"8: The Mormon Proposition"

[USU78]

Why so filled with hatred USU?

You are using that word again. I don't think it means what you think it means.

As employed by you, it means the thing done by those who disagree with you. As used by the rest of the world, it means how you feel about the stupid, programmed, unquestioning, unannointed ones in CA Mormon congregations.

I simply pointed out that most Mormons in California unquestioningly supported Prop 8. I said nothing to ridicule others. I did not disparage anyone.

Nonsense. When you say "most Mormons in California unquestioningly supported Prop 8," your sneering disdain is more than palpable. Just how is it you know it is "unquestioning," eh? Your clairvoyance? Their serial demonstration of their unwillingness to go "off-book" in Sunday School?

When you say "unquestioning" and its variations in your several posts in this thread, you mean "stupid, unlike me who are smrt!" Is it not so?

When Elder Bednar delivers the news on behalf of the 1st Presidency and Twelve, that news is "fallacious," by which you mean "I'm a whole lot smarter and definitely more annointed than those idiots @ 50 East North Temple, so why should I give what they say a second thought . . . me being so very superior to those schmucks and all?"

Your message came through loud and clear.

[frankenstein]

The thing is, had I never partaken of the alcohol, in fact, if I lived in a country where alcohol was illegal, nothing would ever have happened in regards to my relationship to alcohol. I believe this is applicable to the whole same sex and biology debate since the supporters of normalization of homosexuality ...

not the same thing.

as you can never know "alcohol" without first consuming.

however, almost ever young man has experience an erection without being able to control it..i.e. make it not happen.

Let's not be so explicit please.

[juliann]

Why so filled with hatred USU? I simply pointed out that most Mormons in California unquestioningly supported Prop 8. I said nothing to ridicule others. I did not disparage anyone.

Oh, please. The "you won't do what I want so you hate me" is so last season. You have no idea what "most" Mormons in CA think on any given day let alone for an extended campaign. If you want to insult then you are going to have to start coming up with names, dates and places. That is the current problem this line of attack is running into. All those Mormons you keep pigeonholing have names. They will give them along with where they are and when things happened. Their antagonists continue to come up with accusations they never verify.

[juliann]

You're reading way too much into things. I had a few Mormon friends who thought a lot about Prop. 8, stressed over it, and chose to support it. They were, however, a minority compared to the vast number of members here who supported it without questioning or thinking about it one bit.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that "no thinking person could support Prop. 8." I am merely stating that the vast majority of Mormons in California who supported Prop 8, did little thinking, research, etc concerning whether or not they should support it.

Oh, I get it. The majority of voters who supported Prop 8 but were not Mormon were the thinking people. Does that include the black churches? Were they thinking people?

[the narrator]

You are using that word again. I don't think it means what you think it means.

As employed by you, it means the thing done by those who disagree with you. As used by the rest of the world, it means how you feel about the stupid, programmed, unquestioning, unannointed ones in CA Mormon congregations.

Nonsense. When you say "most Mormons in California unquestioningly supported Prop 8," your sneering disdain is more than palpable. Just how is it you know it is "unquestioning," eh? Your clairvoyance? Their serial demonstration of their unwillingness to go "off-book" in Sunday School?

When you say "unquestioning" and its variations in your several posts in this thread, you mean "stupid, unlike me who are smrt!" Is it not so?

When Elder Bednar delivers the news on behalf of the 1st Presidency and Twelve, that news is "fallacious," by which you mean "I'm a whole lot smarter and definitely more annointed than those idiots @ 50 East North Temple, so why should I give what they say a second thought . . . me being so very superior to those schmucks and all?"

Your message came through loud and clear.

Bednar's claim simply wasn't true. Not only that, it was non-sense. It makes for good rhetoric, but meant nothing in reality.

And there was no sneering in my claim. No disdain. No hate. Nothing. Just an observation from experience the Prop 8 battle first hand in California. Just an observation from my weekly Church meetings. Based on the many posts you have written on this board, I'm guessing that you are just reading my comments through your heavily tinted lenses of your persecution complex (and need to have an Other for your own self-worth), and have thus seen something that simply wasn't there.

I'm guessing that you did not live in California at the time, but if you were and experienced something differently... then perhaps we should exchange notes.

While there was certainly no sneering or disdain pointed at my many friends here in California who supported Prop 8 without ever actually questioning the matter, I can assure you that my disdain for you is ever increasing.

