Jeanne Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: That's a lot of words to not really say much. I read that 3 times and still don't understand..😋 Edited October 22, 2018 by Jeanne
Gray Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I don't think those principles are coercive. I was being ironic. I'm saying that sustaining of the leaders of the Church, as a condition for entry to the temple, is not "coercive." I am saying that your reasoning, such as it is, would make any conditions for entry to the temple "coercive" (such as requiring belief in the Godhead, in the atonement of Jesus Christ, compliance with the Word of Wisdom, etc.). Thanks, -Smac No, specifically by exchanging a sustaining vote for a temple recommend is where the coercion comes into play (or more accurately, withholding based on voting against). It doesn't apply to any of your other topics because they don't have to do with the vote. You must vote a certain way, or you don't get into the temple. The vote is about consent, and the consent is coerced. Edited October 22, 2018 by Gray 1
CV75 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 13 hours ago, rockpond said: That's a lot of words to not really say much. Easy for you to say LOL. What do you think it is saying?
smac97 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 15 hours ago, Gray said: Quote I don't think those principles are coercive. I was being ironic. I'm saying that sustaining of the leaders of the Church, as a condition for entry to the temple, is not "coercive." I am saying that your reasoning, such as it is, would make any conditions for entry to the temple "coercive" (such as requiring belief in the Godhead, in the atonement of Jesus Christ, compliance with the Word of Wisdom, etc.). No, specifically by exchanging a sustaining vote for a temple recommend is where the coercion comes into play (or more accurately, withholding based on voting against). You keep asserting this, but you are not explaining it at all. 15 hours ago, Gray said: It doesn't apply to any of your other topics because they don't have to do with the vote. But they are all conditions for entry to the temple. You have yet to differentiate between one condition (sustaining the leaders of the Church) and any of the others (belief in God, compliance with the Word of Wisdom, etc., etc.). 15 hours ago, Gray said: You must vote a certain way, or you don't get into the temple. And you must believe a certain way, or you don't get into the temple (believe in God, in the atonement, etc.). And you must behave a certain way, or you don't get into the temple (Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, Law of Tithing, etc.). 15 hours ago, Gray said: The vote is about consent, and the consent is coerced. No, it's not. And if it is, then belief in God is also "coerced." And compliance with the Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, etc. Thanks, -Smac 1
RevTestament Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 16 hours ago, Gray said: No, specifically by exchanging a sustaining vote for a temple recommend is where the coercion comes into play (or more accurately, withholding based on voting against). It doesn't apply to any of your other topics because they don't have to do with the vote. You must vote a certain way, or you don't get into the temple. The vote is about consent, and the consent is coerced. Is that the new leftist definition of coercion? Not only do I have to put up with them calling all Republicans with an ounce of patriotism fascists, but now anyone who has to answer any questions in order to gain US citizenship are being "coerced"? This passion for redefining words to meet a specific leftist agenda needs to get outed. co·er·cion /kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/ noun the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. My guess is you mean something like manipulative - you feel the Church is manipulating members, but that is far different from coercive. I'm sure the present format of questions came about in the age of polygamous dissenters, who were trying to maintain temple rites for their ancestors. If members do not sustain the Church leaders, they have ample opportunity to say so during conferences as well.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 1 minute ago, RevTestament said: Is that the new leftist definition of coercion? Not only do I have to put up with them calling all Republicans with an ounce of patriotism fascists, but now anyone who has to answer any questions in order to gain US citizenship are being "coerced"? This passion for redefining words to meet a specific leftist agenda needs to get outed. co·er·cion /kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/ noun the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. My guess is you mean something like manipulative - you feel the Church is manipulating members, but that is far different from coercive. I'm sure the present format of questions came about in the age of polygamous dissenters, who were trying to maintain temple rites for their ancestors. If members do not sustain the Church leaders, they have ample opportunity to say so during conferences as well. I don't know. Force of threat seems to apply here. Sustain me because if you don't you won't be allowed to enter the temple. The church can require the sustaining under threat of removing access to a temple, (whether it be for one's own ordinances, or to witness a loved one's marriage). Thus the church "persuades" members to do something (sustain) by using threats.
