Archbishop Abused For His Stand On Marriage

[california boy]

Jeff CFR that I have blamed the prophet. I asked how involved people were with prop 8 before the first presidency issued the letter. Your involvement appears to be zero, you seem to admit that you would do something only if asked rather just going out and being involved. Yes, this board is not the arbiter of all, however, this board is a sample. And that there are no discussions about prop 8 prior to the first presidency letter, is telling.

You and many others here complain "why not the blacks, the Jews or Catholics", you just do not want to admit the pretty much the LDS Church and its designees lead the charge once the first presidency letter was issued.

Frank, you know Jeff doesn't answer CFR's for untrue statements he makes about people who disagree with his point of view. I have been waiting now 13 days for a CFR where he said of me:

we also know you disdain and hate the church for its existence, you have often issued diatribes calling the church, its doctrines, and its prophets evil, terrible people.

Jeff has over 1,161 posts of mine to find a single incident where I have done what he has falsely claimed I did. I have in fact provided him with numerous statements I have made supporting the church and it's leaders. But yet, he can't find a single one to support his lies. Not a single one. He can't find them because it is a complete slanderous fabrication and he is not man enough to apologize for saying such a statement against me. So I wouldn't hold your breath that he is going to respond to your CFR.

[Pahoran]

Of course, the coin has two sides: I believe equal civil rights are based on "moral standards," as well.

Your invocation of a timeline for values simply isn't reflective of reality. LDS employers (as well as the LDS church) are not required to disclose their anti-gay views prior to hiring--anyone may fire an LGBT employee at any time, irregardless of whether or not their anti-gay standards were shared with perspective employees before or after their date of hire.

Daniel2

The Church doesn't have "anti-gay" standards. It has moral standards that include, but are not limited to, adherence to the Law of Chastity.

Please note that the Law of Chastity is a matter of ecclesiastical, not secular, jurisprudence. No decision by any court anywhere redefining the boundaries of "marriage" will ever change the Church's view on what is chaste and unchaste behaviour.

Since the Church's employees are required to be Latter-day Saints in good standing, there is no excuse if they don't know what the Church's moral standards are.

This is a clear contrast to the situation of those people who wrongly thought that exercising their democratic rights in an ostensibly free society would not result in them being hounded out of their jobs.

All that said, please note: this is not a Prop 8 thread. I would ask everyone to please not turn this into a Prop 8 thread.

This is a thread about how a respected religious leader is subjected to public abuse for the crime of taking a principled moral stand.

A stand with which the Church of Jesus Christ happens to agree.

There is no "irony" in view here.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

The implication being that prior to church involvement it was strictly political. Or are you stating the church has no place in moral debates?

Wrong again Jeff. As much as you would like there to be a hidden agenda there is not. You admit to no involvement with prop 8 until after the letter. This board is devoid of ssm discussions from Jan 08 - jun 08, this would seem to indicate there was very little or even noticable interest in prop 8 till the church officially got involved. And why would I post "as legal person" because too often people want to deny the church was officially involved. You are the one conjuring up moral v political issues. I have made no claim of the sort. I am simple pondering via my post how much public interest there was before the LDS Church became involved.

And might I add, nice evasion, you know just as well as I that 501c3 are limited in how the engage in politics/legislative matter. Trying to couch the issue as moral, is a dishonest attempt to avoid issues of political involvement.

I would like to note you have not, once again, honored a CFR. Where have blamed the prophet.

[Pahoran]

Wrong again Jeff. As much as you would like there to be a hidden agenda there is not. You admit to no involvement with prop 8 until after the letter.

Snip the rest.

Frankie, as I have pointed out in the post immediately above yours, this is not a Prop 8 thread. Please stop trying to turn it into a Prop 8 thread.

Prop 8 has a limited application to this thread in that it shows a parallel case where the opponents of marriage integrity attacked its supporters; but that is all it does.

And it seems to me that that limited application has pretty much run its course.

Thank you in advance for making no more Prop-8 related posts on this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

dupe

[Jeff K.]

The irony is how those who attack people making principled moral decision seem to think their special "morality" is somehow superior and therefore gives them license to hound and drive others from their positions.

[KevinG]

I don't follow the relevance of your question. The employee in question was not sexually active. He was denied a recommend and knowingly told by his stake president that he'd have to find a new job because of his refusal to give up having friendships with gay men.

