Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

LDS Church leaders restate opposition to Gay Marriage


  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#21 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:43 AM

sitting here i can't think if a single occurrence of discrimination that didn't start and end with derogatory names (aka name calling) against the discriminated party..... hummmmm is there an insert foot smile?


Did you read something in the subtext? What perjoratives did I hurl at another person? Did I call him a "dandied charlatain?" A "holy Roller?" A "Bible Belter?"

You read something into this that not only didn't I include, but I did not infer.

Is there a "Do'h" smilie anywhere?
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#22 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:47 AM

Emphasis mine.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see the state trying to force religions and people to recognize "non-traditional" unions as marriages is one step toward the disintegration of the family. I, for one, don't want any part of the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

For those who may disagree, who may think that homosexual marriage does not lead to the disintegration of the family, I urge you to go back and study your Old Testament.


We are not debating the Law of God; only the authority of a non-secterian government to interfier with the Agency afforded by The Almighty.

I seem to recall a number of plural marriages in the Old Testament; not to mention bigamy as practiced by members of the Restored Gospel.

I do not call on government, anywhere, in any form, to preserve anything not authorized by the US Constitution. In fact, I do not want that kind of interfierance.

The only form of good government is self government. I do not require Big Brother to tell me what is right or wrong; I have the dictates of my conscience.

And with that, I'll say "Good Day, Sir."
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#23 Gwen

Gwen

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 5483 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:52 AM

Did you read something in the subtext? What perjoratives did I hurl at another person? Did I call him a "dandied charlatain?" A "holy Roller?" A "Bible Belter?"

You read something into this that not only didn't I include, but I did not infer.

Is there a "Do'h" smilie anywhere?


my first thought was "you could put your shovel down anytime now"... but you know, not sure i want to give that advise. just means we can cut to the chase.

i don't have problems, i have issues
problems can be fixed, issues you just deal with



"The grass is not, in fact, always greener on the other side of the fence. Fences have nothing to do with it.
The grass is greenest where it is watered. When crossing over fences, carry water with you and tend the grass wherever you may be."
-Robert Fulghum


#24 Wingnut

Wingnut

    A little nutty, with wings

  • Members
  • 10313 posts
  • LocationCleveland, OH

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:54 AM

sitting here i can't think if a single occurrence of discrimination that didn't start and end with derogatory names (aka name calling) against the discriminated party..... hummmmm is there an insert foot smile?


You don't need a foot-in-mouth graphic. You need this:

Posted Image
Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. -- C.S. Lewis

If we're going to be stupid about this, we're going to be stupid on my terms. -- my husband

#25 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 07:09 AM

my first thought was "you could put your shovel down anytime now"... but you know, not sure i want to give that advise. just means we can cut to the chase.


I said "Good day."
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#26 GaySaint

GaySaint

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 578 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 08:55 AM

...when the church specifically states that legalizing gay marriages and condoning homosexual unions leads to the downfall of a society...


CP: Can you point me to a reference where a church leader has said this? I'm curious as to the context, and official doctrine surrounding the statement :).

I have heard of "declining morality" mentioned as one of many causes that will lead to a society wicked enough to usher in the second coming, and have heard homosexuality mentioned as one of many factors in a declining morality, but haven't heard that legalizing gay marriage would directly lead to the downfall of society.

And that seems rather strange to me considering that at high estimate, only 10% of the population is gay. The other 90% must be doing some rather wicked things as well for society to fail. If the fact that that 10% of the population can't get married is the only thing holding up society, then that other 90% has "some 'splanin' to do."

#27 GaySaint

GaySaint

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 578 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 09:00 AM

Emphasis mine.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see the state trying to force religions and people to recognize "non-traditional" unions as marriages is one step toward the disintegration of the family. I, for one, don't want any part of the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

For those who may disagree, who may think that homosexual marriage does not lead to the disintegration of the family, I urge you to go back and study your Old Testament.


Justin: How does my forming of a family unit with protections equal to what you can have harm the family? If anything, wouldn't that STRENGTHEN my family, thus strengthening the family institution in general?

In order to claim that homosexual relationships harm the family, you have to claim that homosexuals cannot form families at all, and I'm living proof that that simply isn't true.

#28 Justinator1

Justinator1

    Member

  • Inactive with Posts
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 10:08 AM

Homosexuals, joining together in matrimony to form families, is a perversion of the Celestial family. Anything that perverts also corrupts.

#29 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 11:02 AM

Yeah, its better that homo's hide in closets, visit public baths and theatre's, and flambouyantly spend their days at waiters, travel agents, and stage dancing.

C'mon, man. Use your head AND your heart. FAMILY is never a bad thing to form, even if its with someone who's not related to you. Every culture has this realization. The Hawai'ians call it "Ohana," Russians use the word "Bratia," and on and on.

Fellowshipping for love and support isn't something that should be reserved for only those who fit into a certain catagory that you have arbitrarily and capreciously created to exclude those who do not conform to your particular passions and prejudices.

