Question about the Proclamation

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

The more I read the Proclamation, the more I wonder whether it is a less exclusive and more inclusive document than we currently understand it to be.

Thoughts, comments, and even derision is fine. I am really looking for some sort of clarifying explanation on this difficult issue, so I won't reject any feedback, positive or negative.

Your entire expose relies on alternatively narrow or broad definitions of words--whichever suits your purpose--in order to make sense. However carefully worded, the Proclamation is not a legal document. Applying legal hairsplitting truly bastardizes the clear intent of what they were trying to say.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Applying legal hairsplitting truly bastardizes the clear intent of what they were trying to say.

What percentage of the posters here with over 500 posts are lawyers?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What percentage of the posters here with over 500 posts are lawyers?

You've got almost 3 times as many as I do, and I'm a lawyer. What are you trying to say?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

You've got almost 3 times as many as I do, and I'm a lawyer. What are you trying to say?

I'm trying to get a very crude demographic of the main "contributors" to this board.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Your entire expose relies on alternatively narrow or broad definitions of words--whichever suits your purpose--in order to make sense. However carefully worded, the Proclamation is not a legal document. Applying legal hairsplitting truly bastardizes the clear intent of what they were trying to say.

For better or worse Tex is right about this. On the other hand, there are no shortage of lawyers among the brethren and I would imagine that the Proclamation was gone over with a fine tooth comb before it was released. Perhaps even by lawyers to see if there might be any unintended consequences of the language used.

I should also add that we legal types are trained to think that words matter. Where as others might say "well we all know what they meant", the lawyers will be reluctant to make assumptions about meaning if the words used aren't clear. I tend to agree that you can over analyze these things, but words do matter.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

For better or worse Tex is right about this. On the other hand, there are no shortage of lawyers among the brethren and I would imagine that the Proclamation was gone over with a fine tooth comb before it was released. Perhaps even by lawyers to see if there might be any unintended consequences of the language used.

I should also add that we legal types are trained to think that words matter. Where as others might say "well we all know what they meant", the lawyers will be reluctant to make assumptions about meaning if the words used aren't clear. I tend to agree that you can over analyze these things, but words do matter.

I have it on good authority that the phraseology was very carefully considered as the document was being formed, and I'm not suggesting otherwise.

I'm simply saying that while it's true "words do matter," they also have multiple meanings, contexts, and interpretations. Otherwise, whereto the entire legal profession? TripletDaddy just selected those that fit his preconceived notion.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

I have it on good authority that the phraseology was very carefully considered as the document was being formed, and I'm not suggesting otherwise.

I'm simply saying that while it's true "words do matter," they also have multiple meanings, contexts, and interpretations. Otherwise, whereto the entire legal profession? TripletDaddy just selected those that fit his preconceived notion.

I think that DDD, like many, is trying to be creative about squaring the Proclamation with what his conscience tells him about gay marriage. Maybe it can't be done.

For me, I don't know how to resolve the paradox that some people seem to be biologically gay and that our best answer for them is that they just don't get to have the very most gratifying and important experiences in life that the rest of us get. I said the other day, and meant very sincerely, that I hope that the brethren are inquiring of the Lord as to how to better make a place for them among us. My heart tells me that the current answer is just too cruel to be a complete answer, but perhaps I am wrong.

In any case, I do applaud DDD for his thoughts on this. I don't think many are looking to stick a finger in the church's eye on this. I sense some real compassion motivating many on this issue.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think that DDD, like many, is trying to be creative about squaring the Proclamation with what his conscience tells him about gay marriage. Maybe it can't be done.

For me, I don't know how to resolve the paradox that some people seem to be biologically gay and that our best answer for them is that they just don't get to have the very most gratifying and important experiences in life that the rest of us get. I said the other day, and meant very sincerely, that I hope that the brethren are inquiring of the Lord as to how to better make a place for them among us. My heart tells me that the current answer is just too cruel to be a complete answer, but perhaps I am wrong.

In any case, I do applaud DDD for his thoughts on this. I don't think many are looking to stick a finger in the church's eye on this. I sense some real compassion motivating many on this issue.

Yes, thank you UD. As I stated before, I am trying to get to some level of understanding on this matter that allows my conscience to feel peace. Currently, I do not have that peace on this issue.

Not sure what Tex's tone was, nor does it matter. I stated clearly that I would welcome all feedback, including derision...or in Tex's case, skepticism of my intent.

A few weeks ago, Steel mentioned how this issue is going to affect the lives of California LDS in a slightly different way.....because this is hapening in our own backyard and many of us have close friends or relatives that are gay. After this past weekend, I am feeling the weight of Steel's predictions.

Honestly guys, I am not ready to support this measure. I guess part of me is struggling with whether that makes me a bad Church member? I love the Church (as I know many/most here do....and some do not and that is quite fine, as well). I really have no complaints thus far with my membership. But for the first time in my adult life, I feel a bit of the "wrestle with the Lord" that Enos experienced. And the more I think about it, the muddier the waters become. In the words of Mick, "I can't get no satisfaction."

I can say this much....I am resolved to follow the words of the Prophet on this issue....GBH was correct when he admonished us to Stand for Something.

I feel like I do need to Stand for Something on this issue.

Hopefully I dont burn in hell for standing up, though....

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm trying to get a very crude demographic of the main "contributors" to this board.

And Tex has about twice as many as I do.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

And Tex has about twice as many as I do.

It not a post count, it's a poster count. It's not who wastes more time here, it's what percentage of the people who waste the most time here are lawyers.