What to you is the most important issue right now?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

What to you is the most important issue right now?

arbilad · Head Chef

Hoss Cartwright wrote:

I did not speak out against church leaders or doctrine, and I really have no inclination or desire to do so.

Many members of this church hold the exact same opinions as I do, publish books and articles about it, and hold temple recommends.

Odd, I could have sworn that you posted this:

I support homosexuals being able to marry civily, if they want to.

My opinion on government-sanctioned marriages is that any two unrelated adults (over the age of 18) should be able to enter into a marriage. I pretty much have no problem with polygamous marriages, as long as all participants are over the age of 18.

Frankly, this likely puts me at odds with church teachings.

Posting an opinion that you admit is at odds with church teachings? That sounds pretty much like debating church doctrine to me. I mean, come on, you don't get any more doctrinal than an official statement by the Prophet. It means absolutely nothing how many people do or do not hold an opinion, it doesn't make it church doctrine. Church doctrine is revealed in the manner He has prescribed, through people with the stewardship to do so.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

I never said the church teaching was wrong.

I said "this is what I think, and this is what I do to adhere as closely to church teaching as I can, given where my head is right at this moment."

I do not go out and push for legislation allowing same sex marriage.

I may occasionally "talk" or "post" about my less-than-perfect attitude among "friends" who request my opinion.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

{moderator hat on}

Okay, at the request of Arbilad for a moderation, I have determined the need to lock this thread for a while until cooler minds can prevail.

The topic of the thread is "What to you is the most important issue right now?" not "Why you agree or disagree with others for what they feel is the most important issue right now." I think the thread is okay with one stating why they feel their choice is most important, but it clearly wasn't set up to debate.

So, please, gentlemen and brethren, let's not take this debate to other threads either. Please just step back, take a breather from this for a day or so, and during that time, examine if there is anything you would like to remove from this thread on your own (I have edited nothing) so that the topic can get back on topic.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Thread is now reopen for on-topic discussion.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

The most important issue to me right now is that we all show love to each other... and hug a lot.

--Ray

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I voted for the war on terror, as I see the majority did. If we are overcome as a nation, the functioning of the Church as we know it would be over. Freedom of religion could become a thing of the past... missionary work, temples, it could all dissipate if we find ourselves less than the #1 power in this world. All the issues are important, but shrinking the size of government/taxes I see as sort of an ongoing problem that doesn't exactly interfere with my living the Gospel as I see fit. Likewise with illegal immigration, which has me perhaps thinking more "soft" on this issue now, thanks to some posts a while back...

Then there's fixing social problems - that's a problem alright, but one that will persist until the End. Likewise abortion. As for education, that's something I take as a personal responsibility and something I could have control over regardless of the government's dealing with the issue. Same sex marriage is a big issue for LDSs, because I'm of the opinion that once that clears, polygamy is coming back, folks! I think that will affect all of us. What the Church does about it will be something to see.

Sorry for any repeating - did not read throught the whole thread first.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Get off me, ray! I don't want you huggin' me!!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I guess I tend to focus on internal political issues, before external ones...

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

But again... if freedom of religion goes, where's yer internal issues then?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:

... If we are overcome as a nation, the functioning of the Church as we know it would be over. Freedom of religion could become a thing of the past... missionary work, temples, it could all dissipate if we find ourselves less than the #1 power in this world...

Interesting thought, that I completely agree with. A strong degree of sovereignty is required to maintain our freedoms.

I wonder if being the #1 world power is the degree of sovereignty required, or at least such an overwhelming #1. I think it may help our missionary efforts if the US were not so overwhelmingly powerful. Hear me out:

A small part of me wonders if the church is too much indentified with the power of the United States, and that may be currently hindering missionary work.

Certainly, there are those that are drawn to the power and wealth exuded by North Americans. Is this necessarily the best convert to have, those with the ulterior motive of sidling up to those they view as somehow dominant?

I know that in my own case, I eschew the dominant. I do not like those people. I prefer to go my own way culturally, and shy away from those movies, singers, TV shows which are "all the latest rage." It's the contratrian in me, I suppose.

Perhaps if the US were slightly less powerful and culturally dominant, would a different set of investigators emerge, a set who are interested in the church for itself, and not for the possibility that through the church "I can get in good with the Americans?"

-- Edited by Hoss Cartwright at 10:26, 2007-05-03

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I think there's some merit to Hoss' comment. We do have a huge retention problem, don't we? But I wouldn't know really how much people in other countries see Mormonism as "American." Anyone else who maybe served a foreign mission?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

In Chile, it was a huge problem, and still is.

Love of America and this "American" religion are not enough to get you through the hard tests, especially when the handsome elder who baptized you has long since gone home and never writes.

dilbert · Senior Member

I served in Brazil. There were a few here and there who were interested in talking to me only because I was American, but it was easy to tell them from the sincere investigators. I don't believe any who were investigating "the Americans" made it all the way to baptism. Those pesky commitments kept getting in their way.

