posted
In what way is your god outside the natural world? Does it, for example, have no effect on the world? In that case, I do not see how you can assert its existence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps a better question is not whether God exists or not, but if God produces measurable effects in the natural world. I'm much more inclined to accept the fact that there exists a Supreme Being, but that he simply does not interact with the world in any measurable way, and as such is entirely unknowable.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand what it means to believe in such a god. What would you do differently, or what would you expect to be different about the world, if you didn't believe in it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's heartbreaking that the First Presidency thinks that this issue is apparently worth praying about and reaching a firm political conclusion on, but not the wars in the Middle East, the fuel crisis, etc. Disappointing a few homosexuals is apparently more important to God than, say, taking a firm stand against mass murder or something. There are so many ways in which someone able to ask God about the viability of certain political measures might be able to do some good; this is not one that I'd put on the top of my list, either way.
I don't think there's a scale; this issue is what is getting attention right now because it's a huge moral delta.
Yes-- the moral change to social acceptance of homosexuality is larger than the moral change to acceptance of America's role in the wars in the middle east.
I hope your heart finds comfort in the fact that you're an American citizen, and thus you have the right to speak out for whatever you feel is just.
I think that the reasons for the doctrine underlying this letter have been discussed fairly extensively here; they shouldn't be a mystery to anyone.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, while the infinite may not be measurable, when measuring it you will at least get the answer "very large". Your god, on the other hand, is very consistently returning an answer of "zero".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. I can see we are not going to agree on the point. In any case, I am more interested in kmb's internal justifications than the actual existence of her god. I know perfectly well she is wrong; what I want to know is how she reconciles the statements I mentioned earlier.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I typed up about four responses to King of Men's post, then refreshed the page and found that you've used one of my considerations already. I applaud your wisdom.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Different kinds of questions have different kinds of answers and different methods for finding those answers. I see no reason to treat every type of experience the same way or to think that there is only one way to think about those experiences. I think that having only the one "tool" (even a very reliable one) for understanding is a bit narrow and limiting.
quote: Yes-- the moral change to social acceptance of homosexuality is larger than the moral change to acceptance of America's role in the wars in the middle east.
The idea that one's soul is imperiled more easily by permitting other people to marry the person they wish than by endorsing or committing the wrongful murder of thousands of people is one that I consider to be an excellent example of the "harms" of religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that one's soul is imperiled more easily by permitting other people to marry the person they wish than by endorsing or committing the wrongful murder of thousands of people is one that I consider to be an excellent example of the "harms" of religion.
Good thing no one's arguing this.
EDIT: Church leaders are certainly not "endorsing or committing murder" via NOT making public statements against the war. (Though I've noticed that many more talks in General Conference seem to reference dissatisfaction with the way things are being handled on the world stage; might be my own prejudices.)
Incidentally, do you believe that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are committing murder right now in their fight against insurgents?
Maybe a different thread topic...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Sure they are. Because at any time, God could have the Mormons weigh in on either side of the global warming debate, or our wars in the Middle East, or the Tibet or Burma or Zimbabwe situations, or the fuel crisis, or any other actually important issue. These are political issues which hinge on open questions: we don't know for a certainty what the best thing to do is, and it'd sure be helpful to have God weigh in (even if just in proxy, through the votes of a couple hundred million Mormons).
On the other hand, we have gay marriage. And presumably the consequences of gay marriage are somehow so horrible that all these other open questions are going to be answered later, if ever. It seems odd to me for God to provide input only on those topics which are meaningless matters of opinion, but YMMV.
quote:Incidentally, do you believe that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are committing murder right now in their fight against insurgents?
I believe that some of them are. And I believe that their presence is also causing additional murders to be committed by other parties. Moreover, our involvement in the Middle East is not the only situation in which our general uncertainty about the "right" decision is causing confusion and great harm; it would be very handy to have God formulate an opinion on some other things, too.
quote:That's certainly a compelling argument. I've just converted.
