You could see this coming from about a mile off

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

So far as I know. I've not been served with any process, anyway.

<Sound of condemnation being heaped>

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Here the spouse would be an agent, instrument of LDS coersion. They enforce like Stasi used to.

I mean, how many LDS women use "you're not honoring your priesthood" to oppress their husbands?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I mean, how many LDS women use "you're not honoring your priesthood" to oppress their husbands?

That one still gets you, does it?

[MikeWaters]

I would love to meet SU's ex. I bet she would have a story or two to tell.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

That one still gets you, does it?

I never heard that from either of my wives. My ex doesn't believe in Mormonism and never did. She told our son when he was really small that after he dies he may be reborn as some kind of animal, so I had to disabuse him of that.

But every time I hear someone's wife has said that I cringe at how abusive it sounds, and how angry such women must be. The abused abusing.

[creekster]

The edited article is back.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_9...nclick_check=1

In fact, it was published on the front page of the paper today. It is also currently on the front page of the web site.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Why was the articled deleted? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. (Why has no one here asked such an obvious question?) The LDS got to them. No coersion here, is there, Levin.

I hear we destroyed the press. LDS gotta do what LDS gotta do.

[BYU71]

Everyone knows I am a proponent of the "there is a difference between counsel and commandment."

That being said, I sustain the brethern as the spokesman for the church, maybe not for me in every instance, but certainly for the church.

I personally believe a line is drawn between speaking amongst ourselves about a disagreement and going public with the disagreement.

Personally, before proclaiming to be an active Latter Day Saint and then publicly repudiating something the church has taken a strong stand on, I would renounce my membership.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

http://www.contracostatimes.com/bayandstate/ci_9756284

I like that Shipps, unlike way too many Mormons, knows our history. She's absolutely correct that in 1932 President Grant tried to coerce the Church to vote against Roosevelt and the effort backfired in a major way (and the moral issue of the day was prohibition).

I don't see quite the same indignance over this California thing, but for me the interesting issue will be a difference between the 1932 Church and the 2008 Church. There was little to no fallout for those who disparaged the Church's intrusion into politics in 1932, but with today's mullah mentality and a pervasive lack of historical perspective, in the present situation there could be plenty of fallout.

The short of this is that this could get ugly. Very ugly.

I wish the article were still there, but I can't see it. It may have been similar to an AP wire story on the subject a few days ago. In that article, my nephew, Matt Thurston, was quoted as saying he was surprised the Church didn't sit on the sidelines on this one, and his disappointment was evident--and he's a good and faithful member, despite his authorship of Sunstone articles. The best part of the article was that the paragraph mentioning him ended with "...Matt Thurston of Corona, California, who is not gay." How often is one's straightness proclaimed in a national news story?

And despite my misgivings about the current issue, let me bear testimony that my feelings about the Church come closer to, and are perhaps even more devoted than, those of my nephew Matt, than to those of my cousin, Sandra Tanner and her late husband.

[MikeWaters]

That's cool for Matt. Hard to be the black sheep of the family with Sandra there.