Dan Peterson on the family proclamation

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What is the antecedent of "therefrom"? My observation? Maybe it's the kidney stone, but I have no idea what you're asking.

The alleged diminution of the LDS Church's goodwill.  Cui Bono?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Over the years, I've made three visits to the ER because of kidney stones.  Hate. Them.

This one is just stubbornly refusing to move. It just sits there, making me miserable, like it's taunting me. It's even more painful than discussing postmodernism with certain people around here.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Over the years, I've made three visits to the ER because of kidney stones.  Hate. Them.

Lithotripsies are our friends 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, USU78 said:

The alleged diminution of the LDS Church's goodwill.  Cui Bono?

Why would anyone need to benefit from that? And what does that have to do with what I said? Are you suggesting that the church does or should act solely in hopes of improving or maintaining its image? 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

This one is just stubbornly refusing to move. It just sits there, making me miserable, like it's taunting me. It's even more painful than discussing postmodernism with certain people around here.

And morphine, properly and timely administered, is proof positive of G-d's Love 

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Thanks for the link. In my parents' zip code, I recognize about 40% of the "yes" donors as being members of my parents' ward. Interesting.

Holy cow.  My zipcode (which pretty much defines my ward boundaries) is at least 90% ward members, and I had just moved into the ward in 2008 so I might not know the others.  It's like reading a ward directory.

Edited May 19, 2016 by cinepro

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why would anyone need to benefit from that? And what does that have to do with what I said? Are you suggesting that the church does or should act solely in hopes of improving or maintaining its image? 

You're not interested in examining who benefits from a phenomenon?  In the experience of most, he who benefits from a phenomenon's occurrence generally is responsible for its occurrence 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're not interested in examining who benefits from a phenomenon?  In the experience of most, he who benefits from a phenomenon's occurrence generally is responsible for its occurrence 

If you're saying the church is interested solely in its own benefit, I respectfully disagree. Even I'm not that cynical.

Edited May 19, 2016 by jkwilliams

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If you're saying the church is interested solely in its own benefit, I respectfully disagree. Even I'm not that cynical.

Nope. You're looking on the wrong side of the property line 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Nope. You're looking on the wrong side of the property line 

Is there some point to this?

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is not at all unbelievable, but it is ironic that a Church which practiced a form of non-traditional marriage would want to use civil law to prevent another form of non-traditional marriage.

Your focus on Prop 8 is silly at this stage, and constitutes an enormous grudge on your part.  You need to step back and look at the bigger picture.  Anger is not a solution, and probably hurts you more than your target.

Yes I do have an enormous grudge as you call it for the churches efforts to take away the civil rights of any American guaranteed them by the constitution.  I would be just as angry if the church attacked another group to take away their civil rights. It is shameful  And your effort to whitewash the churches role in that proposition is also shameful. I will always be there to correct this revised history that you and others try to present. Minuscule indeed!  

I don't care one iota what the church teaches its members about homosexuality  That does not mean that I will remain silent when the church institutes policies attacking gay families.  I want everyone to know the gospel beliefs of the Mormon church  I assume you are also not silent in proclaiming the gospel message of targeting gay families  It is, after all part of your belief  As objectionable as I find those policies, I assume you are just as supportive of those policies  As long as both of us do not distort the churches policies as the continue to roll them out against the gay community, there should not be a problem   Just two opposing views on those policies  

 

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

No true Scotsman would be really happy in a gay marriage, right?

What I have observed is this - gay marriage leads to the same results as straight marriage - increased happiness and joy. By their fruits you shall know them. 

On the other hand the current church teachings about homosexuality seem to have resulted in a lot of misery for many gay members who are trying to follow them. I don't think it's ethical to ask people to sacrifice a happy life for what someone claims will be a joyful afterlife.  A lifetime of real misery for a hypothetical good result after death? It doesn't work. Good principles don't lead to miserable outcomes. They just don't. 

Let's see if I can help you with those blinders:

Where you brought up "true happiness" (in terms of “lasting, real happiness”), concluding that only “scoffers” disagree, you’re the one (that’s been) committing the Scotsman fallacy. Yet I try to accommodate your language and errors for the sake of expanding the discussion *sigh* … your last two posts are just cheap shots. let's see if you can do better.

Note that I use the term “eternal happiness” which references the LDS teaching, and this is an LDS discussion board. As in: Posted 20 hours ago . That is what “lasting, real happiness” means to me.

Your so-called observations ignore LDS teachings and without that reference point, your ideas are far from progressive. In fact, they appear to be copy-and-pasted from somewhere else. This is another example of resorting to secular arguments for a religious discussion because you can’t offer a valid Christ-centered justification for gay marriage in the LDS Church. Posted 4 hours ago

Everything Christ-centered leads to eternal happiness. People may be miserable for many reasons, but holding (as opposed to clinging, but even with clinging there are moments of happiness) to the iron rod invariably leads one to the love of God (“And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy”). Of course, some will find that promise unappealing or unworthy of faith.