As I believe I have told you before, I'm glad you are not in my ward. It's Mormons like you who drive many from the Church.

Peace.

[the narrator]

Oh, I get it. The majority of voters who supported Prop 8 but were not Mormon were the thinking people. Does that include the black churches? Were they thinking people?

Juliann,

I'm not sure how your logic works, but that is not what I was saying.

There were plenty of people on both sides (and I would say, the majority of people on both sides) that weren't doing any thinking but were merely repeating the ideological rants and rhetoric of their leaders and ideologues.

Not sure why you are bringing black churches into the mix.

In fact, I'm not sure where most of your post is coming from, or exactly what you are trying to argue, or what logic brought about your conclusions.

Overall, I'm just baffled by your comment.

[the narrator]

Oh, please. The "you won't do what I want so you hate me" is so last season.

Huh? Can you elaborate more on this?

You have no idea what "most" Mormons in CA think on any given day let alone for an extended campaign.

I feel pretty confident in saying that my experience in my ward and stake was fairly representative of Mormons in the state. Do you live in California? If so, I'm interested to know where, cuz you would have certainly experience something different from me.

If you want to insult then you are going to have to start coming up with names, dates and places.

Huh? Who was I insulting?

I'm confused

That is the current problem this line of attack is running into.

What attack?

All those Mormons you keep pigeonholing have names.

Mormons in the La Verne Califronia stake. I don't feel like naming every Mormon in my stake.

Juliann, I'm really confused as to why you think I am an antagonist or some sort of enemy.

Perhaps you need to chill out a bit and get some sleep.

[Ivan the Magnificent!]

not the same thing.

as you can never know "alcohol" without first consuming.

however, almost ever young man has experience an erection without being able to control it..i.e. make it not happen.

Everyone has experienced thirst and everyone has been in an emotional state that alcohol would assist in at least making the partaker feel better. As for the erection you speak of, what one wishes to do with it is of course a complex interplay between biology and societal teachings, is it not?

[juliann]

There were plenty of people on both sides (and I would say, the majority of people on both sides) that weren't doing any thinking but were merely repeating the ideological rants and rhetoric of their leaders and ideologues.

A good many people do that. But then a good many people also happen to agree with a particular position and don't need ideologues to come to a conclusion. If the anti-Prop 8 people had ever gotten their act together and thoughtfully responded to the concerns of the pro 8 people the outcome might have been different. But to this day all that is offered is attack rants much like yours.

Not sure why you are bringing black churches into the mix.

You cannot claim to have been in CA and not know the role the black churches played in the Prop 8 win.

In fact, I'm not sure where most of your post is coming from, or exactly what you are trying to argue, or what logic brought about your conclusions.

I'm a CA Mormon who finds your comments about CA Mormons offensive and inaccurate. Now start attaching names, dates and locations to your accusations if you expect us to pay any attention to your allegations. There are always going to be badly behaved Mormons. But they are never a majority. So start documenting instead of throwing rocks if you want us to believe that.

[juliann]

Huh? Can you elaborate more on this?

I feel pretty confident in saying that my experience in my ward and stake was fairly representative of Mormons in the state. Do you live in California? If so, I'm interested to know where, cuz you would have certainly experience something different from me.

Huh? Who was I insulting?

I'm confused

What attack?

Mormons in the La Verne Califronia stake. I don't feel like naming every Mormon in my stake.

Juliann, I'm really confused as to why you think I am an antagonist or some sort of enemy.

Perhaps you need to chill out a bit and get some sleep.

Start naming if you want to continue with the insults. I know a few people in that area.

[thesometimesaint]

empbac:

You said. Jumping in at the end of the thread, so forgive me if this has been brought up: for the religious seeking a good movie about homosexuality in Christianity, try "For The Bible Tells Me So": There's no reason anyone should feel uncomfortable watching it, and it gives a good overview of how gay Christians are currently perceived by non-gay Christians, and the social dynamics that are evolving Christian theology.

http://www.forthebib....org/indexc.htm

I say. It may or may not be a fair representation of what other Christians believe. I don't know as I have not seen the movie.

