cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board - View Single Post

creekster · 05-29-2006, 08:23 PM

Utah Dan is IMO exactly right about this issue. IN many respects I am not excited about substantive amendments. I will follow the prophet on this issue, however. For me, it is that simple.

The MX example, btw, is misleading. Here is the church's statement on the MX: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q= mx%20missile$xhitlist_x=Simple$xhitlist_s=relevanc e-weight$xhitlist_d=$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C 0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$ xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef

No action was requested of the membership, and it was not linked to a specific fundamnetal issue in the church.

Was the letter read on Sunday doctrinal? Perhaps not; in fact, it didn't even ask us to express a specific viewpoint. Instead, it asked us to express ourselves but it made it clear what the prophet thought about it. Was the proclamation on the family doctrinal? absolutley, IMO. Is the family and its importance central to the gospel? Hard to question this, again IMO. This being true, I find it difficult to question a prohpet of God when he tells me that the constiutitonal amendment should be supported and draws the basis for this support from a document such as the proclamation on the family.

Each of us cna choose our own path, of course, but within my own experience the family is being heavily and successfully attacked on all sides and while I personally may not have reached the same posiiton without guidance of the prohphet, I iwll follow him on such a fundamentally important social and religious issue. If the prophet thinks this will help protect the family, then I will support it. For me, it is that simple.

05-29-2006, 08:23 PM	#126
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	Utah Dan is IMO exactly right about this issue. IN many respects I am not excited about substantive amendments. I will follow the prophet on this issue, however. For me, it is that simple. The MX example, btw, is misleading. Here is the church's statement on the MX: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q= mx%20missile$xhitlist_x=Simple$xhitlist_s=relevanc e-weight$xhitlist_d=$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C 0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$ xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef No action was requested of the membership, and it was not linked to a specific fundamnetal issue in the church. Was the letter read on Sunday doctrinal? Perhaps not; in fact, it didn't even ask us to express a specific viewpoint. Instead, it asked us to express ourselves but it made it clear what the prophet thought about it. Was the proclamation on the family doctrinal? absolutley, IMO. Is the family and its importance central to the gospel? Hard to question this, again IMO. This being true, I find it difficult to question a prohpet of God when he tells me that the constiutitonal amendment should be supported and draws the basis for this support from a document such as the proclamation on the family. Each of us cna choose our own path, of course, but within my own experience the family is being heavily and successfully attacked on all sides and while I personally may not have reached the same posiiton without guidance of the prohphet, I iwll follow him on such a fundamentally important social and religious issue. If the prophet thinks this will help protect the family, then I will support it. For me, it is that simple. __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.