Daniel2

The article did not specify if he was or was not sexually active. What transpired between the Stake President and the person is private. The article was coy enough to avoid the topic of actual behavior that may or may not have prevented the employee from gaining a recommend, which was a condition of his employment.

In fact the last quote in the article is a stright up fabrication. You cannot know if one ward excommunicates for being gay while another doesn't. No one but the subject of an excommunication or disfellowshipment knows the reasons. The Church never publishes that information unless there was a pubic apostacy that needs to be addressed.

[KevinG]

error

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear & Frankenstein: :

So all we have to do to gain your approval is give up our rights as citizens of the US? That didn't work out too well when the Saints had to flee for their lives because of their religion.

[Daniel2]

Returning to the original post of this thread, which concluded that some threatening emails to this Archbishop means that "evidently those who think "gay marriage" is a "right" don't think much of the real rights of anyone who disagrees with them," I'm reposting an edit-expanded portion of my previous post in response to DaddyG's comment:

Re: violence - thank you for that citation. Does the small number of violent outbusts excuse the movement from violence?

Yes. A "movement" should not be held accountable for isolated incidents by individuals. Similarly, for example, I wouldn't characterize or condemn the "Pro-Life" movement as "violent" (or even "responsible, as a whole) for the actions of a select few radicals who have killed doctors and bombed abortion clinics. Nor would or do I condemn the organization of the United States Marines for the stupid act of a few select individuals of urinating on the bodies of slain enemies. Nor would I condem the civil rights' movement's promotion of and struggle for racial equality for militant and violent tactics against police by The Black Panthers. Nor would or do I hold accountable or condemn the LDS movement for isolated instances of irresponsible, irrational, or violent behaviors, such as missionaries mocking sacred sites of other Faiths (I'm thinking if an incident involving Buddhist statue, a few years back), or Mormons who lethally responded to a group of non-LDS settlers peacefully passing through their territory by killing them.

Do you disagree...?

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

One wonders how many people have to be hurt or even die before we hold a movement accountable for the violence its adherents commit. Of course if you believe that anything for the cause is just, and the ends justify the means. Well, there you go... You have the moral center of those people.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

Those that engage in violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. NO BODY should be celebrating the actions of a few. But I have yet to hear of anyone in Anti-8 crowd that rioted in front of the LA Temple being condemned by the homosexual community, let alone prosecuted for the violent acts. IF you know of any please let me know.

Yes I condemned the Black Panthers for the violence they engaged in. Just as I condemned the Southern white police officers that attacked peaceful demonstrators.

Two wrongs never equal a right.

[california boy]

One wonders how many people have to be hurt or even die before we hold a movement accountable for the violence its adherents commit. Of course if you believe that anything for the cause is just, and the ends justify the means. Well, there you go... You have the moral center of those people.

One wonders how many times it takes to ask for a CFR for slanderous remarks made by you or an apology from you before you respond. It has now been 14 days.

Others waiting for a CFR from Jeff

Frankenstein from February 8 about statements Jeff made.

Mercyngrace is still waiting for her CFR from January 28th

You are good at worrying about how others conduct themselves, but perhaps you should be a little more concerned about how you conduct yourself. We are still trying to find your moral center. Don't let the beam hit you in the back on your way out.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

Those that engage in violence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. NO BODY should be celebrating the actions of a few.

We're in total agreement, here.

But I have yet to hear of anyone in Anti-8 crowd that rioted in front of the LA Temple being condemned by the homosexual community, let alone prosecuted for the violent acts. IF you know of any please let me know.

I support the thousands of protestors' right to peacefully assemble, and don't see any need to condemn the vast majority of those who did not tresspass or vandalize property while picketing on the public sidewalks around LDS temples. I know of no one who characterizes the vast majority of protestors as "riots."

However, I find the comment that you haven't heard of anyone "prosecuted for the violent acts" to be puzzling. The articles in this thread clearly indicate that 8 arrests were made for allegedly violent acts. It's not clear if individuals from one or both sides of the debate were among those arrested--ultimately, however, that's irrelevent to the fact that "arrests" were made. That indicates to me that individual violent acts were not tolerated, and accountability for violence was enforced by being "prosecuted" by the police officers present. While I'm not aware of the consequences those individuals eventually had to face (I'd presume those included jail time, fines, restitutions, etc)--but it certainly seems to me that they were held accountable.