RevTestament Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't know. Force of threat seems to apply here. Sustain me because if you don't you won't be allowed to enter the temple. The church can require the sustaining under threat of removing access to a temple, (whether it be for one's own ordinances, or to witness a loved one's marriage). Thus the church "persuades" members to do something (sustain) by using threats. Threat of force is meant in coercion. Smac is right. Defining coercion so broadly, would make many institutions "coercive." Imagine the Franciscans as being labeled coercive. Membership in many public groups involves confirming various beliefs in order to gain and maintain membership, and in this case Church membership is not threatened. Denial of entry is far from force or coercion. Otherwise denying entry at the pearly gates would make Yeshua coercive.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Threat of force is meant in coercion. Smac is right. Defining coercion so broadly, would make many institutions "coercive." Imagine the Franciscans as being labeled coercive. Membership in many public groups involves confirming various beliefs in order to gain and maintain membership, and in this case Church membership is not threatened. Denial of entry is far from force or coercion. Otherwise denying entry at the pearly gates would make Yeshua coercive. Read your definition again. It states "Force OR threats". The OR is important and it in no way states that a threat must be a threat of force. There are many types of threats. Would you argue that an employer is not coercing his employee to do something unethical because there isn't a threat of physical force, but rather only a threat of unemployment, or reduction in wage? There are many ways a person/group/institution can coerce others to do as they please, without "force". Threats, in many varieties, also are coercive
RevTestament Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Read your definition again. It states "Force OR threats". The OR is important and it in no way states that a threat must be a threat of force. There are many types of threats. Would you argue that an employer is not coercing his employee to do something unethical because there isn't a threat of physical force, but rather only a threat of unemployment, or reduction in wage? There are many ways a person/group/institution can coerce others to do as they please, without "force". Threats, in many varieties, also are coercive We disagree. An employer is not coercing an employee by saying he is going to lower their pay - it is a form of legal manipulation. Any private employer can do it without legal repercussions. Threatening a family member unless an employer gets his way is an example of coercion. Again in coercion threat of force is implied. Denying the privileges of membership is not coercion - sending out the Danites probably is...
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, RevTestament said: We disagree. An employer is not coercing an employee by saying he is going to lower their pay - it is a form of legal manipulation. Any private employer can do it without legal repercussions. Threatening a family member unless an employer gets his way is an example of coercion. Again in coercion threat of force is implied. Denying the privileges of membership is not coercion - sending out the Danites probably is... I think you have a very narrow definition for how coercion may be applied. Even your own definition identifies "threats" as coercion, but you're not buying it. Here are a couple of other definitions...just for fun. Quote Coercion Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force. or Quote Coercion The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so. Personally, I would consider it psychological pressure, and therefore coercive to require someone to sustain a leader on threat that if they don't, they won't be able to go to the temple and receive saving ordinances. It is literally withholding salvation from a person if they don't sustain the leader, whether they want to or not. It's a threat. It applies psychological pressure. But I suppose we'll just have to disagree. Even so, I hope you can at least see why the accusation of coercion is at least reasonable based on a person's POV.
RevTestament Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I think you have a very narrow definition for how coercion may be applied. Even your own definition identifies "threats" as coercion, but you're not buying it. Here are a couple of other definitions...just for fun. or Personally, I would consider it psychological pressure, and therefore coercive to require someone to sustain a leader on threat that if they don't, they won't be able to go to the temple and receive saving ordinances. It is literally withholding salvation from a person if they don't sustain the leader, whether they want to or not. It's a threat. It applies psychological pressure. But I suppose we'll just have to disagree. Even so, I hope you can at least see why the accusation of coercion is at least reasonable based on a person's POV. Just a point of order. No one is denied salvation by not going to the temple. I do not refer to the ordinances done there as "saving ordinances" with the possible exception of baptism for the dead. They are ordinances of exaltation/sanctification. One does not have to be sealed to be saved.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 34 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Just a point of order. No one is denied salvation by not going to the temple. I do not refer to the ordinances done there as "saving ordinances" with the possible exception of baptism for the dead. They are ordinances of exaltation/sanctification. One does not have to be sealed to be saved. Semantic games. Tiresome. Fine. Failing to sustain under threat of losing "exaltation" instead of salvation...if that makes you feel better
rockpond Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Semantic games. Tiresome. Fine. Failing to sustain under threat of losing "exaltation" instead of salvation...if that makes you feel better It's funny how quickly the importance of the temple gets shifted in order to defend policies that deny entrance to some. Temple attendance was a part of the Prophet's concluding message in general conference, temple announcements getting loud cheers, our stake is currently sending stake leaders around to the wards each week to plead for attendance at our upcoming stake temple day... but when we bring up the issue of those who have been or are denied participation... meh, no big deal, temple ordinances aren't necessary.