The world is changing again. Give it some time and the LDS church will do with gays what it did with blacks. Many denominations are beginning to take this approach already. You're talking about genetic and otherwise biologically-derived sexual orientation. That's not something that can be changed by an act of will. If you look into these 'clinics' that supposedly make gay Christians straight, you will find that they do not succeed. The statistics just don't favor the idea. There isn't even a small margin of success, there is NO margin of success. You're born how you're born, and trying to change that is psychological self-abuse. This is a time when people need to be themselves and not try to conform to traditional, Bronze Age morals. This is just another social revolution. Since you have an inclination to homosexuality, I would encourage you to lead from the front instead of following sheepishly behind.

I have not seen the movie mentioned, but if I have time I might take a look.

Blacks were always welcome to join the Church. There was a temporary exclusion from the Priesthood which all agreed had no effect on Salvation or Exaltation.

Homosexuals are already accepted into the Church and participate in all of the Church's related activities. We do draw the line at homosexuals as well as heterosexuals acting in defiance of Church law.

I disagree with the church's position in three ways:

1) The church should not have tax-exempt status if it's taking official political stances, which it does now and has done before, and I'm sure, will do again. This also violates the 12th AoF. In order for a religion to not pay taxes, it must meet a very simple requirement, and that is in not using its money to promote political agendas. It should have its tax-exempt religious status pulled now (if not years ago) for taking official stances in politics of ANY kind. I grew up in the Church from about 1990-2005, and in that time I always assumed that the Church did not take positions like this or encourage people to vote a certain way. I had always been told it did not do such things. I guess that wasn't true. The church will involve itself with any issue it deems worthy of attention. Period.

I say. That is incorrect. According to the tax code ANY church may take ANY political position it so desires. What it may not do is engage in partisan politics. IOW Instruct its members to vote for or against a particular candidate or party. For the record we have not done that in many many years. Issues are not partisan and not subject to IRS rules.

2) Sexual orientation is biological. Any other opinion is simply based on ignorance of the science, as far as I have seen.

I say. You need to look closer. There is no know cause of homosexuality

3) The secular arguments used to promote the position that gays should not be allowed to marry all come down to logical fallacies. There isn't one sound non-sectarian reason that gays should not marry.

I say. Does not a government have a right to promote those activities that ensure the continuation/survival of the governed? Unless science has come up with a way for homosexuals to reproduce with each other I don't see homosexuality a viable option for any more than a very small minority of the governed.

Personally, I think marriage is a secularly meaningless institution and that the government should get out of the business altogether. If you want to start a religion in order to declare that certain couples are married before God, fine. Just don't expect any special treatment from the State. You could even marry one man to many women and I would be fine with that, granted the arrangement be consensual. You could also marry many men to one woman, or a group of homosexuals. Such freedom would allow a given religion or individual to deem "marriage" to be whatever it wants, on the fly. No one should have a monopoly on a word. This particular provision offered by the State is pointless.

I say. You are entitled to your opinion. But marriage has been defined by law and tradition for thousands of years and between males and females only. We get our marriage laws from the Romans. Who while very tolerant of homosexuality never did equate the two.

I don't think the above will fly, since it's too great of a change to convince anyone to make, at least at present. The more reasonable road, assuming equal rights are a desirable thing, is to simply let gays marry, and call it marriage.

OP: You said you couldn't take the stress of watching it. I understand that it might be stressful, but what if it's right? What if Mormonism isn't true after all and gays deserve just as much respect as anyone else? Let's apply a little fallacious Pascal's Wager. Christians are often willing to jump on the idea: you have nothing to lose and so much to potentially gain, why not just do it? If I'm wrong, I would like to know. Hence, I'm not unwilling to expose myself to contrary ideas and new information. Anything that causes you to shun such things out of fear or discomfort cannot be a pathway to truth and light, IMO. Truth doesn't fear that which is false.

I say. What if it is not? Do I have to give up on all that I have worked towards for the last 39 years of membership in the Lord Church on a what if?

I don't see where Mormonism has disrespected the homosexuals, and I certainly haven't.

I don't know as I'm in anyway responsible for what other churches did or do.

I'm always open to new idea's but homosexual actions is not new, and until a persuasive argument comes forwards I see no reason to accept homosexual actions into the Church law.

[Calm]

empbac:

You said.

Jumping in at the end of the thread, so forgive me if this has been brought up: for the religious seeking a good movie about homosexuality in Christianity, try "For The Bible Tells Me So": There's no reason anyone should feel uncomfortable watching it, and it gives a good overview of how gay Christians are currently perceived by non-gay Christians, and the social dynamics that are evolving Christian theology.

http://www.forthebib....org/indexc.htm

I say. It may or may not be a fair representation of what other Christians believe. I don't know as I have not seen the movie.

