Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[CardiacCoug]

I should have stated that more clearly. I'm not discounting "serve thy neighbor" as a integral part of the gospel of Jesus Christ (not specifically Mormon of course) but when I think fundamentals I think about what makes it distinct from other Christian faiths. I don't have to restate what makes Mormonism unique.

I think a lot of active LDS people aren't true believers in that sense. Hope not to offend here, but the BOM is so obviously not authentic that I've gotta think well into double digit percentage of LDS people participate because of family/community and don't accept the abstract theology in a conventional sense.

Pretty sure it's OK to just believe in "serve thy neighbor" -- and then accept the rest as "abstract allegory that helps to make many of us better people" or something along those lines.

[Blueintheface]

I think a lot of active LDS people aren't true believers in that sense. Hope not to offend here, but the BOM is so obviously not authentic that I've gotta think well into double digit percentage of LDS people participate because of family/community and don't accept the abstract theology in a conventional sense.

Pretty sure it's OK to just believe in "serve thy neighbor" -- and then accept the rest as "abstract allegory that helps to make many of us better people" or something along those lines.

Of course it's OK, it's just odd to me is all. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to the % but essentially these members are attending for the ties they have to the current members and not because they have an affinity for The Restoration. I have enough friends in and out of the church to fill my dance card, thank you very much. Besides, I was bored when I believed it so I can't imagine attending now.

[UVACoug]

Not to nitpick, but, it wasn't an article, it was an opinion piece. Apparently written by an evangelical, not a mormon (which is only significant because it is a mormon paper).

Exactly. It was an Op-Ed. Even the NYTimes publishes stuff like this from time to time. It is the opinion of one person not affiliated with the paper.

With that said, the DNews, for better or worse, is inextricably tied to the Church and anything it publishes does carry a stamp of church approval to many people. Whether that perception is fair or not, the paper should be more careful when selecting opinion pieces that exaggerate certain stereotypes. In the end, I think the column was stupid and the DNews was stupid to publish it.

[SoonerCoug]

Of course it's OK, it's just odd to me is all. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to the % but essentially these members are attending for the ties they have to the current members and not because they have an affinity for The Restoration. I have enough friends in and out of the church to fill my dance card, thank you very much. Besides, I was bored when I believed it so I can't imagine attending now.

Believing in mythology is definitely odd. Not believing in mythology is normal.

I'm pretty sure my parents' greatest fear was that one of their kids would actually believe something weird that was taught at church.

[Moliere]

See I don't get that. If the historicity isn't important than it's just a community (fraternity if you like), right? That's weird to me. I certainly don't hold it against any active member that believes JS saw God/JC/et al, but to say you've "moved past" or it "doesn't resonate" as a reason to remain in the church seems bizarre to me. Am I missing something here?

Is it just that you are able to feel the love of God in a Mormon congregation? Does attendance/participation help you and your family to remain close? I'm really trying to see what it is that causes someone to participate when the fundamentals of the religion are removed or worse; accepted as untrue.

Well, to be clear I meant more to say that I'm passed the white washed version of the history. I still believe in the church's foundation. I believe JS had a spiritual experience in the grove (probably more like how he explained it the first time). I have faith in Christ and his redemptive powers. I'm more than happy to sustain TSM as a prophet (noting there are very different definitions of prophet in the church). I'd likely just go inactive if I lost all faith or stopped believing in the foundation of the church. I don't think I could pull a Cardiac and stay active just because it's a good organization.

I'll add that Sooner does make good points in his rants....his problem is that he's too much like Bill Maher. Blunt and tactless. The points are lost in all the attacks.

[SeattleUte]

Believing in mythology is definitely odd. Not believing in mythology is normal.

I'm pretty sure my parents' greatest fear was that one of their kids would actually believe something weird that was taught at church.

People have believed in mythology for a lot longer than it's even occurred to them not to believe in it. It didn't even occur to anyone not to believe in mythology until Socrates, and not until Herodotus did the discipline of history even exist. These men lived less than 2500 years ago. Then from the fifth century to the seventeenth century AD just about everyone didn't even consider the prospect of not believing mythology. Creekster thinks there's a gene that causes this. People like you and me are mutants.

[creekster]

People have believed in mythology for a lot longer than it's even occurred to them not to believe in it. It didn't even occur to anyone not to believe in mythology until Socrates, and not until Herodotus did the discipline of history even exist. These men lived less than 2500 years ago. Then from the fifth century to the seventeenth century AD just about everyone didn't even consider the prospect of not believing mythology. Creekster thinks there's a gene that causes this. People like you and me are mutants.

While that is a gross mis-characterization of what I have said, I do understand why you might see yourself as a mutant. You should probably leave sooner out of it however.

[Levin]

I'm pretty sure my parents' greatest fear was that one of their kids would actually believe something weird that was taught at church.

They needn't have feared. Sounds like it turned out that their children didn't believe anything they heard.

[Levin]

People have believed in mythology for a lot longer than it's even occurred to them not to believe in it. It didn't even occur to anyone not to believe in mythology until Socrates, and not until Herodotus did the discipline of history even exist. These men lived less than 2500 years ago. Then from the fifth century to the seventeenth century AD just about everyone didn't even consider the prospect of not believing mythology. Creekster thinks there's a gene that causes this. People like you and me are mutants.