No comment on KoM;s bald assertions?
It's interesting you chose to comment on only one side of an exchange in which both parties chose to simply assert opposite conclusions without making argument or citing supporting evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Why doesn't God say something about all the wars, and genocides and so forth?
Well-- He has. And there's no real question among the people who claim to listen to him (of any religious stripe), and no real question among those who are in power (in the West anyway) about what He thinks.
God's opinion about those things isn't really where the challenge is-- it's in our actions toward stopping those things.
The Church has taken the position that the best platform for improving the world is through forming families that live according to God's will. Thus, the missionary effort. Thus, the emphasis on stable marriages. Thus, practically all the programs of the Church.
There is currently a question about what sexual behavior is acceptable. The letter from the First Presidency informs people what the Church's position is (and presumably, God's position).
quote:And presumably the consequences of gay marriage are somehow so horrible that all these other open questions are going to be answered later, if ever.
Like I said, the reasons for the Mormon position on why homosexuality is a sin have been explored on this site before. In depth.
Are you looking for this information, Tom?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And there's no real question among the people who claim to listen to him (of any religious stripe), and no real question among those who are in power (in the West anyway) about what He thinks.
I'm not talking about the question of whether wrongful killing is sinful; that's as useless a question as whether homosexuality is sinful. I'm talking about the question of whether Mormons should be supporting a specific instance of legislation that might have as a side effect some wrongful killing. God could provide some helpful information to His flock in those cases, but He'd apparently rather weigh in about whether gay people can call their contracts "marriage" or not.
quote:There is currently a question about what sexual behavior is acceptable.
Ah. But the question is not whether this sexual behavior is acceptable; the church long ago made its position on that one clear. The question is whether certain forms of recognition of couples that might be reasonably assumed to engage in this unacceptable sexual behavior should be legal in a given state.
Interestingly, God has an opinion on that issue. And yet I think whether the war in Iraq is a good idea or not is also an open question, and arguably one that's of more immediate (and lasting) importance to not only our country but several other ones. No one has died from gay marriage yet.
quote:Like I said, the reasons for the Mormon position on why homosexuality is a sin have been explored on this site before. In depth. Are you looking for this information, Tom?
The question is not why Mormons think homosexuality is a sin, or whether they are right to do so. Mormons think drinking coffee is a sin.
The question is why the First Presidency thinks God cares more about looking the other way when two homosexuals hold hands than about looking the other way when -- as a random example -- a genocide is occurring in another country. Like I said, there are lots of things we could use God's input on; how to react to homosexuals is hardly at the top of the list of things that will actually matter.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question is not why Mormons think homosexuality is a sin....
The question is why the First Presidency thinks God cares more about looking the other way when two homosexuals hold hands than about looking the other way when -- as a random example -- a genocide is occurring in another country. Like I said, there are lots of things we could use God's input on; how to react to homosexuals is hardly at the top of the list of things that will actually matter.
The answer is to your question is wrapped up in the doctrine that you just discounted.
So, how exactly did you want me to answer you?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If marriage didn't invovle children, I honestly don't think the first presidency would bother to make it a political issue. But they see themselves as acting for children--it says right in the letter that the reason for the legislation is that a child has the right to be raised is by a mother and a father.
There's no hate mongering, no "because of the pernicious evil that homosexuality represents," none of that. It's just them seeing themselves as serving children who otherwise wouldn't have a say.
I realize that some people find this idea at best quaint and at worst offensive. And I'm not putting it out there to persuade, but more to help the Presidency be understood.
I realize the implication would probably be taken as that homosexual people are inherently less capable of raising children--that's not it at all. The church never would say any individual homosexual person was a bad parent. They simply feel that the ideal situation for the child is to have another parent of the opposite gender.
The same would be true of me. If I were to be in a situation where I was raising my children alone, the church would believe it would be good for my child to have a mother. If my brother were to move in with me and help me raise the kids, nobody would ever dream of saying, "Boy those brothers sure are bad parents." They'd know we loved the kids and were trying hard. But they'd still feel bad for the kids for not having a mother's influence.