The world is changing again. Give it some time and the LDS church will do with gays what it did with blacks. Many denominations are beginning to take this approach already. You're talking about genetic and otherwise biologically-derived sexual orientation. That's not something that can be changed by an act of will. If you look into these 'clinics' that supposedly make gay Christians straight, you will find that they do not succeed. The statistics just don't favor the idea. There isn't even a small margin of success, there is NO margin of success. You're born how you're born, and trying to change that is psychological self-abuse. This is a time when people need to be themselves and not try to conform to traditional, Bronze Age morals. This is just another social revolution. Since you have an inclination to homosexuality, I would encourage you to lead from the front instead of following sheepishly behind.

I have not seen the movie mentioned, but if I have time I might take a look.

Blacks were always welcome to join the Church. There was a temporary exclusion from the Priesthood which all agreed had no effect on Salvation or Exaltation.

Homosexuals are already accepted into the Church and participate in all of the Church's related activities. We do draw the line at homosexuals as well as heterosexuals acting in defiance of Church law.

I disagree with the church's position in three ways:

1) The church should not have tax-exempt status if it's taking official political stances, which it does now and has done before, and I'm sure, will do again. This also violates the 12th AoF. In order for a religion to not pay taxes, it must meet a very simple requirement, and that is in not using its money to promote political agendas. It should have its tax-exempt religious status pulled now (if not years ago) for taking official stances in politics of ANY kind. I grew up in the Church from about 1990-2005, and in that time I always assumed that the Church did not take positions like this or encourage people to vote a certain way. I had always been told it did not do such things. I guess that wasn't true. The church will involve itself with any issue it deems worthy of attention. Period.

I say. That is incorrect. According to the tax code ANY church may take ANY political position it so desires. What it may not do is engage in partisan politics. IOW Instruct its members to vote for or against a particular candidate or party. For the record we have not done that in many many years. Issues are not partisan and not subject to IRS rules.

2) Sexual orientation is biological. Any other opinion is simply based on ignorance of the science, as far as I have seen

I say. You need to look closer. There is no know cause of homosexuality

3) The secular arguments used to promote the position that gays should not be allowed to marry all come down to logical fallacies. There isn't one sound non-sectarian reason that gays should not marry.

I say. Does not a government have a right to promote those activities that ensure the continuation/survival of the governed? Unless science has come up with a way for homosexuals to reproduce with each other I don't see homosexuality a viable option for any more than a very small minority of the governed.

Personally, I think marriage is a secularly meaningless institution and that the government should get out of the business altogether. If you want to start a religion in order to declare that certain couples are married before God, fine. Just don't expect any special treatment from the State. You could even marry one man to many women and I would be fine with that, granted the arrangement be consensual. You could also marry many men to one woman, or a group of homosexuals. Such freedom would allow a given religion or individual to deem "marriage" to be whatever it wants, on the fly. No one should have a monopoly on a word. This particular provision offered by the State is pointless.

I say. You are entitled to your opinion. But marriage has been defined by law and tradition for thousands of years and between males and females only. We get our marriage laws from the Romans. Who while very tolerant of homosexuality never did equate the two.

I don't think the above will fly, since it's too great of a change to convince anyone to make, at least at present. The more reasonable road, assuming equal rights are a desirable thing, is to simply let gays marry, and call it marriage.

OP: You said you couldn't take the stress of watching it. I understand that it might be stressful, but what if it's right? What if Mormonism isn't true after all and gays deserve just as much respect as anyone else? Let's apply a little fallacious Pascal's Wager. Christians are often willing to jump on the idea: you have nothing to lose and so much to potentially gain, why not just do it? If I'm wrong, I would like to know. Hence, I'm not unwilling to expose myself to contrary ideas and new information. Anything that causes you to shun such things out of fear or discomfort cannot be a pathway to truth and light, IMO. Truth doesn't fear that which is false.

I say. What if it is not? Do I have to give up on all that I have worked towards for the last 39 years of membership in the Lord Church on a what if?

I don't see where Mormonism has disrespected the homosexuals, and I certainly haven't.

I don't know as I'm in anyway responsible for what other churches did or do.

I'm always open to new idea's but homosexual actions is not new, and until a persuasive argument comes forwards I see no reason to accept homosexual actions into the Church law.

