Question about the Proclamation

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

And Tex has about twice as many as I do.

Tex is a lawyer.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth. Behold, here is wisdom.--D&C 58:23

And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem--2 Ne 12:3

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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....

I'm not skeptical of your intent, DDD ... I think your intent is clear. I'm questioning your logic, your pick-and-choose interpretations of the Proclamation to fit what you would like it to say.

I respect a person's desire to be inclusive, or the need to reconcile church policy with personal feelings. But I don't respect the process of trying to twist fairly clear phrasing to make it mean something (IMO) it clearly was not intended to. If we're going to haggle about church policy, let's do so honestly. If you disagree with the concepts of the Proclamation, just say so outright instead of trying to impute your meaning to it.

As for the California initiative, I don't live there and don't really have strong feelings about whether or not members should jump on board.

[SoCalCoug]

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 guess I'm only a lawyer, so take this for what it's worth.

You're kind of contradicting yourself. If I understand correctly, DDD is looking carefully at the phrasing of the Proclamation, hypothesizing that the brethren may have been careful in the words chosen, and that people not looking at it carefully may be jumping to conclusions as to what was meant.

You and Utah Dan are countering that argument by stating that the brethren did, indeed, carefully chose their phraseology, and that words have multiple meanings, contexts, and interpretations.

What I don't understand is where you think DDD is wrong. It seems to me that you criticize him for being wrong, and then start your opposing opinion based on the very same assumptions that he did.

DDD: The sky is blue.
Tex: No, you're wrong. It's azure.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I guess I'm only a lawyer, so take this for what it's worth.

You're kind of contradicting yourself. If I understand correctly, DDD is looking carefully at the phrasing of the Proclamation, hypothesizing that the brethren may have been careful in the words chosen, and that people not looking at it carefully may be jumping to conclusions as to what was meant.

You and Utah Dan are countering that argument by stating that the brethren did, indeed, carefully chose their phraseology, and that words have multiple meanings, contexts, and interpretations.

What I don't understand is where you think DDD is wrong. It seems to me that you criticize him for being wrong, and then start your opposing opinion based on the very same assumptions that he did.

DDD: The sky is blue.
Tex: No, you're wrong. It's azure.

Yes. Again, I am confused at Tex's response. I am simply exploring possibilities.

I thought I was being pretty fair in my post. I state pretty clearly that I can already see a very good argument as to why the Proclamation is clearly opposed to gay marriage. I admit that I am confused on the issue and that I have yet to receive any sort of solid understanding. I post asking for some help/insight. Tex responds by saying that I should stop trying to twist words.

My main point was actually based on the assumption that the Proclamation is 100% correct, btw.

It is our interpretation that may be flawed. I am fine with the document being iron-clad and error free.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's easy being a "fun" outsider, like a grandparent. Less satisfactory to be a fun parent.

For example, I bet you could come in and be a more "fun" scoutmaster without too much trouble.

Doesn't mean you would be a better scoutmaster.

Do you think that "fun" and "effective, responsible, etc." are mutually exclusive? Being a "fun" parent doesn't mean there is no discipline or values.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Tex is a lawyer.

LOL, I hope you're kidding.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

What I don't understand is where you think DDD is wrong. It seems to me that you criticize him for being wrong, and then start your opposing opinion based on the very same assumptions that he did.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Yes. Again, I am confused at Tex's response. I am simply exploring possibilities.

For example, point #1: I don't think the FP and Qof12 intended a lot of ambiguity from flexible definitions of the word "family." I see that as playing word games.

For example, point #2: I don't think the FP and Qof12 intended a lot of ambiguity by omitting an explicit statement, "homosexual marriage is NOT essential and/or stands in opposition to God's eternal plan." Again, I see that as playing word games.

These are, naturally, just my opinions, SoCal. Obviously. The only reason someone should take my opinion over DDD's is I think mine is a lot more consistent with church policy, church political initiatives, to say nothing of General Conference talks and the scriptures themselves. But that's a judgment call left to each individual who reads our opposing viewpoints.

What's certain is that these are not just two different shades of the same color (blue/azure).

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I thought I was being pretty fair in my post. I state pretty clearly that I can already see a very good argument as to why the Proclamation is clearly opposed to gay marriage. I admit that I am confused on the issue and that I have yet to receive any sort of solid understanding. I post asking for some help/insight. Tex responds by saying that I should stop trying to twist words.

I don't impute any malice to your motives, DDD, I just think you're plain wrong.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't impute any malice to your motives, DDD, I just think you're plain wrong.

OK, fair. I did say I welcome all points of view. And I certainly do not claim to have the answer. Admittedly, it is all conjecture on my part.

[The_Tick]

My problem with the whole thing...(as a resident Californian)

I don't really care if gay people get married. I don't see how it is going to affect my family or harm my children. So far they are both straight. They are going to marry young men that are straight. And they will have kids.

How does two guys having sex and having a piece of paper on the wall harm us? They aren't going to be doing it with me, my wife, or my daughters.

Secondly...

I don't like sitting in PEC on Sunday and having a member of the Stake Presidency giving us a piece of paper from www.protectfamily.com and asking us to give of our means what we can. From as little as 50 to as much as 5K. You can also give more or less with the "other" section.

The paper asks for Stake and Ward information also when you donate so the church can see how much money is coming from where.

Then they spend 10 minutes in Sacrament meeting talking about it over the pulpit and asking the ward members to please give what they can to the cause.

I am not giving a dime...at the same time I am not going to bust anyones balls if they do.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

My problem with the whole thing...(as a resident Californian)

I don't really care if gay people get married. I don't see how it is going to affect my family or harm my children. So far they are both straight. They are going to marry young men that are straight. And they will have kids.

How does two guys having sex and having a piece of paper on the wall harm us? They aren't going to be doing it with me, my wife, or my daughters.

Secondly...

I don't like sitting in PEC on Sunday and having a member of the Stake Presidency giving us a piece of paper from www.protectfamily.com and asking us to give of our means what we can. From as little as 50 to as much as 5K. You can also give more or less with the "other" section.

The paper asks for Stake and Ward information also when you donate so the church can see how much money is coming from where.

Then they spend 10 minutes in Sacrament meeting talking about it over the pulpit and asking the ward members to please give what they can to the cause.

I am not giving a dime...at the same time I am not going to bust anyones balls if they do.

Give $1.39 in pennies.