Ssm And Church "moral" Activism In Political And Judicial Forums

[Stone holm]

Then there's Jimmy Carter's interview in Playboy.

Bikeymikey too young to remember that, besides Carter has been the best ex-President we have had in my lifetime even if hearsay washout as President.

[USU78]

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Is there a difference in whether we are talking about those engaging in the act of homosexual sex vs those not engaging in the action but experiencing the orientation. 

 

I read your thoughts as more related to the action.

 

What else matters?

[USU78]

Bikeymikey too young to remember that, besides Carter has been the best ex-President we have had in my lifetime even if hearsay washout as President.

 

[Kenngo1969]

Bikeymikey too young to remember that, besides Carter has been the best ex-President we have had in my lifetime even if hearsay washout as President.

Obama will eclipse Carter in that regard ... but, of course, Obama's not an ex-President, yet.

[Tacenda]

CFR

Post #59, open your mind up!

[Bernard Gui]

Of course the Church has now gone political in endorsing Obama's immigration plan, will see how well the conservatives take to that form of moral activism.

Or if those who support his plan condemn the Church for its endorsement of a political issue they want. Is it not true that

the Church is wrong only when it takes a position with which one does not agree?

[rodheadlee]

Oh you mean like the Salem witch trials, and banishing Roger Williams and others, I get it. Thought we were talking about religious freedom, but clearly we are talking Dominionist type thinking here.

You still refuse to see the point. They moved there to have a place where they could live according to their rules to the dictates of their religion. Right or wrong in your eyes doesn't have a bearing on it. I'm sorry I can't explain it any better. So because there are churches that don't agree with your sense of right and wrong they shouldn't have any political power? Or if they have political  power it prevents the freedom or free will of others? So who gets to pick the rules? Everybody but churches or just certain churches?

[Calm]

Your point seems pretty clear to me, Rod.

[Stone holm]

Or if those who support his plan condemn the Church for its endorsement of a political issue they want. Is it not true that

the Church is wrong only when it takes a position with which one does not agree?

True, although, I am actually neutral on the immigration issue. The Church, however, has a moral dilemma on that issue since we have the obedience to law thingy on one hand, and a huge wave of illegal converts on the other. It requires some interestingly awkward maneuvers like sending the illegals directly to the mission field instead of to the MTC , etc.

[seriously honestly]

True, although, I am actually neutral on the immigration issue. The Church, however, has a moral dilemma on that issue since we have the obedience to law thingy on one hand, and a huge wave of illegal converts on the other. It requires some interestingly awkward maneuvers like sending the illegals directly to the mission field instead of to the MTC , etc.

Why couldn't the LDS church insist that its investigators that wish to convert come into compliance with the 12th article of faith before they can be baptized, or enforce some type of disciplinary action for those who are members and then break the law? Wouldn't that be easier than dealing with that awkward maneuvering later on?

Edited March 14, 2014 by seriously honestly

[Bob Crockett]

Why couldn't the LDS church insist that its investigators that wish to convert come into compliance with the 12th article of faith before they can be baptized, or enforce some type of disciplinary action for those who are members and then break the law? Wouldn't that be easier than dealing with that awkward maneuvering later on?

That used to be the case.  In or about 1976 (foreshadowing Reagan's general amnesty), the Church dropped the requirement for legal status as a prerequisite for baptism.   Thereafter, until the 1990s, the Church required legal status for bishops and branch presidents but even now I believe that requirement does not exist.  

 

Not all laws are just.  Under some circumstances in California, a physician who operates a fertility clinic and performs surgery is required to perform an elective abortion irrespective of his or her religious beliefs, or else get out of the practice of medicine.  The Church does not require its members to perform abortions.

 

Your ancestors likely entered the US when there were no immigration restrictions, much to the disadvantage of Native Americans who lost land and lives for the rights of your ancestors to trod upon them.  It seems that pulling up the ladder now and criminalizing a huge segment of U.S. residents might be seen as an unjust law.  After all, most illegal immigrants in the U.S. are descendants of the Lamanites who have the promise of the entire continent.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Danzo]

Why couldn't the LDS church insist that its investigators that wish to convert come into compliance with the 12th article of faith before they can be baptized, or enforce some type of disciplinary action for those who are members and then break the law? Wouldn't that be easier than dealing with that awkward maneuvering later on?