Sometime Saint, it would help to distinguish your comments from the OP by putting either in quotes, just 'capture' and click on the bubble icon above the reply box...I have done so for your post, let me know if it's wrong.

[USU78]

Bednar's claim simply wasn't true. Not only that, it was non-sense. It makes for good rhetoric, but meant nothing in reality.

Word came from 50 East North Temple to support Prop 8. The vast majority game passive support. A whole lot gave material support either in funds or volunteer hours or both. Your assumption that the call for support and the very few statements in support and $.50 won't buy java. Your bigoted assumption, expressed with such clarity in this thread, that the supporters within CA Mormondom were unthinking twits, says nothing really other than you despise your alleged coreligionists.

And there was no sneering in my claim. No disdain. No hate. Nothing. Just an observation from experience the Prop 8 battle first hand in California. Just an observation from my weekly Church meetings. Based on the many posts you have written on this board, I'm guessing that you are just reading my comments through your heavily tinted lenses of your persecution complex (and need to have an Other for your own self-worth), and have thus seen something that simply wasn't there.

Projection, maybe?

You reading my mind now?

You know anything about me? Where I live? Where I was born? What kindergarten I attended?

Poor laddie. Folks ain't falling for his nonsense.

I'm guessing that you did not live in California at the time, but if you were and experienced something differently... then perhaps we should exchange notes.

While there was certainly no sneering or disdain pointed at my many friends here in California who supported Prop 8 without ever actually questioning the matter, I can assure you that my disdain for you is ever increasing.

As I believe I have told you before, I'm glad you are not in my ward. It's Mormons like you who drive many from the Church.

Don't care.

Peace.

Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair, man.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

For some reason I can't figure out the computer program I am running wouldn't allow me to do that. Maybe I just too computer deficient to get it.

[LeSellers]

Sometime Saint, it would help to distinguish your comments from the OP by putting either in quotes, just 'capture' and click on the bubble icon above the reply box...I have done so for your post, let me know if it's wrong.

I (and probably not alone) have been trying to make this point with thesometimessaint for over a year. It appears he is not convinced that his opinions have any value (I frequently agree with him on this) because making the reading process clear and simple is not even on his radar.

Thanks for doing that work. I just skipped his version because it required more work than I imagined it to be worth.

Lehi

[selek]

calmoriah:

For some reason I can't figure out the computer program I am running wouldn't allow me to do that. Maybe I just too computer deficient to get it.

It might be that you don't have Java script enabled (or something equally obscure and arcane).

To achieve the same effect manually, simply type [quote} at the beginning of the section you wish to differentiate, and [/quote} at the end.

In the example above, I used "}" instead of the proper "]" because otherwise it wouldn't show up correctly.

Make sure you use the square brackets (the "[" and "]" keys (one row above your "enter" key, and the second and third keys from the right) or the computer won't recognize the command.

[LeSellers]

For some reason I can't figure out the computer program I am running wouldn't allow me to do that. Maybe I just too computer deficient to get it.

The only program you have to have to do this is a net browser, and you must be using one because you can read (and post) here.

In the lower right-hand corner of each message, there are two "buttons": one says "Reply" and one says "Multiquote". Forget the second for now. When you want to reply to a message, click "Reply" and you will see something like the following:

[quote name='Xxxx' date='27 June 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1277668874' post='1208870462']
Text text text text.
[/quote]

Just type in your reply. If you want to truncate the original message (a practice I strongly suggest), delete anything that doesn't apply. All you need do is be sure the

[quote] and [/quote]

tags stay intact.

Lehi

[selek]

It appears he is not convinced that his opinions have any value (I frequently agree with him on this) because making the reading process clear and simple is not even on his radar.

Lehi, I believe your post was unduly harsh.

SometimesSaint is both an old man and a former government employee, both of which tend to rot the brain and neither of which encourage high levels of computer literacy.

We should be helping our dear brother overcome his particular handicap, not kicking him for his shortcomings.

Once we help him overcome his technical hurdles, we can then move on to lambasting him for his political handicaps.

At least then it'll be a fair fight.

Edit: Ah- I see you were offering assistance even while I was posting.

Good job.

[Calm]

calmoriah:

For some reason I can't figure out the computer program I am running wouldn't allow me to do that. Maybe I just too computer deficient to get it.

