Prop. 8 armageddon?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Levin

Did you see me say I think the Church should/will change its stance? Didn't think so.

My point was that if it doesn't (and I don't think it will), the Church will be under great political and social pressures. How those pressures will be brought to bear, I'm not sure. But you're naive if you think society in fifty years will allow the Church to respectfully disagree without collateral consequences.

For this board, the greatest will be this: Pac-10 teams won't play BYU.

Maybe I just didn't read the thread close enough, but did someone say this?

I'll graciously leave uncommented-on, the idea anyone knows what society will be like in 50 years.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Maybe I just didn't read the thread close enough, but did someone say this?

I'll graciously leave uncommented-on, the idea anyone knows what society will be like in 50 years.

Flying cars (I hope).

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Tex

Maybe I just didn't read the thread close enough, but did someone say this?

I'll graciously leave uncommented-on, the idea anyone knows what society will be like in 50 years.

You can't read. In fifty years, the Church's stance will be the same (still "respectfully disagreeing" with society), but there will be collateral consequences for this stance. That better?

Walking away while sighing, "dumbass" . . . .

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Levin

You can't read. In fifty years, the Church's stance will be the same (still "respectfully disagreeing" with society), but there will be collateral consequences for this stance. That better?

Walking away while sighing, "dumbass" . . . .

Your arrogance is unbelievable. Nobody's arguing with you. Most seem to me to just be saying, "Okay. We'll wait and see."

Who's the one who can't read?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Solon

Your arrogance is unbelievable. Nobody's arguing with you. Most seem to me to just be saying, "Okay. We'll wait and see."

Who's the one who can't read?

You're not following.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Levin

You can't read. In fifty years, the Church's stance will be the same (still "respectfully disagreeing" with society), but there will be collateral consequences for this stance. That better?

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

So, the LDS Church should seek social acceptance?

If it is the one true church of God, why would it need social acceptance?

Bump

[Levin]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Bump

No, I don't think the Church needs social acceptance. That's not our thing; we've tried since the end of polygamy to go mainstream, and we've had remarkable success. But I think the gay rights issue will cause us to lose ground eventually in terms of social acceptance. But that's not what the Church ultimately is about, although GBH placed great importance on it.

[Jennerstein]

Ok, back to the armageddon topic.

A 2006 article, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...kgwgh.asp?pg=1 , in the Weekly Standard had this in its last paragraph that summarizes the battle between religious liberty and gay rights:

"Marc Stern is looking more and more like a reluctant prophet: "It's going to be a train wreck," he told me in the offices of the American Jewish Congress high above Manhattan. "A very dangerous train wreck. I don't see anyone trying to stem the train wreck, or slow down the trains. Both sides are really looking for Armageddon, and they frankly both want to win. I prefer to avoid Armageddon, if possible."

I think as a political / rights issue, Prop 8 is considered Armageddon for the religious right. If Prop 8 fails, there's really no turning back, and I believe gay rights will have precedence over religious liberties in California. If Prop 8 passes, we'll go another few years before we approach a similar watershed event.

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Apart from the rights or wrongs of being gay or gay marriage, have any of you considered that your leaders may be right in that if gay marriage becomes accepted, legalized and normalized, this would be a serious set back, if not a death blow, to the LDS Church? I'm not sure this has been addressed here really.

In your dreams, Seattle, in your dreams.

By the way, which of our leaders said that? I think you've stepped in it again.

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Here's why I think they may be onto something. I thnk the LDS Church's whole appeal, its branding, its very goodwill, is asssociated with its distinct social conservatism, the fact that it lives in a time capsul, from its extraoridarily uncomprimising ideal of sexual morality to its magic world view. Anything that devalues that outlook in our society, that makes it less appealing or out to be immoral, devalues the LDS Church, devalues its very essesence, strikes at its heart.

Do you realize what a fool you are making of yourself on this board? I love you, my fellow Ute, but please stop doing this.