Of course there were always the young ladies who were very interested in a tall (at least by their standards) blue-eyed American 20 year old guy. But, even though I never played organized football, I had a pretty good stiff-arm, so they weren't too much of a problem.

You raise an interesting question, Hoss, about the effect that America's image has on missionary work. I suppose there were some who were turned off because they considered the Mormon church to be an "American" church. I certainly tried to down-play my nationality when I was a missionary (by avoiding the tourist, ugly-American, or CIA images). But I think for most people I talked to the "American" aspect of the Mormon church was a relatively minor side issue. They were interested or not based on their readiness to hear the word of God. I guess we would have to see the status of the USA change significantly to know for sure...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Once while on my mission a member of the small branch in Pisa, Italy saw some family pictures. i was showing him my parent's home and the land they lived on, the size of the yard, the apple trees, etc... He got this almost angry look on his face, and said, "You don't know how blessed you are." He mentioned about how we Americans have everything, and that we don't even know it.

At the time I thought he was being petty and prideful, but as I think back on the experience, I cannot help but think that he was a normal guy trying to provide for his family, and feeling the pressures of doing so in a vastly different country with vastly different challenges--many of which are more primal--the need to feed the family, have a secure place to raise his children, that burden was and is probably quite crushing... as I feel it now and have a rather large house compared with his appartment.

--Ray

PS> On the topic of gay marriage, Hoss, I know you've stated all you intend to, but I just wanted to state that I entirely agree with your feelings towards the issue. Ironically my conclusion politically is to oppose the idea of gay marriage, BECAUSE I have a great deal of empathy for their plight. Of course, that's impossible to prove and probably not as straightforward logically as just "Give them what they want..."

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

In Germany a couple decades ago, sometimes being American got you in the door with older folks who were grateful for liberation from the Nazi regime... and other times it got the door slammed in your face physically or spiritually as it brought up anything from resentment to post combat stress syndrome reactions (yes, I had that happen at least once when going door to door and coming upon veterans). There were even some members who were more enamored with the missionaries because of their "novelty" of being Americans...

But, at the same time, for a long period on my mission, we were not permitted to even wear our nametags (rule from the equivalent of the Area Presidency I think) or speak English, even in the apartment, or tell anyone we were Americans. This was due to the risk of active terrorist threats against Americans and American interests in Germany at the time. I was there when the US bombed Libya's Col Khadafy's palace in response to the Berlin serviceman's discotheque bombing.

I would hope that in the intervening years, missionaries are taught to play down their "American" aspect so that they can focus more on having people listen to the teaching of the gospel. Ditto to Hoss' comment just before dilbert's, and I think that applies to anywhere outside of the U.S. or Canada to some extent.

Kevin · Veteran Member

I suddenly find myself strangely for gay marriage. After all, we were the "freaks" once, you know.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I've been away from the discussion and revised my thinking on the homosexual marriage issue: As long as the government continues to define marriage in a way that is still (barely) in harmony with gospel principles, I think it deserves our support. When (not if) the government defines marriage in a way hostile to gospel principles, then it is time to remove government's power to define marriage in any way, and ensure that institutes of religion have full protection to define marriage.

I suppose it's like using my original position as the fall-back position and being fully prepared to fight on that front when we lose the other one.

eta: Philosophically, I'm still opposed to government regulation of marriage--it's an unnecessary entanglement of the state into personal, community, and religious life. But that's the libertarian ideal, not the reality in which we live.

-- Edited by Roper at 18:29, 2007-05-09

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Hey Roper! I missed you.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Roper wrote:
it's an unnecessary entanglement of the state into personal, community, and religious life. But that's the libertarian ideal, not the reality in which we live.

Truly this seems to be the thing that government does BEST... involving themselves where they don't belong... simply because they can... I guess??? I don't think I will ever understand this phenomenon...

wanders away... "I Wonder When He Comes Again"....

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Roper,

Thanks for your thoughts... I feel I understand a little bit better where you are coming from.

I pray that we don't loose the battle and I hope that it's not inevitable.

It's been 12 years now since The Proclamation on the Family was issued. I can see it being added to our scriptures eventually. It will be a legacy of this First Presidency that has spent so much time together.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I think "The Family - A Proclamation to the World" should become section 139. If not, it should become at least Official Declaration #3.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Ditto Roper. I must admit that your position makes full sense to me. I think you're on the right track. Fight for it now and then when it's been fully corupted fight to get out of it.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I'm still confused by that logic, honestly. Fight allowing the legal definition of marriage be changed to include homosexual relationships now, but when the law of the land becomes corrupt to the point that anything goes and must be accomodated for, we fight to get the government out of the marriage business?