But at least try to offer some doctrinal support for gay marriage in the LDS Church: you can't pull it off.

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And yet your evangelical zeal keeps bringing you back into the company of such nasty people. Yours is truly a tragic lot

I quite like Rockponds, JK, Ttribe, Jeanie, Gray and so many others that object to what the church does to the gay community. Sorry you feel they are a nasty group. Perhaps the loss is yours

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Let's see if I can help you with those blinders:

Where you brought up "true happiness" (in terms of “lasting, real happiness”), concluding that only “scoffers” disagree, you’re the one (that’s been) committing the Scotsman fallacy. Yet I try to accommodate your language and errors for the sake of expanding the discussion *sigh* … your last two posts are just cheap shots. let's see if you can do better.

I just take people at their word. I don't try to tell people who say they are happy and appear to be happy that they are not experiencing "true" happiness. 

 

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

Note that I use the term “eternal happiness” which references the LDS teaching, and this is an LDS discussion board. As in: Posted 20 hours ago . That is what “lasting, real happiness” means to me.

Thank you for clarifying. 

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your so-called observations ignore LDS teachings and without that reference point, your ideas are far from progressive. In fact, they appear to be copy-and-pasted from somewhere else. This is another example of resorting to secular arguments for a religious discussion because you can’t offer a valid Christ-centered justification for gay marriage in the LDS Church. Posted 4 hours ago

My ideas are based on the teachings of Jesus. You can examine the truth of a teaching by looking at its results

 

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

Everything Christ-centered leads to eternal happiness. People may be miserable for many reasons, but holding (as opposed to clinging, but even with clinging there are moments of happiness) to the iron rod invariably leads one to the love of God (“And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy”). Of course, some will find that promise unappealing or unworthy of faith.

But at least try to offer some doctrinal support for gay marriage in the LDS Church: you can't pull it off.

The doctrinal support for gay marriage lies in the broader principles taught by Christ, regarding how to determine true from false teachings. 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

I just take people at their word. I don't try to tell people who say they are happy and appear to be happy that they are not experiencing "true" happiness.

Well, you didn’t do that this time, did you? LOL

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

My ideas are based on the teachings of Jesus. You can examine the truth of a teaching by looking at its results

The doctrinal support for gay marriage lies in the broader principles taught by Christ, regarding how to determine true from false teachings. 

That isn’t acceptable for this conversation; you have to go deeper than that. I’m sure you have other ideas informed by your LDS background that involve specific teachings of Jesus on the subject of marriage. What are they?

Vague, so-called “broader principles” are simply not acceptable for this conversation either. They are only used for polemics and waffling. You've had more pertinent things to say about kidney stones...!

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, you didn’t do that this time, did you? LOL

I've been consistent with that position during this conversation. I don't tell people who tell me they're happy that their happiness is fake.

Quote

That isn’t acceptable for this conversation; you have to go deeper than that. I’m sure you have other ideas informed by your LDS background that involve specific teachings of Jesus on the subject of marriage. What are they?

The problem is Jesus doesn't specifically address the topic. Nor does it appear anywhere in the expanded LDS canon. So general principles are all we have. 

Quote

Vague, so-called “broader principles” are simply not acceptable for this conversation either. They are only used for polemics and waffling. You've had more pertinent things to say about kidney stones...!

Broader principles are all anyone on either side of the issue has to go on. 

Taking broad principles and forming conclusions is preferable to a list of thou shalt nots. The latter is for children, the former is for grownups. 

Edited May 19, 2016 by Gray

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

The thing is (IMO)  the members were really not thinking about what they were doing other than doing what they were told.  This is not in keeping with being active in civic things on a personal level.  A lot of them did what they were asked to do.  The church (again) came before what they may have really believed.  And..if they believed differently, there was some animosity that was obvious  Any thought of different takes of the situation seemed "not right" and in accordance with what the church wanted.  Why bother with votes and stuff if you are TOLD what to do and why?  in my view, this is why there is separation of church and state.  Sorry if this doesn't make sense.

Quoting myself here to clarify alittle as I believe I got people upset.  As it is, it was just my opinion.  My total idea was to really ask a question.  Had the church not got involved, would these many members have gotten involved anyway?  I don't mean to minimize beliefs or take away the rights they have of following their conscience.  I am not angry at members.  Sorry if I offended anyone.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Jeanne

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When speculation is published as fact that is typically as part of hate propaganda, and it is irresponsible journalism.  Your making the repeated false claim does not make it true

I see nothing to suggest that the claim is false.  And I don't know what hate propaganda you are talking about.  I'm just countering your claim that the church's efforts were minuscule.  They weren't.