Gray Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, RevTestament said: Is that the new leftist definition of coercion? Not only do I have to put up with them calling all Republicans with an ounce of patriotism fascists, but now anyone who has to answer any questions in order to gain US citizenship are being "coerced"? This passion for redefining words to meet a specific leftist agenda needs to get outed. Not everything is about your kook right anti-American politics. Quote co·er·cion /kōˈərZHən,kōˈərSHən/ noun the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. My guess is you mean something like manipulative - you feel the Church is manipulating members, but that is far different from coercive. I'm sure the present format of questions came about in the age of polygamous dissenters, who were trying to maintain temple rites for their ancestors. If members do not sustain the Church leaders, they have ample opportunity to say so during conferences as well. The threat in this case is the threat of losing one's temple recommend, and ultimately one's exaltation. But if you think "manipulation" is somehow better, have at it I guess? Edited October 23, 2018 by Gray
Gray Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 4 hours ago, smac97 said: You keep asserting this, but you are not explaining it at all. But they are all conditions for entry to the temple. You have yet to differentiate between one condition (sustaining the leaders of the Church) and any of the others (belief in God, compliance with the Word of Wisdom, etc., etc.). And you must believe a certain way, or you don't get into the temple (believe in God, in the atonement, etc.). And you must behave a certain way, or you don't get into the temple (Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, Law of Tithing, etc.). No, it's not. And if it is, then belief in God is also "coerced." And compliance with the Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, etc. Thanks, -Smac I'm not sure how to make this clearer to you. Common consent is about voting to sustain or not sustain your leaders. The church supposedly runs by common consent. Everything must be done by common consent. But voting the "wrong" way will get you punished, thereby nullifying any meaningful consent to the voting process. Imagine you're in a quorum, and you're voting on whether to proceed on some course of action. You vote against, everyone else votes for. As a result of your vote, however, you are immediately removed from the quorum. You voted the wrong way. What might you conclude about the nature of this voting process? If this principle is still opaque to you, I'm not sure what more I can do to help you understand it. 1
smac97 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Gray said: Quote You keep asserting this, but you are not explaining it at all. But they are all conditions for entry to the temple. You have yet to differentiate between one condition (sustaining the leaders of the Church) and any of the others (belief in God, compliance with the Word of Wisdom, etc., etc.). And you must believe a certain way, or you don't get into the temple (believe in God, in the atonement, etc.). And you must behave a certain way, or you don't get into the temple (Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, Law of Tithing, etc.). No, it's not. And if it is, then belief in God is also "coerced." And compliance with the Law of Chastity, Word of Wisdom, etc. I'm not sure how to make this clearer to you. I'm not sure, either. I am not a stupid person. And I am not being obtuse. And yet I do not understand your position. Quote Common consent is about voting to sustain or not sustain your leaders. Yes. It's a choice. Just like choosing to believe in the Godhead. Just like choosing to believe in the Atonement of Christ. Just like choosing to believe in the Restoration of the Gospel. Just like choosing to obey the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity and the Law of Tithing. Just like choosing to be honest with our fellowmen. And so on. Quote The church supposedly runs by common consent. Yes. Quote Everything must be done by common consent. Yes. Quote But voting the "wrong" way will get you punished, thereby nullifying any meaningful consent to the voting process. This is where you go off the rails. I'm not sure what "punished" means in this context. And if a person is "punished" for not sustaining the leaders of the Church, they are also "punished" for not believing in God, not accepting the Atonement, not obeying the Word of Wisdom, not obeying the Law of Chastity, not being honest, and so on. You keep trying to differentiate one prerequisite for entry to the temple (sustaining the leaders, which requirement you say is "coercive") from the others (belief in God, belief in the Atonement, believe in the Restoration, compliance with the WoW/LoC/LoT, being honest, etc., which requirements you apparently believe are not "coercive"). But you have no rationale for this differentiation, despite repeated requests for clarification. Quote Imagine you're in a quorum, and you're voting on whether to proceed on some course of action. You vote against, everyone else votes for. Okay. That's your choice. Likewise, you can choose to not believe in God, not obey the Word of Wisdom, not be honest, and so on. Quote As a result of your vote, however, you are immediately removed from the quorum. Nobody is excommunicated for not sustaining the leaders of the Church. Quote You voted the wrong way. You made a choice. Just like you can choose to not believe in God, not obey the Word of Wisdom, not be honest, and so on. Quote What might you conclude about the nature of this voting process? Non sequitur. Again, nobody is excommunicated for not sustaining the leaders of the Church. Going to the temple is not a per se privilege of membership in the Church. Surely you understand that? Quote If this principle is still opaque to you, I'm not sure what more I can do to help you understand it. You haven't stated any "principle" that I can discern. Are you just being coy now? Why not just say it? Here, I'll make it easy for you. Just fill in the blanks: "Sustaining the leaders of the Church as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is coercive because ____________________________________." "Belief in God as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." "Belief in the Atonement of Jesus Christ as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." "Adherence to the Law of Chastity as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." "Being honest in your dealings with your fellow men as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." Thanks, -Smac Edited October 23, 2018 by smac97 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure, either. I am not a stupid person. And I am not being obtuse. And yet I do not understand your position. Yes. It's a choice. Just like choosing to believe in the Godhead. Just like choosing to