Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> The teachings of the church causing it, and the Church itself 
>> supporting it, are two separate things.
> 
> I disagree.

Fair enough.

>> Historically, the LDS Church has never been about telling people what 
>> to specifically do
> 
> So, all that stuff I hear about not drinking caffeine and such, that's 
> not "the LDS church telling people what to specifically do"?

If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are 
much more restrictive.  All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is BS.

Here's what the Church says:
Don't drink alcohol.
Don't drink tea or coffee.
Don't eat too much meat.
Get plenty of fruits and vegetables.
Exercise to stay in shape.
Everything else in moderation.

Not much too it, and pretty much common sense.

> Well, sure. And if the teaching is "gay people are evil and should be 
> repressed at every opportunity, and black people are literally spawn of 
> satan on earth", you don't think that's telling people how to live their 
> lives?  Isn't telling people specifically how to live their lives what 
> churches are *for*?

I think you have a different church in mind.  The LDS church never said 
"gay people are evil and should be repressed at every opportunity, and 
black people are literally spawn of satan on earth."

Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't the 
majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts saying 
stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:29:03 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> One of the largest financial contributors (if not the single largest
>> contributor) to the pro-Proposition 8 vote was the LDS Church and its
>> membership.
> 
> Its membership, not the Church itself.  As a rule the Church itself
> stays out of politics, other than to say "Follow your conscience."

Um, maybe that's what they want people to believe, but the Church itself 
is credited for donating just over $55,000.  That's in the Church's name.

That doesn't include Church-owned businesses or individuals with a lot of 
pull.

> In fact, just about every election the leaders are asked to read a
> statement to the congregations reminding them that
> 
> 1) The Church does not tell you how to vote. 2) Church facilities may
> not be used for political purposes 3) The Church does not endorse any
> specific individual OR piece of legislation
> 4) You should vote.

Yes, they *say* that, and that's the official stance that keeps them from 
running afoul of the laws that govern their ability to participate in 
politics.  However if you talk to people who are members of the church, 
they'll generally tell you that while the church takes no official 
position, it's pretty clear which position is desirable.

My wife has a gay brother (who was married in California to his partner 
before Prop 8 passed) who used to be LDS.  My wife used to be LDS, and 
her father is a bishop.  I work in an office in Utah county, where one of 
the largest conservative groups of LDS members live.

Fact of the matter is that for out-of-state contributions in support of 
Prop 8, Utah ranked 1st with more than 50% of out-of-state 
contributions.  It's no coincidence that the LDS Church's home state made 
such a large contribution - and I think it's highly unlikely that it 
wasn't because of the Church pushing a socially conservative agenda.  
Remember that this is a church that has repressed women since its 
inception and minorities until relatively recently.

It's also highly ironic that the Church's historic "marriage" is 
polygamistic (still practiced by some sects, as much as the Church tries 
to distance itself from its history and sects like the FLDS) and they 
"fought" for "traditional marriage".  Personally, I find that highly 
amusing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:25:29 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> Historically, the LDS Church has never been about telling people what to
> specifically do (ie, how to vote), but rather how they should live their
> lives, and letting members apply those teachings appropriately.

That's the rather insidious part.  I don't mean this as a a personal 
attack, as I said, I have many friends who are members (and my father-in-
law is a bishop), but telling people how to live their lives and then 
charging the membership to go forth and apply those teachings *is* 
telling people what to do and what they should support.

That it's not direct direction doesn't mean they're not saying "do what 
we say" - "this is what is good", and then "do what you think is right" 
is pushing a particular social agenda.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:38:46 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> And there's a sickness
> called "Baron Münchhausen Syndrome" which involves someone unable to
> stop making up unbelievable stories about his exploits.

I think you're making that up. <scnr>

(Yes, I know you're really serious, I REALLY couldn't resist)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:06:27 -0700, Chambers wrote:

>> So, all that stuff I hear about not drinking caffeine and such, that's
>> not "the LDS church telling people what to specifically do"?
> 
> If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are
> much more restrictive.  All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is
> BS.