Quote

You do not have numbers on the phone banking, so you blindly assert that it was a lot.  But how much?

Well, we know it was happening (eye witness accounts here) in at least two states, outside of CA (Idaho and Utah).  Again, organizing phone banks across multiple states for a proposition in another state is hardly indicative of a minuscule effort.

Quote

I can't speak for Prop 22, but I observed a total division between Church bldgs and any Prop 8 efforts of any kind -- on specific instructions from SLC.  I saw that donations were entirely voluntary.  No pressure.  It may have differed in your ward or stake, and it is difficult to base a full analysis on incidental observations.

Yes, we had specific instructions from SLC to not use church buildings for Prop 22.  And yet, the discussions naturally happened in bishopric meetings.  Comments were made over the pulpit of sacrament meeting.  Plans announced in Elders Quorum.  Etc.  I was called and told to meet the bishop at his house and to bring my checkbook.  Hard to call it "no pressure" when your ecclesiastical leader is telling you it is the right thing to do.

Quote

We can always apply cynical, reactionary motives to the Brethren.  Yet they may be like most of us in being responsive to current needs (most revelation has been in response to a need), and may be as ignorant as most of us in understanding the larger picture.  The learning curve can be steep, but that doesn't make them (or me) bad people.

I am not applying cynical, reactionary motives to the Brethren nor did I say they (or you) are "bad people".  Again, just countering your claim about the church making strong efforts to afford civil liberties to LGBT folks.  I think you'd be hard pressed to show that as a priority for the Brethren.  They seem vastly more concerned with maintaining the Church's religious liberty, which is not surprising.

Quote

I did, but on reflection it seems ironic that a Church which was persecuted for and denied the right to practice a non-traditional form of marriage, it should be opposing another form of non-traditional of marriage now.  The Constitution should apply to all citizens equally.

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

Quote

I prefer a fact-based analysis of what in happened.  Many prefer to demonize the LDS Church by making that church the ultimate boogey-man.  One can only do that by minimizing all other aspects of the Prop 8 effort, and making the LDS Church out to be a gargantuan monster.  That is unfair and intellectually dishonest.  A much more civilized and rational approach would be to see particular interest groups pursuing legislative action in accordance with the law (in this case an initiative), and then to see that legislative action rendered null and void by the highest court of appeal.  That is how a civilized people govern themselves.  We should all be quite happy with that system.  I am.

What I've done here is to state the facts about the church's involvement in Prop 8.  If someone thinks that makes them a boogey-man or a gargantuan monster, I guess that is what they think.  All I am doing is showing that you are wrong to say that the church's efforts were minuscule.  The Church and the Brethren were clear:  Their goal was to define marriage in the state of CA as only between a man and a woman.  They worked hard, pulled out all the stops, organized the members both in and out of California.  Spent money, raised money.  And they accomplished their goal.  The only reason one would try to minimize that accomplishment is if one doesn't feel that the goal was a benevolent one.  Apparently you no longer feel that supporting Prop 8 was the right thing to do and that could explain why you are trying to make it seem like the church did not have a significant impact.

 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I see nothing to suggest that the claim is false.  And I don't know what hate propaganda you are talking about.  I'm just countering your claim that the church's efforts were minuscule.  They weren't.

Well, we know it was happening (eye witness accounts here) in at least two states, outside of CA (Idaho and Utah).  Again, organizing phone banks across multiple states for a proposition in another state is hardly indicative of a minuscule effort.

Yes, we had specific instructions from SLC to not use church buildings for Prop 22.  And yet, the discussions naturally happened in bishopric meetings.  Comments were made over the pulpit of sacrament meeting.  Plans announced in Elders Quorum.  Etc.  I was called and told to meet the bishop at his house and to bring my checkbook.  Hard to call it "no pressure" when your ecclesiastical leader is telling you it is the right thing to do.

I am not applying cynical, reactionary motives to the Brethren nor did I say they (or you) are "bad people".  Again, just countering your claim about the church making strong efforts to afford civil liberties to LGBT folks.  I think you'd be hard pressed to show that as a priority for the Brethren.  They seem vastly more concerned with maintaining the Church's religious liberty, which is not surprising.

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

What I've done here is to state the facts about the church's involvement in Prop 8.  If someone thinks that makes them a boogey-man or a gargantuan monster, I guess that is what they think.  All I am doing is showing that you are wrong to say that the church's efforts were minuscule.  The Church and the Brethren were clear:  Their goal was to define marriage in the state of CA as only between a man and a woman.  They worked hard, pulled out all the stops, organized the members both in and out of California.  Spent money, raised money.  And they accomplished their goal.  The only reason one would try to minimize that accomplishment is if one doesn't feel that the goal was a benevolent one.  Apparently you no longer feel that supporting Prop 8 was the right thing to do and that could explain why you are trying to make it seem like the church did not have a significant impact.