So it's not about the homosexual--it's about the child. I hope that even if you don't agree with that (and I don't expect a lot of you to) you can at least see how it doesn't neccessarily imply that a homosexual is inherently a bad parent, and why the issue of marriage is one they speak out on.
They are not advocating illegalizing homosexuality in any way. They are simply acting to preserve a right they feel children have that children cannot act to preserve themselves.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question is why the First Presidency thinks God cares more about looking the other way when two homosexuals hold hands than about looking the other way when -- as a random example -- a genocide is occurring in another country.
Tom this is incredibly dishonest of you. It's clear that the First Presidency doesn't think that what God cares about is two homosexuals holding hands.
This is your old trick - restating what other's believe to "refute" it. It's tiresome.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's clear that the First Presidency doesn't think that what God cares about is two homosexuals holding hands.
Yes, this is clear. It's clear enough, in fact, that I felt obvious hyperbole would make the point in a semi-humorous fashion.
The gist of my point is this: that the public acceptance of homosexuality is seen as something deserving of the authoritative input of a divinely omniscient being and yet the avoidance of mass slaughter is not is something that is a clear and obvious harm of religion. Every single man-hour spent working on this ballot initiative is a Mormon man-hour spent not working on, say, world peace or saving other people from starvation or, well, basically anything actually worthwhile.
--------
quote:But they see themselves as acting for children--it says right in the letter that the reason for the legislation is that a child has the right to be raised is by a mother and a father.
And that's a line of b***, of course, unless the First Presidency is also out there urging the illegality of divorce and insisting that single individuals be prevented from using adoption agencies. Heck, one might wonder where all the children we're saving from same-sex parents are coming from in the first place.
quote:They simply feel that the ideal situation for the child is to have another parent of the opposite gender.
Sure. And of course, any situation but the ideal must actually be discouraged by state law.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The gist of my point is this: that the public acceptance of homosexuality is seen as something deserving of the authoritative input of a divinely omniscient being and yet the avoidance of mass slaughter is not is something that is a clear and obvious harm of religion. Every single man-hour spent working on this ballot initiative is a Mormon man-hour spent not working on, say, world peace or saving other people from starvation or, well, basically anything actually worthwhile.
I've actually already answered this objection, Tom.
It's okay that you don't believe my answer.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: If my brother were to move in with me and help me raise the kids, nobody would ever dream of saying, "Boy those brothers sure are bad parents." They'd know we loved the kids and were trying hard. But they'd still feel bad for the kids for not having a mother's influence.
So it's not about the homosexual--it's about the child. I hope that even if you don't agree with that (and I don't expect a lot of you to) you can at least see how it doesn't neccessarily imply that a homosexual is inherently a bad parent, and why the issue of marriage is one they speak out on.
I think if is obviously false that the Church looks at homosexuals raising kids in a MUCH different light then two brothers raising kids.
If setting up and condoning a sinful environment where one of the most egregious sins (sexual sins) is accepted is not an inherently bad parent in the church's eye, I am not sure what is bad.
Sex sins tend to fall below murder and above everything else.
It very much is about the sinfulness of homosexuality and the destructiveness on the family of accepting homosexuality--ergo bad parenthood.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've actually already answered this objection, Tom.
Oh, I know. Your answer was that it is more important to God that homosexuals not get married than we not make horrible policy mistakes that kill people.
I believe you believe this. And, like I said, I believe this belief is an obvious and demonstrable harm caused by religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you explain to me the distinction between what you said and what I'm saying you said? I don't see one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The Church has taken the position that the best platform for improving the world is through forming families that live according to God's will.
In all of human history, I wonder if there has ever been a more popular moral justification for committing religious atrocities than this one.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't assign value to one or the other options.