believe in the Atonement of Christ. Just like choosing to believe in the Restoration of the Gospel. Just like choosing to obey the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity and the Law of Tithing. Just like choosing to be honest with our fellowmen. And so on. Yes. Yes. This is where you go off the rails. I'm not sure what "punished" means in this context. And if a person is "punished" for not sustaining the leaders of the Church, they are also "punished" for not believing in God, not accepting the Atonement, not obeying the Word of Wisdom, not obeying the Law of Chastity, not being honest, and so on. You keep trying to differentiate one prerequisite for entry to the temple (sustaining the leaders) from the others (belief in God, belief in the Atonement, believe in the Restoration, compliance with the WoW/LoC/LoT, being honest, etc.). But you have no rationale for this differentiation, despite repeated requests for clarification. Okay. That's your choice. Likewise, you can choose to not believe in God, not obey the Word of Wisdom, not be honest, and so on. Nobody is excommunicated for not sustaining the leaders of the Church. You made a choice. Just like you can choose to not believe in God, not obey the Word of Wisdom, not be honest, and so on. Non sequitur. Again, nobody is excommunicated for not sustaining the leaders of the Church. Going to the temple is not a per se privilege of membership in the Church. Surely you understand that? You haven't stated any "principle" that I can discern. Are you just being coy now? Why not just say it? Here, I'll make it easy for you. Just fill in the blanks: "Sustaining the leaders of the Church as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is coercive because ____________________________________." "Belief in God as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." "Belief in the Atonement of Jesus Christ as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." "Adherence to the Law of Chastity as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." "Being honest in your dealings with your fellow men as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." Thanks, -Smac Sure they are. But they call it apostasy. Think about that. Failure to sustain (obey) a leader can be considered apostasy and the member excommunicated, thus losing salvation and exaltation. 1
smac97 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 Just now, HappyJackWagon said: Sure they are. But they call it apostasy. No, they don't. Apostasy is much more than "not sustaining the leaders of the Church." Just now, HappyJackWagon said: Think about that. Failure to sustain (obey) a leader can be considered apostasy and the member excommunicated, thus losing salvation and exaltation. This is incorrect. Plainly. From Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1: Quote Apostasy As used here, apostasy refers to members who: Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. Are in a same-gender marriage. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings. None of these are equivalent to "not sustaining the leaders of the Church." The first definition may implicate "not sustaining the leaders of the Church." But they aren't the same, as "not sustaining the leaders of the Church" would potentially be a portion of definition 1. If I want to make a cake, I can't simply use an egg. I also need flour, sugar, etc. Thanks, -Smac
The Nehor Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't know. Force of threat seems to apply here. Sustain me because if you don't you won't be allowed to enter the temple. The church can require the sustaining under threat of removing access to a temple, (whether it be for one's own ordinances, or to witness a loved one's marriage). Thus the church "persuades" members to do something (sustain) by using threats. Bishop speaking in a bad Italian accent: ”Nice soul you’ve got there. Would be a shame if it got......damaged....now wouldn’t it?” Edited October 23, 2018 by The Nehor 1
CV75 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't know. Force of threat seems to apply here. Sustain me because if you don't you won't be allowed to enter the temple. The church can require the sustaining under threat of removing access to a temple, (whether it be for one's own ordinances, or to witness a loved one's marriage). Thus the church "persuades" members to do something (sustain) by using threats. Membership in an organization communicates personal consent to the terms of membership. This includes his personal consent to be subject to the normal procedures, in this case, what it take to get a recommend. Things that only feel coercive to a person who is unhappy with some aspect of his voluntary membership and personal religious practice cannot rightly be said to be coercive. If he refuses to sustain the leadership as a result of his misgivings, he is certainly not being coerced. If he chooses to sustain them, or at least say so, it is because he finds some value to doing so.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: No, they don't. Apostasy is much more than "not sustaining the leaders of the Church." This is incorrect. Plainly. From Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1: None of these are equivalent to "not sustaining the leaders of the Church." The first definition may implicate "not sustaining the leaders of the Church." But they aren't the same, as "not sustaining the leaders of the Church" would potentially be a portion of definition 1. If I want to make a cake, I can't simply use an egg. I also need flour, sugar, etc. Thanks, -Smac Number 1 is absolutely about not sustaining leaders. I'm not talking about not raising your hand once when the person is called, I'm talking more specifically about how one sustains, or doesn't sustain, another person's authority over them. Quote 1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. This is essentially what Sam Young was excommunicated for. The church and its leaders seem to have believed that Sam Young wasn't sustaining them by properly accepting their authority. He didn't acquiesce to their authority and therefore wasn't obedient to their requests that he stop speaking out on his issue of protecting children. He didn't sustain them. He got ex'd for apostasy
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: Membership in an organization communicates personal consent to the terms of membership. This includes his personal consent to be subject to the normal procedures, in this case, what it take to get a recommend. Things that only feel coercive to a person who is unhappy with some aspect of his voluntary membership and personal religious practice cannot rightly be said to be coercive. If he refuses to sustain the leadership as a result of his misgivings, he is certainly not being coerced. If he chooses to sustain them, or at least say so, it is because he finds some value to doing so. I agree. And the value may simply be, avoiding punishment.