Um, no, actually, it's not, at least not according to Bishop H. Burke 
Peterson, First Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric in 1975.  He 
interpreted the D&C specifically around the logic that:

1.  D&C 89:10 refers to "all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for teh 
constitution, nature, and use of man."
2.  D&C 89:11:  "All these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving"
3.  Two tests can be employed:  Is it wholesome?  Is it Prudent?

Cola drinks contain caffeine, a drug.  Caffeine is not wholesome nor 
prudent for the use of our bodies.  Therefore, as the Bishop wrote, "It 
is only sound judgment to conclude that cola drinks and any others that 
contain caffeine or other harmful ingredients should not be used."  (Q&A, 
New Era, Oct. 1975.)

Does this apply today?  You bet.  Just go to The Roof (I have) and try 
ordering a caffeinated beverage.  (The Roof is a Church-owned restaurant 
in the Joseph Smith building here in Salt Lake City)

>> Well, sure. And if the teaching is "gay people are evil and should be
>> repressed at every opportunity, and black people are literally spawn of
>> satan on earth", you don't think that's telling people how to live
>> their lives?  Isn't telling people specifically how to live their lives
>> what churches are *for*?
> 
> I think you have a different church in mind.  The LDS church never said
> "gay people are evil and should be repressed at every opportunity, and
> black people are literally spawn of satan on earth."

On the issue of blacks, I agree - though it's strangely odd that the 
civil rights movement coincided with the church's "enlightenment" on 
people of colour being allowed into the priesthood. O_o

And no, the LDS church never said "gay people are evil and should be 
repressed" - but they do say that homosexual or lesbian behaviour is a 
sexual sin violating God's "law of chastity".  As a result, many people 
in leadership roles in the church (maybe not in the First Presidency or 
the Quorum of the 12, I don't follow it that closely) have tried to 
"cure" those who are gay.

> Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't the
> majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts saying
> stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.

Got an example of that?  I've not found one myself...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Marriage has nothing to do with that.  Virtually all joint bank accounts 
> are held with "right of survivorship," meaning when one owner dies the 
> remaining funds are the property of the surviving owners.

Unless, you know, it was only opened by one person. Then where does it go?

> In accounts held without right of survivorship, the deceased's share 
> passes to their estate,

And who gets the estate if there isn't a will?

>>  You have a married couple. They have a kid. Kid's mother dies. Dad 
>> remarries. Kid's dad dies. Who has custody of the kid?
> 
> If you'd like my honest opinion, I would say the stepmother. 

Why? If the government has no recognition of marriage, why would the 
government let the stepmother have custody of the child?

>> Husband spends whole life providing for wife. Wife has no career 
>> outside the house. Husband dies. Who gets husband's social security 
>> payments? Who inherits the husband's money if the husband made no will?
> 
> If the husband left no will, then that's an oversight on his part.  It's 
> not the Government's place to protect us from our own stupidity.

That doesn't answer the question. You're trying to deny that the question 
won't come up.

> As I've said, however, designating a default heir should be a simple, 
> easy matter, which would cover anything not specified in a will.

We have that. We call it "marriage". See? :-)

> I agree, you still need defaults.  That's why I think designating a next 
> of kin or heir should be a simple, easy legal process.

That's not a default.  A default means "what if I don't do that?"

If you're religiously married, and your spouse doesn't have a will, and you 
die, do you get any of his money, or does it all go to the children immediately?

> The fact that "marriage" is a loaded word, with a lot of history, 
> assumptions and ideas that go with it.  Assumptions and ideas that make 
> people get itchy for a fight, like is happening now with laws & 
> amendments covering gay marriage.

That fight has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with gay. 
You're falling for the propaganda.

You know, the interracial marriage fight wasn't about "preserving 
traditional marriage" either.