I said that the reason the First Presidency is issuing this letter right now is because there is a cultural shift occurring that is out of the norm.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because someone distorts something good for evil ends doesn't mean that the original wasn't good in the first place. "Though all things foul should wear the brow of grace, grace must still look so."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, I know. Your answer was that it is more important to God that homosexuals not get married than we not make horrible policy mistakes that kill people.
I believe you believe this. And, like I said, I believe this belief is an obvious and demonstrable harm caused by religion.
Tom, are you kidding? Did you really believe that Scott believed it was more important to God that homosexual marriage be stopped than wars and such?
You're either lying about believing Scott believed that, or so far removed from anything near the things you're criticizing that one wonders how you get the nerve to do so in the first place.
I wouldn't normally accuse you of lying like that, but your statement is just baffling and offensive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said that the reason the First Presidency is issuing this letter right now is because there is a cultural shift occurring that is out of the norm.
Yes. Is it not your opinion that a similar letter at the beginning of a major war, or prior to the worst of a genocide, or before an oil crisis, etc. would be as useful? Is this cultural shift really more important than all those other political issues of which God could presumably warn us?
quote:Did you really believe that Scott believed it was more important to God that homosexual marriage be stopped than wars and such?
I believe that Scott has failed to fully examine the pecularities of the situation. It is also possible that he underestimates the good millions of Mormon voters could do if organized on the divinely-correct side of a difficult political issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that Scott has failed to fully examine the pecularities of the situation.
Yeah, he's always struck me as a thoughtless, sloppy person when it comes to personal beliefs and convictions and such. Fortunately for him, you're there to examine his discipline, find it wanting (as opposed to seeking an alternative explanation), and instruct him on how best to correct it.
quote:Is this cultural shift really more important than all those other political issues of which God could presumably warn us?
He HAS warned us about those-- repeatedly. And there's no cultural shift saying "War is GRAND! Genocide is A-OK! Oil Crisis-shmisis-- consume more!"
quote:I believe that Scott has failed to fully examine the pecularities of the situation. It is also possible that he underestimates the good millions of Mormon voters could do if organized on the divinely-correct side of a difficult political issue.
I believe the First Presidency is on the correct path right now, inasmuch as I understand Mormon doctrine.
So, if the thousands of Mormon voters in CA align their efforts with the First Presidency's letter, I think they'll be doing what is right.
(Not necessarily what is legal, from a Constitutional standpoint)
As for my examination of the peculiarities of the situation-- It's sweet you're concerned, Tom. But I've got this.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, you are doing to me here exactly what Scott is saying I'm doing to him. And with considerably less accuracy.
I am not saying Scott is thoughtless or sloppy; these are not necessary conclusions drawn from what I have said. I am saying that the fact that God has apparently seen fit to instruct the First Presidency on this issue and not on any other political issue of interest can be assumed to reflect the priorities of either God or the First Presidency.
-------
quote:He HAS warned us about those-- repeatedly. And there's no cultural shift saying "War is GRAND! Genocide is A-OK! Oil Crisis-shmisis-- consume more!"
I think we've identified the point of disagreement, then. I do see just such a "cultural shift," although really it's more of a cultural tendency. I see Mormons urged to produce large families; I see Mormons voting overwhelmingly for leaders rushing us into war and ignoring genocides elsewhere. I do not see Mormons sitting around going, "Gee, looking at all these gay people getting married makes me wonder whether family is really very important."
Mormon leadership has chosen not to provide guidance on the issue of, for example, whether global warming really is something people should take seriously, but rather on whether the people of California should be able to marry other people of the same sex. This despite the fact that there is no pressing demand among Mormons to suddenly start throwing their families away and living like libertines, while there is substantial dispute among Mormons about whether or not we should have signed the Kyoto Protocol.
(Note: I'm using Mormons here only as an example of a group who could presumably fill their ballot out according to the will of God but clearly do not, not because I think they're particularly prone to mistakes or evil or anything.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am saying that the fact that God has apparently seen fit to instruct the First Presidency on this issue and not on any other political issue of interest can be assumed to reflect the priorities of either God or the First Presidency.
