Oaks on religious freedom

[Jeff Lebowski]

Again, SU demonstrates through his denegration he lacks the capacity to contend with Oaks ideas. It's remarkable, he'll stalk me all over the Internet but when I ask him an honest question about what exactly he had a problem with, based upon Dan's interview summary, he refuses respond?

Many groups including religions have also been actually harmed by legislation. My hypothetical was addressing potential future abuses. Would Gays be subject to unlawful searches, based upon things they say condemning religion in such a scenario? Take the blinders off and try to keep up with the entire conversation.

What's insulting is your blind instance in clinging to absolute statements about what will be. What you say will never happen is already happening in other countries—check out the links in this thread for the evidence. It is naive to believe that it will not happen in the US. Is a vote by a majority of Americans required to pass any law? No, so your majority argument is negated by reality.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is there a research study that tracks the malleability of the answers to that question over the lifetime of an individual? I would not be shocked to see that the opinions of an 18-29 yr old change by the time he or she is in their 30s or 40s. Personally, my own positions have become much more nuanced over time as I have aged, become married, settled down, and started a family. I think I'm probably more socially conservative than I was 15 years ago. Obviously there are others (RobinFinderson if you will indulge me) that have likely become much more liberal than they were in their late teens and early 20s. I'm curious to know if this would then delay or hasten the seemingly "inevitable" march that the LDS Church must walk toward embracing homosexuality (assuming the many predictions as such made on this thread come to fruition).

cheers.

You may have missed this link provided by EJ:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1755/pol...n-the-military

It only tracks the answers since 1996, but all demographics show a more liberal trend over time.

I suppose what you are describing happens to some degree, but I think there is no question that the overall trend is to more acceptance. One doesn't need to even look to demographics to see that happening, the LDS church is gradually evolving its stance. It wasn't that many years ago that simply admitting to be gay (regardless of behavior) was grounds for excommunication. Now celibate gays can stay in the church and hold temple recommends. The church used to unequivocally say that being gay was a choice. Now they officially acknowledge that this isn't always the case.

[Borg]

Am wondering...why can't things that the general authorities, particularly the prophet and/or members of the quorum of the twelve...be taken in the simplicity that the statements are given? It is puzzling to me sometimes.

I remember when the Proclamation to the Family was first issued. I attended a regional conference in Dallas where Pres. Hinckley was there and they discussed the issues that were soon coming as an assault on the family and this was necessary to preserve the family etc. At the time, I thought it fairly mundane, common sense etc.

Then, as we have seen, there has been a direct assault on the very definition of what a "family" is.

If we believe that our general authorities are inspired, that they can foresee things that will in time, transpire...things that may be contrary to the trendy thoughts of our day...why is it so difficult to believe what they say, and believe that the failure to heed their counsel will result in the consequences it would bring?

I personally do not have a problem with what he has stated. I would hope that these men are much closer to God than I am, and are guiding us appropriately.

It says nothing about how we 'feel' about people that are gay, how we should treat them etc...only about how the world's view is basically trying to change, what God views as inappropriate, to something that should be generally accepted and embraced and the "can's and can nots" of what to say about it.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. God establishes His law and decrees some 'thing' as against his law. The world does not. The world tries to enforce and/or force this change of view on the people that align with God's perspective. Hasn't that been the repeated pattern throughout the history of time?

Why the resistance to believe what he has stated?

[Indy Coug]

Why the resistance to believe what he has stated?

In a nutshell, because people are increasingly skeptical about how inspired our leaders are.

[Borg]

In a nutshell, because people are increasingly skeptical about how inspired our leaders are.

And that to me is the perplexing part. IF...I didn't believe that any church I might be attending....was inspired and/or authorized from God...even if I believe that their belief was a great model for a good lifestyle...I would not attend that church. Would perhaps adopt the lifestyle if that is what I liked, but would find it meaningless to attend, expend effort if what they are saying, teaching, and guiding lives...did not ultimately lead to salvation.

Just doesn't make sense to me. It comes down, to whehter you believe that they are inspired....or not.

[RobinFinderson]

And that to me is the perplexing part. IF...I didn't believe that any church I might be attending....was inspired and/or authorized from God...even if I believe that their belief was a great model for a good lifestyle...I would not attend that church. Would perhaps adopt the lifestyle if that is what I liked, but would find it meaningless to attend, expend effort if what they are saying, teaching, and guiding lives...did not ultimately lead to salvation.

Just doesn't make sense to me. It comes down, to whehter you believe that are inspired....or not.

And then it comes down to the meaning of the word INSPIRED.

[TripletDaddy]

And then it comes down to the meaning of the word INSPIRED.