I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't understand that viewpoint. In my mind, the only way to do the latter would be to put ourselves as a people above the law and government...

arbilad · Head Chef

I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't understand that viewpoint. In my mind, the only way to do the latter would be to put ourselves as a people above the law and government...

Our perceptions must differ markedly, because I really don't see where anyone suggested putting themselves above the law. Roper suggested that, once homosexual marriage becomes part of the law, fight to get the law changed. That's the advantage of living in a representitive republic; if you don't like the law, you can work to change the law.
Roper is saying that, once the government approves same sex marriage, he's going to work to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. That's a change in the law. I don't think he's suggesting roughing anyone up.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I'm still confused.

I don't see it as being feasible to get the law changed back if homosexual marriage ever becomes a part of the law. Where has anything been successful so far in repealing the law in Massachussetts, or the recognition of civil unions in the couple other states? I think it is too late to fight it then. And unless we as a civilization go through a great crisis that makes everyone give more than a temporary nod to returning to a moral basis, there will be little desire / reason to do so as most people are pretty apathetic when it comes to after-the-fact issues.

I guess what I don't get is how getting the government out of the marriage business altogether after it becomes law is going to change anything for the better. If there is no regulation, then it truely becomes a law unto each person as they see fit to define it.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

So Cat, which would you rather have? Government-defined marriage that includes homosexual unions--a concept that would essentially be forced upon society (including the curriculum for schools), or a definition of marriage determined by churches and communities that reflect the values of the members?

If homosexual marriage ever becomes legally recognized, I'm concerned that the gay rights agenda will try to force churches to recognize their legal unions. I see that as a clear violation of the establishment clause, but I think that's where we're heading.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I would rather have the latter, with the government supporting that tradition. But, the reality is we have the government involved, and it has been at least as long as British Common Law has been in place, for the very reason that a very vocal, well organized, and well funded portion of the community has been pushing for redefinition across the whole society.

Your second paragraph is the exact reason why we can't wait, and why we need to actively engage the government in upholding the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman. They (as a political entity) are already working towards that part of their agenda, getting the government to redefine and/or otherwise accomodate. They actively work to discredit anyone or anything that speaks against them. They work to have the government withhold funding to anything that would otherwise be eligible if it does not shut up and get in line with their views. They have been actively working on social engineering for a couple decades now. That part of their agenda "came out of the closet" in the '80's.

I really don't think we are that different in our perception. I just don't understand exactly your approach to the issue. That is where I am confused.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Should marriage only benefit religious people?

--Ray

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Let me just slip this in here and be gone.

My biggesst concern is the inattention of Americans to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, and their placing too implicit a confidence in their public servants and failing properly to scrutinize their conduct; thus being made the dupes of designing men and becoming the instruments of their own undoing. Bye.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Gays take Connecticut to court

And the direct frontal attacks continue...

Come, let us all sing together "Wrest, wrest, wrest the law, wrest it for the gays... oops I said something un-pc, now they're gonna scream!"

The following statement from the article states it pretty well
Connecticut was the first state to allow civil unions without court pressure, but the couples say that's not enough.Nor will it ever be enough until their way is promoted as a right way without any dissension or disagreement.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

And so we continue to pray that the Lord will shorten the days 'til his coming for the elects sake.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:
I really don't think we are that different in our perception. I just don't understand exactly your approach to the issue. That is where I am confused.

So Cat, let's look at this from a D&D perspective, which, after the sciptures of course, is always useful in understanding the big issues in life biggrin

My assessment is that you approach this issue from a lawful good alignment:

Lawful Good is known as the "Saintly" or "Crusader" alignment. A lawful good character typically acts with compassion, and always with honour and a sense of duty. A lawful good nation would consist of a well-organized government that works for the benefit of its citizens.*

I, on the other hand, approach the issue from a chaotic good alignment:

Chaotic Good is known as the "Beatific" or "Rebel" alignment. A chaotic good character favours change for the greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom.*

Does that help? wink

* Definitions courtesy of Wikipedia

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Maybe, but not really, since I never played D&D, even though whenever I tried to join in, folks (e.g. my bro-in-laws) usually made my short lived character lawful good...

But strangely, it does seem to have some sort of calming effect as a result throwing some sort of saving roll of a couple d10 after seeing the spectral appearance of a raybies troglodyte with a flaming sword of apocolyptic doom...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Hey! It's not nice to upset the Dungeon Master... furious

--Ray

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Chaotic Good all the Way! Or Chaotic Neutral.....BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

Shiz... your avatar looks like my best friend from HS's father... ;)

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Your best friend from HS was related to Fred Thompson!?!?

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

No, but they are very close look a-likes. Her father is no longer in his mortal probation... It just gave me a "startle" when I first saw it... I'd never seen a picture of the Senator before...