And your mistake is in assuming that priorities are set only by the desirability of the outcome of the action decided upon.
There are many other factors - such as the expected efficacy of a particular action, to take just one example - that factor into such a decision.
It's very possible that someone who thinks X is worse than Y will take a particular action against Y and not take that particular action against X. There are many reasons why this might be so.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: The church never would say any individual homosexual person was a bad parent. They simply feel that the ideal situation for the child is to have another parent of the opposite gender.
The same would be true of me. If I were to be in a situation where I was raising my children alone, the church would believe it would be good for my child to have a mother. If my brother were to move in with me and help me raise the kids, nobody would ever dream of saying, "Boy those brothers sure are bad parents." They'd know we loved the kids and were trying hard. But they'd still feel bad for the kids for not having a mother's influence.
The problem, for me, is the massive difference between the way the church deals with single-parent issues and gay marriage issues.
I think we can say without too much controversy that, all other things being equal, single parents are at a decided disadvantage when raising children compared to double-parent households. Even the single parents themselves would probably agree with this statement.
And yet, when children are put in such an unambiguously disadvantageous position, the church does not try to outlaw single-parent households.
On the contrary, I've heard many prophets and apostles state in general conference that, although this situation presents a disadvantage to both parent and child, the church admires them for undertaking such a difficult and vital task, and offers these families the full support of the church and its members.
This is a beautiful and admirable example of the good that organized religion can accomplish. I'm not the product of a single-parent household, but I know people that were, and I know that this support was invaluable to them. Whenever I heard anyone say this in conference, it would bring a tear to my eye, and I'd thank God that I was a member.
I don't personally think that any two-parent household has an advantage over another based solely upon the sexual relationship of the parents. But the church does, and that (in itself) is fine.
Once the church has made that decision, though, I expected them to show the same beautiful gesture of love and support to gay parents/guardians and their dependents that they did to single parents. At first it surprised me that they chose a completely opposite strategy in dealing with them.
Not only do they not support gay parents, not only do they not allow members of their own church to gain those benefits from membership, but they actively try to outlaw marriage to any gay couples, Mormon or not, children or not.
It would seem to me that, even if being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage, it would be in the best interests of the children if those disadvantaged family units were allowed as much stability as possible, starting with marriage [edit: legal, secular marriage, not necessarily church or temple marriage], and continuing with the full support of community and church. The church doesn't have to approve of homosexuality, any more than it has to ignore the disadvantages of single-parent child rearing. But it seems pretty clear that the child's interests would be best served by as much support from church and community as possible in their disadvantaged situation.
In fact, if the church is trying to discourage homosexual relationships, they may very well have better results from loving, supportive persuasion than by trying to outlaw it.
In other words, President Monson may learn something valuable if he puts down the Book of Mormon long enough to skim through some Aesop
quote:There are many other factors - such as the expected efficacy of a particular action, to take just one example - that factor into such a decision.
I earlier commented that another possibility was that Scott was underestimating the potential for good inherent in millions of mobilized Mormon voters -- much less the potential available to, say, Mormon climatologists, who would surely like the First Presidency to send them a letter suggesting useful lines of research.
quote:It's very possible that someone who thinks X is worse than Y will take a particular action against Y and not take that particular action against X.
Which is why I didn't say that God clearly thought gay marriage was worse than wrongful war. I noted merely that God apparently thought gay marriage was a higher priority and more deserving of the action and attentions of His flock.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I earlier commented that another possibility was that Scott was underestimating the potential for good inherent in millions of mobilized Mormon voters -- much less the potential available to, say, Mormon climatologists, who would surely like the First Presidency to send them a letter suggesting useful lines of research.
Perhaps, though, God isn't underestimating the potential for good inherent in such actions.
quote:Which is why I didn't say that God clearly thought gay marriage was worse than wrongful war. I noted merely that God apparently thought gay marriage was a higher priority and more deserving of the action and attentions of His flock.