smac97 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: Number 1 is absolutely about not sustaining leaders. Right. Just like an egg just "absolutely" a cake. Except . . . it's not. An egg is an ingredient to a cake, not the cake in toto. 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm not talking about not raising your hand once when the person is called, I'm talking more specifically about how one sustains, or doesn't sustain, another person's authority over them. So you are using an ideosyncratic definition. Got it. Not sustaining the general authorities is not an excommunicable offense. There must be more than that. Much more, in fact. 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: This is essentially what Sam Young was excommunicated for. He was excommunicated for more than that. Much more, in fact. 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: The church and its leaders seem to have believed that Sam Young wasn't sustaining them by properly accepting their authority. He didn't acquiesce to their authority and therefore wasn't obedient to their requests that he stop speaking out on his issue of protecting children. He didn't sustain them. He got ex'd for apostasy Again, not sustaining the general authorities is not an excommunicable offense. This isn't even a "reasonable minds can disagree about it" kind of thing. You are simply wrong. Thanks, -Smac
Gray Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 42 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure, either. I am not a stupid person. And I am not being obtuse. And yet I do not understand your position. Yes. It's a choice. Just like choosing to believe in the Godhead. Just like choosing to believe in the Atonement of Christ. Just like choosing to believe in the Restoration of the Gospel. Just like choosing to obey the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity and the Law of Tithing. Just like choosing to be honest with our fellowmen. And so on. Yes. Yes. This is where you go off the rails. I'm not sure what "punished" means in this context. And if a person is "punished" for not sustaining the leaders of the Church, they are also "punished" for not believing in God, not accepting the Atonement, not obeying the Word of Wisdom, not obeying the Law of Chastity, not being honest, and so on. You keep trying to differentiate one prerequisite for entry to the temple (sustaining the leaders, which requirement you say is "coercive") from the others (belief in God, belief in the Atonement, believe in the Restoration, compliance with the WoW/LoC/LoT, being honest, etc., which requirements you apparently believe are not "coercive"). But you have no rationale for this differentiation, despite repeated requests for clarification. Okay. That's your choice. Likewise, you can choose to not believe in God, not obey the Word of Wisdom, not be honest, and so on. Nobody is excommunicated for not sustaining the leaders of the Church. You made a choice. Just like you can choose to not believe in God, not obey the Word of Wisdom, not be honest, and so on. Non sequitur. Again, nobody is excommunicated for not sustaining the leaders of the Church. Going to the temple is not a per se privilege of membership in the Church. Surely you understand that? You haven't stated any "principle" that I can discern. Are you just being coy now? Why not just say it? Here, I'll make it easy for you. Just fill in the blanks: "Sustaining the leaders of the Church as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is coercive because ____________________________________." "Belief in God as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." "Belief in the Atonement of Jesus Christ as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." "Adherence to the Law of Chastity as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." "Being honest in your dealings with your fellow men as a prerequisite for entry to the temple is not coercive because ____________________________________." Thanks, -Smac I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or not. Either way, productive conversation on this particular issue has come to an end.
smac97 Posted October 23, 2018 Posted October 23, 2018 4 minutes ago, Gray said: I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or not. Either way, productive conversation on this particular issue has come to an end. I'm neither being intentionally or unintentionally obtuse. But as you like. Thanks, -Smac
Recommended Posts