In closing, the words of the prophets:

“You say you’ll change the constitution, well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution, well you know
You better free your mind instead”
Emily

Even after you speak to these things I’m still not getting it, Derek, lol. You are a man cut out of your own cloth. I’m here to learn about the perspectives of others and to build relationships, so do forgive me if I don’t understand your mysteries or exaggerated sense of polemics. Your comments belong in the Pompidou Centre rather than a blog like this.

But, please, consider me “the weakest of the saints” and consider now as the time when all of the saints shall know the mysteries of godliness!

There is one great, vast, and virtual temple that man has constructed (through DoD contracts with Mormon ties) in which knowledge and intellect freely flow; and, guess what, you’re in it!

Hush now, can you feel the Comforters in this Celestial Room adorned with the beauty of the baud and with chandeliers of electrons and switches?

I appreciate your sentiment and your sensible (and quite excellent) rebuttals to my exaggerated sense of polemicism.

When considering my attitude and disposition, feel free to be racist: I descend from the “warlike” race of the O’More family, Clan Cionga, Clanna-Rory, the House of Ir. πολεμικως (polemikos) means “warlike” or “hostile”. I am also a Real McCoy(tm), and researchers seem to have found certain genetic traits in us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud#Possible_genetic_explanation).

“But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.” — James 3:8

While friends are always nice, I have more interest in perturbing the waters and speaking to things which are little known. The Missouri tongue is quite harsher than what is to be found in the rest of the United States. Remember: we brought you (and continue to revere) the likes of Jesse James! (Just yesterday I was driving down Troost deep in the ‘hood [Kansas City is also still quite segregated], when I caught a glimpse of the following license plate: 3KS4ME!)

Hah. Maybe you can’t. Really though, it IS possible to be a LITTLE more sensitive (not overly sensitive like me) and consider the rest of the readers here when you comment. It would go a long way towards winning friends and influencing people. Otherwise, we’ll continue to “editorialize” your comments, or, if you insist, moderate your comments entirely.

In that picture the Presidents Bush & Monson are shaking hands, and [deleted description of temple action]. So you say it means nothing they use a half-version of the [self-censored name]… I say it weirds me out!

How about if I link to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_%28Latter_Day_Saints%29#cite_note-25

Please feel free to censor Wikipedia. Who is to say how much or how little of the temple can be cited here? I have tried to be respectful in pointing out the handshake/grip and saying not much more — I guess I can’t say anything at all!

I am not bound by an oath or a covenant, I am an uninitiated Priest after the Order of Aaron and I was born a Nazarite like Samson (I do possess the Melchizedek priesthood by right of my father and the lineage of kings, but I do not possess an office, station, or ordination in that priesthood). What I know about the temple I’ve learned either from my parents or by studying history.

Ray #59 — Perhaps a “division amongst the Church” is a folk tale peculiar to Kansas City or the mid-west. It seems like something I remember from childhood. Perhaps I a mistakingly inserting a memory, if no one else can confirm this folk story.

Maybe it is stuff like this declaration regarding homosexual marriage that will effect a split in the Church.

Ever since I was a kid, I’ve always had a very creepy feeling about Thomas S. Monson (during conferences).

Pictures like this make me feel like the “Illuminati” is finally in charge of our Church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:President_Bush_meets_with_First_Presidency_of_LDS_church_May_2008.jpg

***(Derek, I some of your temple language has been expurgated) – admin.

#55 – Rigel – Thanks for the other perspective.

I am fine with people having their religious/spiritual beliefs about homosexuality, but when they bring it to the secular sphere I want secular proof. (Re: from the article “it does hurt society.”) I have asked people more than once for any evidence that having gay parents is not good for children, for example, and have yet to see any. If anyone has anything on gay parents specifically, please let me know.

It does hurt society, said David, a Turlock resident who once struggled with homosexual temptations. He went to counseling in Sacramento through Exodus International and has been married for 10 years. To protect family members, he asked that his full name not be used.

He calls gay marriages “immoral,” but also believes the church as a whole needs to learn to respond to homosexuals with truth “tempered by love. I do believe there are many people in the homosexual community who have been hurt.”

He rejects the idea that the Bible is wishy-washy on the issue.

“Jesus didn’t mention lots of things, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say they’re not wrong or sinful,” he said. “He never mentioned incest. And he never said (homosexuality) was OK. There wasn’t any confusion among the people about that issue, so he didn’t clarify it.”