What other new of evidence of "prosecution of violent acts" are you awaiting...?

Yes I condemned the Black Panthers for the violence they engaged in. Just as I condemned the Southern white police officers that attacked peaceful demonstrators.

Two wrongs never equal a right.

Again--we're in agreement here--and the fact that we both condemn both the Black Panther's violence and the white police officer's violence, while (I presume) still agreeing with both the ideals of racial equality of the civil rights movement, as well as agreeing with the goals of the police force to preserve the peace and safety of citizens, in general, is a great illustration of my point.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

One wonders how many people have to be hurt or even die before we hold a movement accountable for the violence its adherents commit. Of course if you believe that anything for the cause is just, and the ends justify the means. Well, there you go... You have the moral center of those people.

Should the source of the story of Nephi slaying Laban be held accountable for the Lafferty brother's use of the story for the justificaiton of the murder of an innocent woman and her newborn baby?

Should the LDS church be held accountable for the slayings by the Latter-day Saints who killed others in the Meadows Massacre ?

Should we take at face value the teaching of Joseph Smith that:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.” “God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.

...?

Now, personally, I would answer "no" on all three counts.

But.... "of course if you believe that anything for the cause is just, and the ends justify the means. Well, there you go... You have the moral center of those people."

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

One wonders how many times it takes to ask for a CFR for slanderous remarks made by you or an apology from you before you respond. It has now been 14 days.

Others waiting for a CFR from Jeff

Frankenstein from February 8 about statements Jeff made.

Mercyngrace is still waiting for her CFR from January 28th

You are good at worrying about how others conduct themselves, but perhaps you should be a little more concerned about how you conduct yourself. We are still trying to find your moral center. Don't let the beam hit you in the back on your way out.

Nice dodge. You little people love to make it about me. I have such INFLUENCE on your lives.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

Nephi lived in a vastly different culture and a vastly different time than we do. A good argument can be made that Nephi was within his rights of that time to protect himself from the direct threat of death by Laban and/or his followers.

No Church member that I know of celebrated MMM, but did everything they knew how to prosecute the criminal acts. The Church while admitting that Church members were involved publically and privately condemned those actions.

As I recall the Lafferty brothers are still rotting in prison, and outside of one malcontent author, no body claims the Church is in anyway responsible for the actions of the Lafferty brothers.

I am glad to hear that those 8 were arrested. Thank you.

[Jeff K.]

One could ask if it is just to destroy one's family for sex with someone else. What kind of person does that?

One could ask what kind of person justifies innocent deaths in order to achieve their own political ends? What kind of person is that. I wonder how many innocent people, children even, have to get hurt before they even think of questioning their own tactics? One child, many children or elderly? Who should be made destitute? What kind of person is fine with such acts against innocents?

Well, those types of persons seem to enjoy posting as anti Mormons here. They are, after all, "that kind of person".

[frankenstein]

Jaybear & Frankenstein: :

So all we have to do to gain your approval is give up our rights as citizens of the US? That didn't work out too well when the Saints had to flee for their lives because of their religion.

Let's see, what was it that took away the rights of other people, pahoran has asked me not to mention it, but I am sure you know what I referring too.

Where have I made any suggestion that people should give up their rights.

But if you want to talk about who is asking who to not exercise their rights, then read the Church press release on the ssm case from two days ago.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

Nephi lived in a vastly different culture and a vastly different time than we do. A good argument can be made that Nephi was within his rights of that time to protect himself from the direct threat of death by Laban and/or his followers.

No Church member that I know of celebrated MMM, but did everything they knew how to prosecute the criminal acts. The Church while admitting that Church members were involved publically and privately condemned those actions.

As I recall the Lafferty brothers are still rotting in prison, and outside of one malcontent author, no body claims the Church is in anyway responsible for the actions of the Lafferty brothers.

I am glad to hear that those 8 were arrested. Thank you.

Aside from our views about whether or not Nephi would have been justified in killing Laban (an issue I don't personally fret about, as I don't believe The Book of Mormon is historical), I believe we share very similar values on this matter.