No, you "noted" much more than that:
quote:The question is why the First Presidency thinks God cares more about looking the other way when two homosexuals hold hands than about looking the other way when -- as a random example -- a genocide is occurring in another country.
Even adjusting for you "hyperbole," you explicitly state that God cares more about looking the other way on the gay marriage issue than genocide in another country.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
If the Church observed a radical political change that led to government endorsement of murder, genocide, adultery, or whatever, there will be just as much outrage. Here are the reasons that homosexuality is a big deal in the Church:
1. A lot of people think it's okay, even righteous. 2. It's happening right at home. 3. It may well lead to more-than-necessary government instruction of the Church.
I don't agree with homosexuality being made into such a big deal (on either side of the issue), regardless of these reasons. But let's be clear that it has nothing to do with priorities in religious doctrine; much more about political fervor.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:you explicitly state that God cares more about looking the other way on the gay marriage issue than genocide in another country
Yes, that would be part of the hyperbole. I'm not seriously asserting that the Christian God doesn't care about genocide; I'm seriously asserting that some of humans are wrong about the actionable priorities we're ascribing to the Christian God.
quote:If the Church observed a radical political change that led to government endorsement of murder, genocide, adultery, or whatever, there will be just as much outrage.
I disagree. I think the last eight years are ample proof of the falseness of this claim; the idea that gay marriage is a hot-button issue now in a way that the invasion of Iraq was not is one that I simply can't grant. But maybe you're right about adultery; we don't have any measure there to compare it to.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The obvious response is that the invasion of Iraq is not perceived as genocide or cold-blooded murder by many members of the Church, rather it is our (America's) attempt to stand against genocide and cold-blooded murder.
And let me tell you that there is much effort and outspokenness about Darfur and Sudan and, yes, Bush's apparent deception, using crummy intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, in the Christian community, especially where I live. There is a majority of those who oppose the war, and a majority of Christians. That means, statistically, that there is overlap. Your problem seems to be more with fanatical Republicans than fanatical Christians, groups than only overlap because the former has been patronizing the latter for a generation.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: And let me tell you that there is much effort and outspokenness about Darfur and Sudan and, yes, Bush's apparent deception, using crummy intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, in the Christian community, especially where I live.
I've got to agree with Tom on this one. Presumably, God wasn't fooled by Bush's crummy intelligence. Presumably, He knew that many members of His church would have made a decision about whether to support this war that they wouldn't have made if they had all the correct information.
If God had a mouthpiece on Earth that was able to give several million American citizens (and a few federal legislators) relevant data that would have helped them make an informed decision about whether to support a war in Iraq, it seems like that would have been at least as good a time to read a short message in sacrament meeting as last weekend was.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your problem seems to be more with fanatical Republicans than fanatical Christians...
I've hit some liberal talking points, but really I'm not trying to be partisan, here. If God does indeed have valuable information that He could share with people about vitally important political issues, that the First Presidency chooses only to share information about His opinion of gay marriage in California is baffling to me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A side question--would you believe it was God's word any more than you do now if he had gone ahead and gave us some good intel about avoiding the war?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly would not have started a thread expressing my disappointment in the First Presidency, since at the very least they'd be meddling in the important things. Whether I believed the intel actually came from God or not would depend on a number of other factors.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your problem seems to be more with fanatical Republicans than fanatical Christians...
I've hit some liberal talking points, but really I'm not trying to be partisan, here. If God does indeed have valuable information that He could share with people about vitally important political issues, that the First Presidency chooses only to share information about His opinion of gay marriage in California is baffling to me.
While I don't know the specifics of First Presidency doctrine, the God's voice that is used to justify the rallying called by the First Presidency probably has a different source than a hypothetical voice of God flat out telling Congress that the Executive Branch is making a mistake. The Bible doesn't say much about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
