The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[woot]

That is probably the company line, but not one that I really buy into.

I think Mother Theresa and Billy Graham are probably much better than I am, and did more for people than I ever will. They both showed a Love for Christ and willingness to serve.

In my mind...if they aren't in a better place than me, then I probably don't belong there.

I do know that my view is probably in the minority though.

I admire this sentiment, and think it is an example of good religion. It's a shame it goes against what the church teaches. It's also a shame that you chose those two particular individuals to demonstrate your point, as neither was nearly as righteous or wholesome as their public image would have one believe.

[SoCalCoug]

I admire this sentiment, and think it is an example of good religion. It's a shame it goes against what the church teaches. It's also a shame that you chose those two particular individuals to demonstrate your point, as neither was nearly as righteous or wholesome as their public image would have one believe.

Sounds like someone's got some compromising pictures of Mother Theresa.

[The_Tick]

There's that whole spirit prison/paradise, temple proxy stuff.

I am iffy on all that stuff. My version helps me sleep better at night.

[The_Tick]

I admire this sentiment, and think it is an example of good religion. It's a shame it goes against what the church teaches. It's also a shame that you chose those two particular individuals to demonstrate your point, as neither was nearly as righteous or wholesome as their public image would have one believe.

My version of the LDS Church believes in it.

I could have used the example of my Grandfather...but I didn't think it would convey my message enough. Since you don't know him and all. Which is your loss btw, as he was kick ass.

[Indy Coug]

I am iffy on all that stuff. My version helps me sleep better at night.

I'm a little confused. Those doctrines are what levels the playing field, IMO.

[BigFatMeanie]

I'm a little confused. Those doctrines are what levels the playing field, IMO.

Yeah, me too.

To anyone that thinks the LDS church even defines the term damnation, let alone preaches it, I say: "link?"

The LDS church is about as far away from preaching damnation as you can get and still be considered a Christian religion.


EDIT: The following exchange between me and a Lutheran friend just took place:

Me: Do you think the LDS church preaches 'damnation'?
Him: LDS church? Hell no! It's pretty damn hard to get damned in the LDS church

[The_Tick]

I'm a little confused. Those doctrines are what levels the playing field, IMO.

The whole afterlife stuff is just a little cloudy for me is all. I believe that the Lord is going to be way more Merciful on us than we are currently taught.

And that makes me smile. I could be wrong, but that is okay.

BTW...I don't like the version of the afterlife where we are always going to be working working working.

I want my afterlife to be fishing and golf.

[Indy Coug]

I want my afterlife to be fishing and golf.

Yeah, something like that would work for me too.

[Jacob]

That is probably the company line, but not one that I really buy into.

I think Mother Theresa and Billy Graham are probably much better than I am, and did more for people than I ever will. They both showed a Love for Christ and willingness to serve.

In my mind...if they aren't in a better place than me, then I probably don't belong there.

I do know that my view is probably in the minority though.

I guess you don't buy into Christopher Hitchens' take down of Mother Teresa.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?

[The_Tick]

I guess you don't buy into Christopher Hitchens' take down of Mother Teresa.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

Never heard of him.

I don't know enough to make my own opinion of what she did/didn't do. Most of it probably comes from the love and respect my wife had from her during her Catholic upbringing.

Thanks for the link though.

[Jacob]

Never heard of him.

I don't know enough to make my own opinion of what she did/didn't do. Most of it probably comes from the love and respect my wife had from her during her Catholic upbringing.

Thanks for the link though.

Never heard of Christopher Hitchens? Author of "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything?" Former Trotskyite and current defender of America's war on radical Islam? He can be a very interesting read, though I don't recommend God is not Great. Not his best work.

[The_Tick]

Never heard of Christopher Hitchens? Author of "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything?" Former Trotskyite and current defender of America's war on radical Islam? He can be a very interesting read, though I don't recommend God is not Great. Not his best work.

I keep a pretty low profile.

I listen to sports radio only. I don't watch the news at all. Not interested.

In fact...I am going to have to Google Trotskyite just to make sure you didn't subtley insult me there!

There are educated folks on this board...one of them I am not.

[UtahDan]

The church teaches that homosexuality and other sexual relations between anything/one other than married adults of opposite gender is sinful. If you accept God, and if you accept revelation and if you accept the premise of the church's existence, then at root you cannot avoid the conclusion that regardless of the source of the homosexual impulse, it is deemed sinful and so must be unfulfilled in order for the possessor to be seen as a member in good standing. This may cause pain and great difficulty for those with this impulse, but in the end is not that different from others who have otherwise natural impulses that must be suppressed or controlled. I would never suggest that anyone with such impulses, from whatever cause, be treated with anything less than the love and respect that all other persons should receive. But neither do I see a reason to attempt to bend or change doctrine on the basis that their pain is different than the pain of many who are required to moderate their behavior to abide by gospel principles. After all, some category of pain will always be the worst.

These are good thoughts that I would like to tease out a little more. I used to think exactly this but have decided that I don't any more. The problem for me is that I think the idea that people are born with all sorts of impulses that are immoral that need to be controlled and a homosexual impulse is just one of them works best as an abstraction. Let me give some examples of what I mean.

I can think of lots of impulses that people can have that are immoral. Some people are tempted to steal, or to light things on fire, or to have sex with children or animals, or to act out on their angry feelings. No one would say that simply because a person has innate desires such as these that it is unjust to deny them the ability indulge them.

On the other hand, society, religion and the scriptures have all put things in the sinful category that it doesn't have there any more. Slaves were slaves and the impulse to be free was sinful for them. God had put them there. Certainly people of certain races should not hope or expect equality and even the modern church gave ample support to that idea. The impulse for equality for women, the desire to vote, to work, not to be the legal property of their husbands, to be in government. All sinful at some point in history not too far distant.

So which category is homosexuality more like? I can't say that I think it is a clean analogy to either but if forced I would say the second. This is a long way of saying, can you think of anything in my first category that you would say is a good analogy to homosexuality? I don't have any trouble telling a man that he cannot set things on fire, molest children or beat his wife. It is hard for me to tell him that he cannot be married, have a family of his own, and enjoy those things as the sweetest fruits of life. Not when they are readily available to him. This is where the analogy you are making for me doesn't work, but perhaps you have some other examples in mind.

Maybe it is just too far out there to think that this one could change, but if it really is in that second category maybe it could.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's an interview with Cary Crall (the writer of the editorial), Morris Thurston, and Laura Compton. Definitely long and drawn out, but it discusses a lot of facts related to Prop 8, the campaign, the editorial, members speaking out against Prop 8, etc. It's very calm and doesn't really go beyond discussion of facts.

PAC, your man Thurston did an outstanding job with this interview. Very impressive guy. I didn't watch the video, but I listened to the podcast.

BTW, the latest Mormon Stories podcast looks intriguing:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=1158

I am guessing this is the audio for the lecture he did a few years ago. It says that an interview is forthcoming. Excellent timing I think.

[wuapinmon]

molest children

Could pedophiles use this same argument in an attempt to explain their behavior. While theirs is different because their partners cannot consent, it would help explain that they have an inborn innate attraction to children, and therefore cannot really be blamed.

I'm sure there's a flaw in my thinking, but I can totally see someone making this argument AGAINST homosexual marriage.