Agree or disagree?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

So the church is not a social institution?

Whatever happened to, bring me your tattered, your poor, your disadvantaged? I thought America was founded on the principles of christianity, are we not a christian church?

What about the BOM, it is full of examples where the poor are the ones cared for, and soon raise above the rich. The republican ideals of taking care of yourself have poisoned this church for long enough, it's seriously time to return to 'true mormonism,' ie, loving all, taking care of the poor, respecting people, etc.

The church is, and only is a social institution, it's nothing more, nothing less. Look at the mission of the church, not only does it provide direct social lines of fellowship, it's aim is to create social interactions that extend outside of the realm of LDS.

No fus, it is none of those things, nor should it be.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Huh?

There is only one marriage God truly countenances, that within the temple.

By analogy, he acquiesces in civil ceremonies modelled after the union authorized within the temple.

That much is clear.

Nobody here, with the exception of perhaps Seattle, believes gay marriage is a good thing, some just find it to be a de minimis issuel, probably due to family members suffering from SSA.

That is all.

Really? I've yet to see anyone come out against it. Just some decrying the church for speaking out against it.

[Archaea]

We as a society are too self-absorbed.

We don't prioritize.

Cleansing will come in the form of disease, pestilence, anarchy a la Gaza and I'll get back to you ...

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by tooblue

No fus, it is none of those things, nor should it be.

Wow, well I guess the tri-fold mission of the church is just a bunch of bunk.

I guess home teaching, visiting teaching, FHE, mutual, scouts, activities, parties, etc, are just a nice way to waste time and money.

I am interested what is the church?

[Quisqueyano]

Man tis conversation has become tiresome. This is what happens when we try and extend the sacred, three-fold mission of the church into the cesspool of political debate.
All this time spent trying to justify the actions of corrupt, amoral poitical parties (yes I mean both of them) should be replaced with a rededication to discipleship.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Wow, well I guess the tri-fold mission of the church is just a bunch of bunk.

I guess home teaching, visiting teaching, FHE, mutual, scouts, activities, parties, etc, are just a nice way to waste time and money.

I am interested what is the church?

If the family unit were stronger in the first place there would be no need for those programs

And why is it these social activities more often distract from the tri-fold mission instead of enhance it? Perhaps because there is more focus on the social aspects and less on the mission!

For a good definition read Archea's posts.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

In a previous discussion Hoya asked specifically what 'more' someone could do ... He asked of course so that he could dissect my ideas with artful language and condemned my perspective as foolish and ignorant, and condescend to inform me I am an idiot.

The discussion was closed before I had a chance to respond. Ultimately the rhetoric will drown out the truth and the democratic societies within which we all live will grow increasingly self destructive … which leads us back to the question of what more can one do … the answer is self evident, and we refuse to listen.

You have the opportunity to answer a simple question and you continue to dodge it. Since when have you been afraid of how your argument would be treated by the other side in a debate?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I would love to see, if anyone has it, data on how religious the country is as opposed to the past. Couple of thoughts come immediately to mind when I read your comment:

1. If there are more religious people is it because religions are increasingly more liberal and require less or is it the more "orthodox" religions that are more appealing or is it actually both?

2. Is there really more influence of religion in politics today than ever, or is it simply that in times gone by people generally had a much firmer base line of what their "morality" included and there was no need for a christian coalition? For example 50 years ago there didn't need to be an abortion debate or a gay rights debate because there was virtual unanimous opposition to them.


I guess I tend to believe as to (1) above that it is both.

With respect to (2), I think that the "christian right" has always been there and in much greater numbers than today but became better organized and more vocal in the last 30 years to combat the extremely well organized and mobilized special interest groups that emerged on the left. I also think, however, that the success of left wing special interest groups has prompted many of these folks on the christian right to to "hunker down" so to speak and become even more conservative and in many cases more strident.

A good post. I actually took a religious studies class in college and the professor presented us with several studies showing America is more religous today than ever before (measured in church attendance and numbers of people identifying themselves as religious).

I will try to dig through old papers and see if I can find the sources of the studies.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You have the opportunity to answer a simple question and you continue to dodge it. Since when have you been afraid of how your argument would be treated by the other side in a debate?

It's ironic that you state I am dodging a simple question as well as suggesting I am afraid due to how my argument might be treated … especially considering Archea’s post above.

I have insinuated, suggested, intimated that you should make your protest not by merely ranting, in anonymity, on a public message board but by how you live your life –examining your purchases, lifestyle, habits etc. Coincidently that is exactly what members of the church must also do.

In other words living differently than the millions of other limousine liberals in North America. Do something … gosh, run for office your self!

By the way, I live in a country where the liberal agenda rules and has since the nations inception … ironically my wife and I are seriously considering abandoning our van in favor family bikes etc. due tot he opressive nature of the liberal agenda ... of course Amercans are different, smarter, they'd do it better.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It's ironic that you state I am dodging a simple question as well as suggesting I am afraid due to how my argument might be treated … especially considering Archea’s post above.

I have insinuated, suggested, intimated that you should make your protest not by merely ranting, in anonymity, on a public message board but by how you live your life –examining your purchases, lifestyle, habits etc. Coincidently that is exactly what members of the church must also do.

In other words living differently than the millions of other limousine liberals in North America. Do something … gosh, run for office your self!

By the way, I live in a country where the liberal agenda rules and has since the nations inception … ironically my wife and I are seriously considering abandoning our van in favor family bikes etc. due tot he opressive nature of the liberal agenda ... of course Amercans are different, smarter, they'd do it better.

Please go on. Explain how altering purchases will release me from culpability for Bush's decisions in Iraq.

I also find it interesting that you would consider any small protests here done anonymously to be the full extent of one's actions in opposing Bush and his agenda. What is the basis for that thought?