And also comes down to whether inspired leaders are always saying inspired things when they speak....

And to whether inspired leaders have later changed the course of direction, after previously stating that such change of course would never happen...

Yeah, but besides all that, I guess Borg is right....I also can't see a single reason why people would consider these issues and then be concerned about agreeing.

[tooblue]

Awww, the favorite retort of the body of cuf ... lol. The fact still stands that your initial criticism of Oaks is silly.

[BlueHair]

What's insulting is your blind instance in clinging to absolute statements about what will be. What you say will never happen is already happening in other countries—check out the links in this thread for the evidence. It is naive to believe that it will not happen in the US. Is a vote by a majority of Americans required to pass any law? No, so your majority argument is negated by reality.

Please define "blind instance". I have no idea what that means. Sorry, but I'm not going to buy the "it's happening in other countries" argument. There are a host of things that go on in other countries that don't happen here. I think we need to be vigilant about protecting rights, but let's pick a credible threat to start with. I'm not losing any sleep over the fear that teaching from the bible will land someone in jail.

[TripletDaddy]

Please define "blind instance". I have no idea what that means. Sorry, but I'm not going to buy the "it's happening in other countries" argument. There are a host of things that go on in other countries that don't happen here. I think we need to be vigilant about protecting rights, but let's pick a credible threat to start with. I'm not losing any sleep over the fear that teaching from the bible will land someone in jail.

I think he means "blind insistence" but not sure.

Perhaps he is loosely paraphrasing Bruce Redd's DNTC quote about bashing: "‘Those who have the Spirit do not hang doggedly to a point of doctrine or philosophy for no other reason than to come off victorious in a disagreement"

Ironically, he seems to be doing that very thing, which leads me to believe that tooblue does not have the Spirit.

[tooblue]

I think he means "blind insistence" but not sure.

Perhaps he is loosely paraphrasing Bruce Redd's DNTC quote about bashing: "‘Those who have the Spirit do not hang doggedly to a point of doctrine or philosophy for no other reason than to come off victorious in a disagreement"

Ironically, he seems to be doing that very thing, which leads me to believe that tooblue does not have the Spirit.

[YOUTUBE]9xcmcKakzKw[/YOUTUBE]

[UtahDan]

In a nutshell, because people are increasingly skeptical about how inspired our leaders are.

This board is an interesting microcosm of what people who are confronted with the evidence that there might not be inspiration do with that information.

[tooblue]

Please define "blind instance". I have no idea what that means. Sorry, but I'm not going to buy the "it's happening in other countries" argument. There are a host of things that go on in other countries that don't happen here. I think we need to be vigilant about protecting rights, but let's pick a credible threat to start with. I'm not losing any sleep over the fear that teaching from the bible will land someone in jail.

Bad typo, sorry. It's ironic that you think we need to be vigilant about protecting rights and yet dismiss views that may well be demonstrative of another person's vigilance‽ Simply because you do not believe it to be a credible threat does not mean it is not a credible threat ... even in the great US of A.

[LA Ute]

Am wondering...why can't things that the general authorities, particularly the prophet and/or members of the quorum of the twelve...be taken in the simplicity that the statements are given? It is puzzling to me sometimes.

I remember when the Proclamation to the Family was first issued. I attended a regional conference in Dallas where Pres. Hinckley was there and they discussed the issues that were soon coming as an assault on the family and this was necessary to preserve the family etc. At the time, I thought it fairly mundane, common sense etc.

Then, as we have seen, there has been a direct assault on the very definition of what a "family" is.

If we believe that our general authorities are inspired, that they can foresee things that will in time, transpire...things that may be contrary to the trendy thoughts of our day...why is it so difficult to believe what they say, and believe that the failure to heed their counsel will result in the consequences it would bring?

I personally do not have a problem with what he has stated. I would hope that these men are much closer to God than I am, and are guiding us appropriately.

It says nothing about how we 'feel' about people that are gay, how we should treat them etc...only about how the world's view is basically trying to change, what God views as inappropriate, to something that should be generally accepted and embraced and the "can's and can nots" of what to say about it.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. God establishes His law and decrees some 'thing' as against his law. The world does not. The world tries to enforce and/or force this change of view on the people that align with God's perspective. Hasn't that been the repeated pattern throughout the history of time?

Why the resistance to believe what he has stated?

Well-stated. I agree.

This board is an interesting microcosm of what people who are confronted with the evidence that there might not be inspiration do with that information.

This is an excellent observation.

[creekster]

That's a very good question and it would be interesting to see if there are any studies on this topic.

What's that old saying? something like:

Never trust anyone under 30 who is not a revolutionary or anyone over 40 who is not a conservative.