skippy the dead wrote:So a sin isn't a sin if it occurs during a politically charged election season? Either he engaged in "conduct unbecoming" or he didn't. This backtracking shows the problem with trying to penalize members for disagreeing politically with the brethren.
Well, it would likely cause a mild ripple in the California press and I doubt they want any ripples at all at this point.
What are the polls saying about the amendment?
Ah, so sin is only sin when politically expedient. Apparently the worry over Flatlander's soul extends only until it interferes with the church's political agenda.
The proposition is down in the polls - most Californians oppose it. As more same sex couples wed without bringing the apocalypse down on our heads, the less scary it is becoming.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
skippy the dead wrote:Ah, so sin is only sin when politically expedient. Apparently the worry over Flatlander's soul extends only until it interferes with the church's political agenda.
It's been that way since Joseph. Adultery was only a sin for those who didn't have Joseph's blessing.
The proposition is down in the polls - most Californians oppose it. As more same sex couples wed without bringing the apocalypse down on our heads, the less scary it is becoming.
I was in ldschat last night and the chatters from Cali seemed to think it was going to pass with flying colors. When I asked about polls, they claimed to never seeing one with this subject.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
skippy the dead wrote:The proposition is down in the polls - most Californians oppose it. As more same sex couples wed without bringing the apocalypse down on our heads, the less scary it is becoming.
I'll tell God to hurry up with the apocalypse before the polls close.
"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
harmony wrote:I was in ldschat last night and the chatters from Cali seemed to think it was going to pass with flying colors. When I asked about polls, they claimed to never seeing one with this subject.
A recent poll showed 55% opposed, 38% in favor, 7% undecided. I haven't seen anything from the last couple weeks, but I would expect to see a new poll in the next week or two.
It does work in the proposition's opponents' favor that when people aren't sure how to vote on something, they'll vote "no" by default.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
The Nehor wrote:What other recourse? If you really believe that they're an elitist out of touch group concerned solely with their own gain I recommend leaving the Church.
I was concerned anf believe they are elitist and out of touch with reality, I left years ago.
The nehor wrote: Who would want to even associate with such people?
???Maybe non-thinking people.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
the nehor wrote: What crackpot would accept that they hold the keys of God's Priesthood?
A crackpot like you.
the nehier wrote:I don't this guy is some hero. He's a loon who forced some attention on himself, the attention one gets by being a loon.
I don't see him as a hero either or anything of the sort. I see him as a normal average guy that would like answers, some acknowledgement, a voice to be heard, a sense of being taken seriously.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
liz3564 wrote:OK, I admit to being lost. What was in the contents of the threatening letter he sent to the First Presidency? Is there a link?
I just watched the videos on his site. He claims he sent letters to mid-level leaders (Area Seventy, Temple and Mission Presidents, etc.) with detailed codewords making it clear he wants to bring down the First Presidency. This is according to him. I've never seen the actual letter.
Watching the videos last week, I picked up that his intent for sending out those letters was due to not getting a response from Church headquarters about his concerns that the LDS Church not get involved with California proposition #8. That was his concern rather than this bringing down the Church Presidency.
The local Stake President may be in for a surprise that this will still make the news even after the election. Is a Mormon running for a congressional seat or the governorship of that state, by the way?