the contrary.
Here ya go:
[snip]
I looked through most of this material. Which one (I couldn't find any) documents a case where a member was disciplined with loss of a temple recommend by posting a lawn sign against Prop 22?
I could possibly understand somebody being disciplined for speaking out against the church. The big article you cite quotes a stake president who says there is a difference between one who chooses to oppose Prop. 22 and one who also oppose the Church.
But, I am surprised to be told that somebody was disciplined for a lawn sign. I worked on Prop. 22 -- being called to do so -- even though I am a libertarian and would have otherwise voted against Prop. 22. But I never heard once that somebody was disciplined for a lawn sign.
Pinpoint, please.
rcrocket
Last edited by _rcrocket on Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rcrocket wrote:Your anonymous hit pieces against the Church further demonstrates your hostility. You may think you are anonymous, but God knows you.
God only knows what Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy tell him.
Well, mock all you want. You are in a board with a religious theme. You're going to get posters who believe in the Everlasting God.
Why don't you go over to the Jewish orthodox boards and post comments about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when they speak of their beliefs?
And, Bob, you are in a board with a religious theme. You're going to get posters who don't believe in the Everlasting God (is the adjective necessary, as in, is there a God with an expiration date out there), and who find the concept just a bit silly.
I personally would never go to a Jewish Orthodox board and mock their belief in God. But were they to come here, I'd have no hesitancy telling them that I think their God is a figment of their overactive imaginations, just as I think your Everlasting God is a figment of your overactive imagination.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Rollo Tomasi wrote:The "vote of the people" you initially refer to is the CA state constitution.
I know.
The "vote of the people" the FP letter referred to was a non-constitutional law, so you are speaking of two different things.
I know. That was my point. In US law, constitutional law is more fundamental. It is the overriding "vote of the people." You can't reverse the vote of the people by upholding the more fundamental vote of the people. I was making a point about what their statement means.
rcrocket wrote: You've self-defined a moral issue as "political."
What the law ought to be is a fundamentally political issue. Duh. The twisting someone must be pulling off in their head to not to call advocating for a constitutional amendment a political act is astounding. Of course, what the law ought to be is a moral question, so to hold moral and political up as mutually exclusive would be just wrong.
guy sajer wrote:I personally would never go to a Jewish Orthodox board and mock their belief in God. But were they to come here, I'd have no hesitancy telling them that I think their God is a figment of their overactive imaginations, just as I think your Everlasting God is a figment of your overactive imagination.
Um, they don't.
What you do is equivalent to throwing turds on the roof of the synagogue and then running away before your identity can be learned. However, in your case, it isn't a Jewish synagogue. It is the house of true belief in the Everlasting God.
guy sajer wrote:I personally would never go to a Jewish Orthodox board and mock their belief in God. But were they to come here, I'd have no hesitancy telling them that I think their God is a figment of their overactive imaginations, just as I think your Everlasting God is a figment of your overactive imagination.
Um, they don't.
What you do is equivalent to throwing turds on the roof of the synagogue and then running away before your identity can be learned. However, in your case, it isn't a Jewish synagogue. It is the house of true belief in the Everlasting God.
Umm, sure Bob. Sure.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."