Daniel2

[frankenstein]

Nice dodge. You little people love to make it about me. I have such INFLUENCE on your lives.

A CFR is about honesty and integrity.

[Daniel2]

One could ask if it is just to destroy one's family for sex with someone else. What kind of person does that?

I'm not sure any issue is as simply black and white as you imply--but if it were, I agree that anyone who sacrificed their family just "for sex with someone else" is not a value I would support.

One could ask what kind of person justifies innocent deaths in order to achieve their own political ends? What kind of person is that. I wonder how many innocent people, children even, have to get hurt before they even think of questioning their own tactics? One child, many children or elderly? Who should be made destitute? What kind of person is fine with such acts against innocents?

I'm not sure I follow what you're speaking of, here... The only kinds of mass innocent slayings I'm aware of that match your description are those that have been excused based on religious authority (the Crusades, Old Testament examples of "slay every man, woman, and suckling babe," current attitudes stemming from radical Islamic terrorists, Governor Lillburn Boggs's extermination order, etc--ALL of which are, in my view, reprehensible).

I'm not aware of anyone who's advocating that children, elderly, or even those of us who are middle aged should be killed or made destitude.

Well, those types of persons seem to enjoy posting as anti Mormons here. They are, after all, "that kind of person".

I'd be interested in examples of what you're describing of "persons posting here as anti-Mormons." CFR, please.

Daniel2

[california boy]

Nice dodge. You little people love to make it about me. I have such INFLUENCE on your lives.

More truthfully, I see no point in responding to you Jeff since you have shown that you are willing to make things up with absolutely no interest in facts. So what is the point discussing any issue with someone who has no personal integrety to apologize for falsehoods he is solely responsible for.

[Jeff K.]

See everyone, its all about me.

[Jeff K.]

One could ask if it is just to destroy one's family for sex with someone else. What kind of person does that?

One could ask what kind of person justifies innocent deaths in order to achieve their own political ends? What kind of person is that. I wonder how many innocent people, children even, have to get hurt before they even think of questioning their own tactics? One child, many children or elderly? Who should be made destitute? What kind of person is fine with such acts against innocents?

Well, those types of persons seem to enjoy posting as anti Mormons here. They are, after all, "that kind of person".

I'm not sure any issue is as simply black and white as you imply--but if it were, I agree that anyone who sacrificed their family just "for sex with someone else" is not a value I would support.

I'm not sure I follow what you're speaking of, here... The only kinds of mass innocent slayings I'm aware of that match your description are those that have been excused based on religious authority (the Crusades, Old Testament examples of "slay every man, woman, and suckling babe," current attitudes stemming from radical Islamic terrorists, Governor Lillburn Boggs's extermination order, etc--ALL of which are, in my view, reprehensible).

I'm not aware of anyone who's advocating that children, elderly, or even those of us who are middle aged should be killed or made destitude.

I'd be interested in examples of what you're describing of "persons posting here as anti-Mormons." CFR, please.

Daniel2

Yes. A "movement" should not be held accountable for isolated incidents by individuals. Similarly, for example, I wouldn't characterize or condemn the "Pro-Life" movement as "violent" (or even "responsible, as a whole) for the actions of a select few radicals who have killed doctors and bombed abortion clinics. Nor would or do I condemn the organization of the United States Marines for the stupid act of a few select individuals of urinating on the bodies of slain enemies. Nor would I condem the civil rights' movement's promotion of and struggle for racial equality for militant and violent tactics against police by The Black Panthers. Nor would or do I hold accountable or condemn the LDS movement for isolated instances of irresponsible, irrational, or violent behaviors, such as missionaries mocking sacred sites of other Faiths (I'm thinking if an incident involving Buddhist statue, a few years back), or Mormons who lethally responded to a group of non-LDS settlers peacefully passing through their territory by killing them.

I think you follow just fine, you simply wish to justify the destructive actions of your group.

On a personal basis, my children have been spat upon by "your group" (while shouting I hope you get my AIDS). To you that apparently is a civil right. To you the violence committed upon others is a justifiable action. Leaving one's wife for sex with others to you is part of the formulae. To you it is what you want, not respecting the rights of others. Such is your group. And as such, you gladly justify such actions. You people are so inwardly focused on your own wants and needs, you gladly trample upon everyone else. As the original article makes abundantly clear.