I’m saddened.

Katie, last time, I only know of one person who was called in by local leaders last time, during about Prop 22, and that was because he had written a letter to the local paper, critical of church involvement. The problem is that last time, our meetings were taken over by the issue, many times. One time we were even dismissed from church after Sacrament Meeting and sent home with lists of precincts to walk and knock on doors to talk to voters. People who were very involved in the efforts to support the proposition were pretty much the same ones who were called to what my old bishop referred to as “high profile” callings, like bishop, high council, etc, for the next few years.

In my ward (Logan, UT), they made mention of the letter in passing, but didn’t read it. I thought it was interesting they’d brought it up. Our high councilman talked about the members on the “fringe” who opposed the amendment and were turning in their memberships, etc. as a result.

It’s difficult, because this really *is* a political issue, not just a moral one. Politically, I’m just not down with the government favoring one group of people over another, or denying them basic privileges because of their sexual orientation. Like many main-stream Mormons, I view homosexuality as “sinful” behavior–just as many homosexuals undoubtedly view the Church as being wrong or incorrect–but one doesn’t have to be an ardent gay-rights supporter to have problems with the amendment. I wish there were just a little more consideration for those of us who are “faithful” members of the Church, but have political views that hold justice and equality before the law as being absolutely paramount, and view this legislation as being counter to those core principles. The cognitive dissonance gets kind of loud when on one hand you’re asked to deny your framework for making all your political decisions…and on the other, you’re going against the counsel of the Church.

I mean, I’m new to this discussion and so you may have addressed this elsewhere, but would it be possible for members in California to, say, reject this bit of council and still be considered (and/or consider themselves) faithful? (Feel free to ignore this question if it’s too much of a threadjack.)

Not a good idea in my opinion (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
Rogneid, karmsy

I was raised LDS.

A core part of their culture is the flight west to SLC. Driven out of Missouri and Illinois because of their religious beliefs.

But from their perspective, the willingness to abandon their homes, families, and everything else to defend their beliefs is what makes them the one true church.

So by protesting their decision, at their church, you are strongly reinforcing this belief system.

It changes this from being yet another thing they ask you to do (like weeding next saturday at the Stake farm) into a core battle to defend their beliefs.

Not a good idea in my opinion.

by jello5929 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:57:52 PM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/28/65245/2417/859/543246

////////////////////////////////////

Also

The Anglican Communion will be split tomorrow when conservatives representing more than half its total membership will announce the formation of a new orthodox body to be a stronghold against liberal views. It will be schism in all but name.

The new global Anglican fellowship will act within the legal boundaries of provinces such the Church of England that make up the existing Communion but, in North America, it will declare its independence from the ultra-liberal Episcopal Church and from the Anglican church in Canada.

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3654

That bears a comparison.

Sorry this is happening.

You can read a good deal of analysis of actual prosecutions over at Volokh.com — a law professor group blog. They are libertarians, so mostly in favor of freedom to marry and free speech.

It appears I did not make myself clear. Sorry. There is nothing in the law about homosexuality or any of its synonyms. I know we as American’s hold freedom of speech scared, but laws already have been enacted, such as not yelling fire in a crowded theater. I suggest you read the Canadian law because the protections it has are quite extensive. One of the websites I found uses the example of ministers in the U.S. calling for the mass genocide of wiccan’s. To be honest I don’t know many wiccans, infact I know none, but to call for them all to be killed seems reckless and I think the minister should be held accountable. The ministers are completely free to do this because of the first amendment. I really don’t get this idea that the constitution should be set in stone. Our founding fathers never intended this. Oh and if you think freedom of speech is alive and well in the U.S. most studies have shown quite the opposite. Unfortunately it is not protecting the common man or woman, it is protecting big business. Clear Channel is a case in point.

The legal test in Canada for hate speech is that the speech is likely to promote violence against an identifiable group. The case law on Hate Speech creates a very high bar – you can find plenty of anti-semitic (both against Jews and Palestinians), anti-American, anti-French, anti-English, anti-East coast / West Coast, anti-First Nations (lots of that) all over the place in Canada with no laws being broken. The only problem is when sub-standard adjudicators like the Human Rights Tribunals with no legal training but with lots of piss and vinegar try to make the world in their image, making outrageous decisions that are rarely appealed.

Whatever the case, it is a fine line – no freedom exists in a vacuum, but every single one must be balanced against the other.