I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought you were stupid or something, sometimes people just miss something obvious, took me a couple of years before I figured out some of the shortcuts and I tend to experiment a lot. I know it's been brought up before, just couldn't remember exactly what you had said.

I hope you don't mind if I on occasion edit your posts in the future for easier reading if you can't figure out why it doesn't work because with my computer it is as easy to edit it for reading as reading itself....sometimes easier.

[thesometimesaint]

I'll give it a try. Thanx.

[Calm]

It might be that you don't have Java script enabled (or something equally obscure and arcane).

To achieve the same effect manually, simply type [quote} at the beginning of the section you wish to differentiate, and [/quote} at the end.

If you don't want to type quote each time, you can do what I do and just paste it in each time....though sometimes I forget to go back and enter in the slash for the closing code.

[selek]

ame='selek' date='27 June 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1277670058' post='1208870470']

It might be that you don't have Java script enabled (or something equally obscure and arcane).

To achieve the same effect manually, simply type If you don't want to type quote each time, you can do what I do and just paste it in each time....though sometimes I forget to go back and enter in the slash for the closing code.

As they say in New England, "Ayep."

That's a technical term, by the way.

Much like "Yonder" in Louisiana.

[LeSellers]

Lehi, I believe your post was unduly harsh.

I rewrote it to soften it. You do not want to see what I had originally said.

And, as I also noted, I have been complaining about this for a while, and for exactly the same reasons.

SometimesSaint is both an old man and a former government employee, both of which tend to rot the brain and neither of which encourage high levels of computer literacy.

I am an old man, too, and while the only government job I ever held was that of soldier, it did addle my mind a bit. Took all of the energy I could muster to hold off the brain-eaters for 21 years.

We should be helping our dear brother overcome his particular handicap, not kicking him for his shortcomings.

I did offer some help, as you saw.

Once we help him overcome his technical hurdles, we can then move on to lambasting him for his political handicaps.

Got myself topic-banned for that. (Had more than enough sometimehelp, I noted.) So I won't be doing much of that, irrespective of how much it aches to read lies and other distortions passed off as fact.

At least then it'll be a fair fight.

As a retired Army officer, I do not seek a fair fight, I seek to uphold honor, truth, and freedom. Anything that is honorable is an acceptable tool. When the enemy fights dirty, I will be more than happy to turn the tables on him and fight with no holds barred, providing only that he recognizes that it is his ideas, not him, whom I have deemed the enemy.

Unfortunately, there are those who early on, often, and unendingly make things personal.

Lehi

[selek]

Lehi,

My "rebuke" was mostly tongue-in-cheek, and was intended more as a gentle prod to both you and SometimesSaint than anything else.

As a retired Army officer, I do not seek a fair fight, I seek to uphold honor, truth, and freedom. Anything that is honorable is an acceptable tool. When the enemy fights dirty, I will be more than happy to turn the tables on him and fight with no holds barred, providing only that he recognizes that it is his ideas, not him, whom I have deemed the enemy.

As a former Navy NCO (and both a rabid historical dilettante and avid arm-chair admiral) I am rather fond of John Clark's maxim (as articulated by Tom Clancy), "Fair means all my boys come home- <<forget>> the other guy)".

Also, have you seen the Warrior Song video?

Look it up on YouTube if you have not.

Very good stuff- especially the Patton voice-overs.

[LeSellers]

My "rebuke" was mostly tongue-in-cheek, and was intended more as a gentle prod to both you and SometimesSaint than anything else.

I took it as such, but my reply was to those who may have missed the joke.

As a former Navy NCO (and both a rabid historical dilettante and avid arm-chair admiral) I am rather fond of John Clark's maxim (as articulated by Tom Clancy), "Fair means all my boys come home- <<forget>> the other guy)".

My feelings exactly. While not directly apropos, I like Patton's statement that it is not a soldier's duty to die for his country, but that duty is to give the other poor (fatherless man) the chance to die for his.

We are here engaged in a battle of words, using whatever talents and skills we have, hoping for the support of the Spirit, to demonstrate that there are things worth fighting, and even dying, for. In my mind, freedom is among the first on that list. Freedom is, as Acton reminds us, the highest political good. It was important enough that Father allowed the third part of His children to die spiritually rather than permit them to destroy it for the rest of us.

Lehi

P.S. I was inducted as an honorary CPO in 1977, in the Naples, Italy, club. Old as I am, I imagine you're a younger PO than me, so welcome aboard. L.S.