Gay marriage........so here's the bottom line

[exUte]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

They suggest many things, such as storing a year's supply of food. Failure to do so won't keep anyone out of the kingdom of heaven.


This is a real stretch. I haven't seen a single post where a person claims they received personal revelation on the issue.

But if you need to lie in order to make your case, go join the pharisees.

Do you support what the 1st Presidency said in a letter to the members in California or not? I'll continue to simply in order to get a simple response. If they haven't received a personal revelation to defy what the 1st Presidency has written, they are defying what the prophet has said on what grounds? Their own opinion then?

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by exUte

Do you support what the 1st Presidency said in a letter to the members in California or not?

What do you mean by "do you support" it? Is this like "sustaining" the prophet? To "sustain" him means more than merely raising your hand to the square during general and stake conference; rather it means to actually live your life in accordance with his counsel.

So along those lines, tell me your definition of "supporting" the FP on this issue, and preferably through your personal example of doing the same. Tell me how you personally have been "supporting" the FP on this issue.

[All-American]

Is there anybody here who has received instruction from the first presidency to support proposition 8? Not all of us are from California, after all.

Besides, the church has also suggested that members determine "their own appropriate level of involvement." Conspicuously missing is a directive from the First Presidency regarding what constitutes an appropriate level of involvement. Clearly, this is to be determined by the members themselves.

I therefore suggest that few, if any, of those present are "defying" the First Presidency.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

What do you mean by "do you support" it? Is this like "sustaining" the prophet? To "sustain" him means more than merely raising your hand to the square during general and stake conference; rather it means to actually live your life in accordance with his counsel.

So along those lines, tell me your definition of "supporting" the FP on this issue, and preferably through your personal example of doing the same. Tell me how you personally have been "supporting" the FP on this issue.

My, my. I try to make these questions as simple as possible.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by All-American

I therefore suggest that few, if any, of those present are "defying" the First Presidency.

That still won't stop the Pharisees from climbing to the top of the Rameumptum, looking around the crowd with binoculars, and compiling a "narc list" of names who he thinks are being disobedient.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Is there anybody here who has received instruction from the first presidency to support proposition 8? Not all of us are from California, after all.

Besides, the church has also suggested that members determine "their own appropriate level of involvement." Conspicuously missing is a directive from the First Presidency regarding what constitutes an appropriate level of involvement. Clearly, this is to be determined by the members themselves.

I therefore suggest that few, if any, of those present are "defying" the First Presidency.

the FP said. But you even admit you haven't seen the letter! Sheesh!

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by exUte

But you even admit you haven't seen the letter! Sheesh!

But you obviously have, and thus have noted that its directives are not limited to California members. It would be helpful, and perhaps inspiring, if you could summarize your efforts in answering the First Presidency's call, both in terms of time and money. For the board's good, please set aside for a moment your usual humble and self-effacing ways and lay out for us what you've done so far and what you plan to do over the next couple of months.

Seriously, if this is the Church's Gettysburg, I'm surprised Utah members aren't being pushed more on this. As California goes, so goes the nation.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by exUte

the FP said. But you even admit you haven't seen the letter! Sheesh!

I made no such admission. As a matter of fact, I reread it just before I put up that last post.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

But you obviously have, and thus have noted that its directives are not limited to California members. It would be helpful, and perhaps inspiring, if you could summarize your efforts in answering the First Presidency's call, both in terms of time and money. For the board's good, please set aside for a moment your usual humble and self-effacing ways and lay out for us what you've done so far and what you plan to do over the next couple of months.

Seriously, if this is the Church's Gettysburg, I'm surprised Utah members aren't being pushed more on this. As California goes, so goes the nation.

Are you saying that Utah members should be asked (assuming that spontaneous self-motivation doesn't already get them to pack a cooler full of kool-aid and PB&J sandwiches, hitch up the wagon and speed down I-15 or I-80) to go out to California, knock door to door and put a little Prop 8" in the Other section of their tithing slips?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Are you saying that Utah members should be asked (assuming that spontaneous self-motivation doesn't already get them to pack a cooler full of kool-aid and PB&J sandwiches, hitch up the wagon and speed down I-15 or I-80) to go out to California, knock door to door and put a little Prop 8" in the Other section of their tithing slips?

I hesitate to speak for the man, but I believe he is saying that Utah members have NOT been asked to do so. Which, incidentally, would mean that they are not defying the word of the prophet if they do not.