That's what puzzles me: why was (and is) the church so eager to minimize its role in these campaigns?

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Quoting myself here to clarify alittle as I believe I got people upset.  As it is, it was just my opinion.  My total idea was to really ask a question.  Had the church not got involved, would these many members have gotten involved anyway?  I don't mean to minimize beliefs or take away the rights they have of following their conscience.  I am not angry at members.  Sorry if I offended anyone.

You didn't upset me. I was just disagreeing with what you said.

In my experience, it's easy in the church to wait until we're assigned to do something rather than volunteering for something we feel we should or want to do. That explains why bishops called people in to solicit donations and ask them to volunteer. 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You didn't upset me. I was just disagreeing with what you said.

In my experience, it's easy in the church to wait until we're assigned to do something rather than volunteering for something we feel we should or want to do. That explains why bishops called people in to solicit donations and ask them to volunteer. 

Thanks, jk..I understand where you are coming from.  I believe some of my ire comes from being a participant on the other side.  I was very much involved in the first set of resignations and document signings/stories on the front steps of the COB in 2008.  I gatherered with so many families that were hurting at the time.  In any case, this just proves something very important..and that is we all have different povs..and lucky..so very lucky..that we have a government inside and outside of any church that allows us to share those povs.

Hugs..Jeanne

[consiglieri]

Posted 7 hours ago · Report post

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As far as I can tell, the only one to have made a fuss over it was Sister Okazaki, and that was years after the fact, when she had long since been released and was well into her book-writing and speech-making career.  . . . I earnestly disapprove of her publicly second-guessing the Brethren about the manner in which the family proclamation was created and introduced, and I think it unseemly for one having held the position she did. 

I can't believe you actually wrote that, Scott!

First, you have just let everybody know why it is impossible to have an honest discussion with you about Mormonism--because you disapprove of anybody "publicly second-guessing the Brethren."

This means that no matter how you may actually feel, you are never going to spout anything other than the party line.  You have no intention of saying what you really think, but only what you think you ought to say.

How does this square with being a journalist, I wonder?

And nice job smearing Sister Okazaki with the implication the only reason she said this was for profit; i.e., she "was well into her book-writing and speech-making career."

Classy move, Scott.

 

(Reposted so Scott won't miss it.) 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I've been consistent with that position during this conversation. I don't tell people who tell me they're happy that their happiness is fake.

The problem is Jesus doesn't specifically address the topic. Nor does it appear anywhere in the expanded LDS canon. So general principles are all we have.

Broader principles are all anyone on either side of the issue has to go on.

Taking broad principles and forming conclusions is preferable to a list of thou shalt nots. The latter is for children, the former is for grownups.

I've been consistent with that position during this conversation. LOL I don't tell people who tell me they're happy that their happiness is fake. No, you tell people they're scoffers when they disagree with you LOL and while saying they're pulling the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You messed up; let's move on.

The problem is Jesus doesn't specifically address the topic. Nor does it appear anywhere in the expanded LDS canon. So general principles are all we have. Exactly what are you framing as "the topic" at this point in time?

Broader principles are all anyone on either side of the issue has to go on. No; I provided specifics about the nature of Christ-centered happiness and the context of the first commandment in connection with the Proclamation's teachings on marriage (in a number of posts). Do you have questions about those?

Taking broad principles and forming conclusions is preferable to a list of thou shalt nots. Not when it's a dodge. The latter is for children, the former is for grownups. Show me some of the thou-shalt-nots you picked from our conversation. You can't some up with a legitimate example.

Nothing personal, but if you can't come up with relevant or meaningful comments, I'm not sure I want to continue to indulge you.

[Mystery Meat]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes I do have an enormous grudge as you call it for the churches efforts to take away the civil rights of any American guaranteed them by the constitution.  I would be just as angry if the church attacked another group to take away their civil rights. It is shameful  And your effort to whitewash the churches role in that proposition is also shameful. I will always be there to correct this revised history that you and others try to present. Minuscule indeed!  

I don't care one iota what the church teaches its members about homosexuality  That does not mean that I will remain silent when the church institutes policies attacking gay families.  I want everyone to know the gospel beliefs of the Mormon church  I assume you are also not silent in proclaiming the gospel message of targeting gay families  It is, after all part of your belief  As objectionable as I find those policies, I assume you are just as supportive of those policies  As long as both of us do not distort the churches policies as the continue to roll them out against the gay community, there should not be a problem   Just two opposing views on those policies  

 

So basically what you do on here all the time? Got it.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Mystery Meat said:

So basically what you do on here all the time? Got it.

I haven't seen him distort doctrines. Granted I am here off and on.