> AFAIK, most states have "implied consent" laws.  If you're hurt so badly 
> that you are unable to communicate whether or not you wish to be 
> treated, you are assumed to consent to the treatment.

Unless, you know, the wife is there.

> Organ donatorship is usually specified on drivers' licenses as a 
> convenience, though I believe family is consulted as a courtesy (which 
> I'm personally against; if I want to donate my organs, I don't want my 
> family taking that away from me after I've kicked the bucket).
> 
>> Say you wrote up a contract with your boyfriend. Does the doctor have 
>> to honor that contract? He's not a party to it, remember.
> 
> What kind of contract?  What would you be specifying in it?

That the boyfriend gets to make the medical decisions.

> You can't just put anything you want in a contract and expect it to be 
> binding.

Well, yes, exactly. That's why we have laws saying things like "after 
marriage, the spouse can make medical decisions in an emergency, and the 
spouse gets to visit the victim in the hospital, and so on."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:56:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:

>>> Husband spends whole life providing for wife. Wife has no career
>>> outside the house. Husband dies. Who gets husband's social security
>>> payments? Who inherits the husband's money if the husband made no
>>> will?
>> 
>> If the husband left no will, then that's an oversight on his part. 
>> It's not the Government's place to protect us from our own stupidity.
> 
> That doesn't answer the question. You're trying to deny that the
> question won't come up.

Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to protect 
us from the stupidity of others, no?  So in this instance, the government 
would be protecting the rightful heirs from the stupidity of the 
deceased.  They're certainly not protecting the deceased from his/her own 
stupidity:  The deceased is, by definition, no longer a party to the 
affairs in question.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are 
> much more restrictive.  All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is BS.

It's amazing how often the fallacy of "et tu" comes up in religious 
conversations.   "Your religion is broken."  "Well, theirs is broken worse, 
so that's OK."

> Not much too it, and pretty much common sense.

The jewish dietary restrictions were pretty common sense for their time too. 
But that's utterly irrelevant. You contended the church doesn't tell people 
what to do. When I give examples of the church doing exactly that, you 
dismiss them as "well, it's common sense."

Aren't mormons also disallowed from smoking, or at least chewing tobacco? 
(And doesn't that rule hold from even before it was common sense?) Isn't (or 
at least wasn't) it very bad for a white to marry a black? To masturbate? To 
be homosexual? Isn't this telling people specifically what to do in many 
circumstances?

> I think you have a different church in mind.  The LDS church never said 
> "gay people are evil and should be repressed at every opportunity, and 
> black people are literally spawn of satan on earth."


Sorry, isn't LDS the church of Mormon? Or am I confused?

OK, looking farther, I see I am mistaken. It's Cain, not Satan, that blacks 
are descended from. And Cain wasn't a Satan worshiper, but rather just 
someone who didn't take sides in the big battle. My bad. Hard to keep track 
of all the details of all the different tales.

Of course, blacks *are* evil and shouldn't be allowed to marry whites. But I 
guess being cursed by God and actually being spawn of Lucifer are different 
things.

And it isn't gay people who are evil, but the act of being gay. Because, you 
know, part of a person's personality being evil doesn't mean the *person* is 
evil. It just means you should shun them until they get over it.

So yes, I suppose technically my statement was flawed. Thanks for that 
correction.

> Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't the 
> majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts saying 
> stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.

So none of these quotes are actually accurate?
http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro.htm

How about these? Who comes down hard on the LDS president when he mentioned 
that homosexuality is unholy? Or that the ERA should be opposed because it 
might lead to gays getting rights too?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_lds2.htm

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Um, maybe that's what they want people to believe, but the Church itself 
> is credited for donating just over $55,000.  That's in the Church's name.

They revised it later to about 4x as much, by the way. Once they were called 
out on it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On 5 Jul 2009 23:01:33 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Well, and what's more, it is ostensibly the Government's place to protect 
>us from the stupidity of others, no?

And our own sometimes. But who is supposed to protect us from the stupidity of
our governments?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message