A classic SU gross generalization of history in support of his "faith is doomed" theme.

[SoonerCoug]

They needn't have feared. Sounds like it turned out that their children didn't believe anything they heard.

Ok LeVan, defend your beliefs with real evidence. No spiritual evidence allowed. I don't acknowledge spiritual evidence as real evidence. Spiritual evidence leads people to random places that could include things like the Westboro Baptist Church, Branch Davidians, FLDS, or Jim Jonesians.

[Solon]

People have believed in mythology for a lot longer than it's even occurred to them not to believe in it. It didn't even occur to anyone not to believe in mythology until Socrates, and not until Herodotus did the discipline of history even exist. These men lived less than 2500 years ago. Then from the fifth century to the seventeenth century AD just about everyone didn't even consider the prospect of not believing mythology. Creekster thinks there's a gene that causes this. People like you and me are mutants.

A classic SU gross generalization of history in support of his "faith is doomed" theme.

This is a pretty complicated idea - to what extent people "believe" in their myths. A pretty smart guy named Paul Veyne wrote a pretty good book titled, aptly, Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths? (his answer: sort of, but not the way we think of as "belief")

Over-generalizations aside (e.g., Xenophanes usually gets credit for pointing out the ridiculousness of Greek myth as related by Homer or Hesiod), SU's point holds true, insofar as he is juxtaposing "stories" (mythos) with rational inquiry (logos or historia). It was Thucydides who first declared that his work was different from the earlier storytellers because he was using sources & argument & evidence, i.e. rationalism. The declaration of the historian of how things really happened was a direct refutation of the myth-telling rhapsodes, who claimed to be mere conduits of the gods' words.

In other words, Thucydides (and, to a lesser extent, Herodotus) were the first to say, "Here's what really happened and I can prove it", as opposed to earlier myth-tellers who said, "here's what the gods relate through me." These historians were boldly defiant of tradition & authority.

Myth isn't the same thing as faith, but they're not opposites either.
Faith isn't doomed. It has a vital role in making humans human (faith is really a version of trust, a laudable human virtue).
But rationalism is an important part of humanity as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is a pretty complicated idea - to what extent people "believe" in their myths. A pretty smart guy named Paul Veyne wrote a pretty good book titled, aptly, Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths? (his answer: sort of, but not the way we think of as "belief")

Over-generalizations aside (e.g., Xenophanes usually gets credit for pointing out the ridiculousness of Greek myth as related by Homer or Hesiod), SU's point holds true, insofar as he is juxtaposing "stories" (mythos) with rational inquiry (logos or historia). It was Thucydides who first declared that his work was different from the earlier storytellers because he was using sources & argument & evidence, i.e. rationalism. The declaration of the historian of how things really happened was a direct refutation of the myth-telling rhapsodes, who claimed to be mere conduits of the gods' words.

In other words, Thucydides (and, to a lesser extent, Herodotus) were the first to say, "Here's what really happened and I can prove it", as opposed to earlier myth-tellers who said, "here's what the gods relate through me." These historians were boldly defiant of tradition & authority.

Myth isn't the same thing as faith, but they're not opposites either.
Faith isn't doomed. It has a vital role in making humans human (faith is really a version of trust, a laudable human virtue).
But rationalism is an important part of humanity as well.

SU Solon

[SeattleUte]

SU Solon

lol it went right over your head. Engineers.

[Uncle Ted]

Utah to Appeal Gay Marriage Ruling to High Court

Utah is going directly to the nation's highest court to challenge a federal appeals court ruling that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, the state attorney general's office announced Wednesday.


The state opted to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than request a review from the entire 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. That option is now off the table, no matter what the high court decides.


Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes' office said in a statement the appeal will be filed in the coming weeks, to get "clarity and resolution" from the highest court. "Attorney General Reyes has a sworn duty to defend the laws of our state," the statement said.


The Supreme Court is under no obligation to hear the appeal of the June 25 ruling by a three-judge 10th Circuit panel, said William Eskridge, a Yale University law professor. There also is no deadline to make a decision, he said.

[...]

Utah has spent about $300,000 paying three outside attorneys to defend its same-sex marriage ban. It would cost another $300,000 to have the trio defend the case at the Supreme Court, the state estimates.


Plaintiff Moudi Sbeity called the decision to take the case to the high court "wonderful news." He and his partner, Derek Kitchen, are one of three gay and lesbian couples who sued Utah over its gay marriage ban.


"We are one step closer toward having our families recognized in our home state," Sbeity said. "It's definitely a case our Supreme Court needs to hear. The faster we can move on this, the better for all of us."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...court-24489269

JL's tax dollars at work.

[Moliere]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...court-24489269

JL's tax dollars at work.

I see a lot of people upset that Utah is spending money in defense of their ban on SSM. While I think SSM should be legal and I'm pretty sure it will be in pretty much every state in the near future, I still think Utah has an obligation to defend the provision in its constitution and I don't think the argument that the tax dollars could be spent somewhere else is a valid argument. We are a country of laws and checks and balances and those should play out. I say Gov Herbert should appeal it as high as possible even if his argument is not strong (some think it is) and when he loses we can all be happy that the proper process was carried out and the correct result was the ultimate result.