 

If that were the case, everyone in the would be have disciplinary action on them. If you have ever studied the law, you would know that the law is complex enough that if you look hard enough, everyone is breaking some law or other all of the time. 

[seriously honestly]

That used to be the case.  In or about 1976 (foreshadowing Reagan's general amnesty), the Church dropped the requirement for legal status as a prerequisite for baptism.   Thereafter, until the 1990s, the Church required legal status for bishops and branch presidents but even now I believe that requirement does not exist.  

 

Not all laws are just.  Under some circumstances in California, a physician who operates a fertility clinic and performs surgery is required to perform an elective abortion irrespective of his or her religious beliefs, or else get out of the practice of medicine.  The Church does not require its members to perform abortions.

 

Your ancestors likely entered the US when there were no immigration restrictions, much to the disadvantage of Native Americans who lost land and lives for the rights of your ancestors to trod upon them.  It seems that pulling up the ladder now and criminalizing a huge segment of U.S. residents might be seen as an unjust law.  After all, most illegal immigrants in the U.S. are descendants of the Lamanites who have the promise of the entire continent.

I didn't know it was policy at one time. Is the beliefe that they are descendants of the Lamanites the reason they LDS chruch doesn't requrie legal status at this time as far as US law goes? What about the church and immigration laws outside the US?

[USU78]

Post #59, open your mind up!

 

No it wasn't.  Please provide evidence for your baseless assertion.

[Bikeemikey]

No it wasn't. Please provide evidence for your baseless assertion.

When did you last encounter a based assertion?

[USU78]

When did you last encounter a based assertion?

 

About the time the qui tam ate my habeas grabbit.

[Stone holm]

Why couldn't the LDS church insist that its investigators that wish to convert come into compliance with the 12th article of faith before they can be baptized, or enforce some type of disciplinary action for those who are members and then break the law? Wouldn't that be easier than dealing with that awkward maneuvering later on?

Yes, they could do that, and shut down one of the largest growing segment of growth in the Church. It would kind of be a reverse gathering, unless the Church moved its headquarters South of the border.

[Tacenda]

No it wasn't. Please provide evidence for your baseless assertion.

Open your eyes or heart. See for yourself, talk to one person who is gay, find the evidence that way then. Do some of the leg work.

[Calm]

Do you really think that USU has no such experience already? Don't you think that is rather patronising?

[Tacenda]

Dbl post

Edited March 15, 2014 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Do you really think that USU has no such experience already? Don't you think that is rather patronising?

Most likely he has been around someone who's gay. But did he sit down and ask them what they feel about it. Has USU read the statistics of the suicides that take place. It's so telling. Sorry if I patronized, but it bothers me that he makes it sound like it is an impossibility, and didn't read the research that it can occur.

[Bikeemikey]

Open your eyes or heart. See for yourself, talk to one person who is gay, find the evidence that way then. Do some of the leg work.

Be careful. USU78 read one of my previous posts as an attempt to smear him as a closeted homosexual. Asking him to go meet a gay person, who knows how he will read that :-)

[Kenngo1969]

Be careful. USU78 read one of my previous posts as an attempt to smear him as a closeted homosexual. Asking him to go meet a gay person, who knows how he will read that :-)

You're patronizing too.  Knock it off.

[Bikeemikey]

You're patronizing too. Knock it off.

Dude, it's a joke... You know - smiley face and all.

It was a context joke from earlier in the thread. I've already apologized that USU78 was offended by that.

Go read the exchange though. Still no admission that he completely misread the questions and underlying intentions of my questions.

Considering the previous exchange I thought my joke was quite funny. I also think USU78 can let me know if he doesn't. I'll take my guidance on how to engage him from him, not from someone else.

If he doesn't think its funny then I guess I have discovered a board that doesn't share my sense of humor; and I'll guess I'll apologize again.

[Bikeemikey]

You're patronizing too. Knock it off.

You knock it off! :-)