Quote:
|
Originally Posted by creekster
Geography does not matter. Should the prophet urge members in Belgium to wirte Bbarbara Boxer?
Of course it was TIC, which is why I called it a 'crack.' The point made, however, is that one without a stake in this nation's political situation has no reason to be involvbed, especially if the prophet has some other reason in mind (or is simply responsindg himself to some sort of inspired direction)
besides simple adoption by the senate.
Is it doctrine? Perhaps, but which doctrine? Is wirting your senator doctrine? No, and I have never claimed it was. Is the proclamation on the family? It is without question based on doctrine and I don't see a meaningful difference between its contents and doctrinal expositions about family by prior prophets or the scritpures. Is all doctrine circumscribed by the literal content of the temple recommend interview? Only indirectly at best, and certainly not for someone of a clever disposition. Supporting the prophet when he asks for support for the family is the doctrine involved, IMO, and that is not geographically limited. The nature of the support requested is so limited, but only becasue the problem he seeks to address is so limited. If the prophet asks church members living adjacent to a disaster area to provide service to that area based on the principles of charity does that mean the request must be non-doctrinally based given that it doens't extend to members living on other continents?
Let me ask you this: Do you truly believe that the fact that the letter doen't ask you to take a specirfic position (as I pointed out in one of my ealriest posts about the letter) means that opposing the amendment is consistent with the letter's purpose?
|
As to your last question, it could be. What do I know? If the purpose of the letter is, as many supporters have suggested here, to get Mormons involved in civics, then any letter would accomplish that task. The amendment isn't going to pass, so I can't imagine the purpose is to get it to pass (or it is already a lost cause).
As to geographics, here is why it is important. I am not disputing that marriage, according to God, should be between a man and a woman. I am suggesting that the appropriate path to take to accomplish that goal is through persuasion and missionary efforts, not through a constitutional amendment.
Opposing the course the church has adopted to accomplish a task is not the same as opposing the underlying purpose of the adopted course. If the course the church is proposing was required or doctrinal, then everyone would be required to do something similar. My remark about geography isn't to be taken as asking everyone in the world to write a US Senator. It is a question as to why everyone in the world hasn't been asked to push their country for a similar proposition. The fact that only a few countries have been asked to do something on this issue leads me to conclude that this approach has been deemed advisable here, but not elsewhere (which means it can hardly be construed as doctrinal).
I disagree with their analysis that this is a good course of action to take.