Every man, woman, and child deserves the freedom to seek their own happiness as long as it does not harm me or interfier with my search for happiness. I am never harmed by the willful actions of consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes and relationships, to seek love, affection, companionship, and direction as they see fit.

I live my life in ways that many others would find objectionable; I worship God as I see him, I obey laws as I interpret them; I form opinions based upon my perception of the question asked. I live my life according to the dictates of my conscience, and I celebrate that I live in the only nation ever conceived so on this earth that allows me to do this, and which allows all others the inalienable right to do the same thing; to live their lives as they see fit, according to the dictates of their conscience.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
- Preamble to the Declaration of Independance, Thomas Jefferson, author.

There is a difference between the laws of Man and the laws of God, and never, should Man attempt to enforce the laws of God on each other by the abuse of power of legislation through the laws of Man.
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#30 GaySaint

GaySaint

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 578 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 11:07 AM

Justin: We'll have to agree to disagree with that one. I did wonder one thing though... wouldn't any civil marriage not performed in the temple also be considered a perversion of the Celestial family at the very worst, or a cheap imitation at the very least? I just cannot bring myself to rule out all of the non-traditional families. A single mom raising a child - that child is still her family. Joseph Smith and Emma didn't stop being a family when they stopped fitting into the "one man one woman" paradigm. Grandparents raising grand-children are still a family. And homosexuals forming families, whether joined together in matrimony or not, are still a family. Technically, the one man one woman ideology is not the ideal celestial family either. I think we need to support all families no matter what part of the path they are on as they struggle to comply with the ideal. It seems disingenuous, and even hypocritical, to purposefully destroy a forming family just because they don't begin by meeting the level of perfection that is required for exaltation.

#31 Soulsearcher

Soulsearcher

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 2009 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 11:18 AM

Justin: We'll have to agree to disagree with that one.

I did wonder one thing though... wouldn't any civil marriage not performed in the temple also be considered a perversion of the Celestial family at the very worst, or a cheap imitation at the very least?

I just cannot bring myself to rule out all of the non-traditional families. A single mom raising a child - that child is still her family. Joseph Smith and Emma didn't stop being a family when they stopped fitting into the "one man one woman" paradigm. Grandparents raising grand-children are still a family. And homosexuals forming families, whether joined together in matrimony or not, are still a family.

Technically, the one man one woman ideology is not the ideal celestial family either.

I think we need to support all families no matter what part of the path they are on as they struggle to comply with the ideal. It seems disingenuous, and even hypocritical, to purposefully destroy a forming family just because they don't begin by meeting the level of perfection that is required for exaltation.


To add one thing to this, I think straight couples are doing a good enough job perverting the idea of marriage in general without the help of such a small percentage of homosexuals seeking equal treatment. Look at what the ideal family and marriage looks like in today's society in general and tell me that's ideal?
The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms, 1929

#32 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:13 PM

I did wonder one thing though... wouldn't any civil marriage not performed in the temple also be considered a perversion of the Celestial family at the very worst, or a cheap imitation at the very least?


Members are warned that marriage outside of Temple Covenants will not be recognized after mortal death, and Endowed members are forbidden by scripture and teaching to marry outside of the covenant. Many do, and it is not heavily stigmatized nowadays, but that is the law within the church.

Technically, the one man one woman ideology is not the ideal celestial family either.


Correctomundo

I think we need to support all families no matter what part of the path they are on as they struggle to comply with the ideal. It seems disingenuous, and even hypocritical, to purposefully destroy a forming family just because they don't begin by meeting the level of perfection that is required for exaltation.


I agree 100% From a little seed grows an enormous tree.
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#33 crazypotato

crazypotato

    Banned

  • Inactive with Posts
  • 439 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:37 PM

This is my question: Why are we arguing? President Monson, that some of us sustain as a prophet of God, specifically has stated that he wants us to VOTE against gay marriage being legalized. So if you are a member and going to the temple, I find it confusing that anyone would argue against what our prophet has asked us to do. Most always the church takes no stand in political issues. But once in a blue moon, they do. Back during prohibition, the church asked everyone to not vote it out of law. But it was voted out, including the state of Utah. And PrisonChaplain and people of other faiths have taken the same view as our prophet. They are trying to follow God. Why argue? If people disagree, that is fine, but I am confused as to why a member in good standing of the LDS church would debate this. I know I was getting pretty emotional when a few months ago gay marriage was debated. My beef was, it is okay to disagree with the prophet and have your opinion, but if you are a member who would like to be going to the temple, I think this is something that needs to be prayed about to God to see if President Monson and other religious leaders are right.

Edited by crazypotato, 16 July 2010 - 12:40 PM.


#34 prisonchaplain

prisonchaplain

    Senior Moderator

  • Senior Moderators
  • 12234 posts
  • LocationFederal Way, WA

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:41 PM

First off, you're intentionally intellectually dishonest if you believe that there's ony 6,000 years of human history to draw precident from.


Written history prior to that gets very sketchy...but I'll grant you that archeologists go further, and have their findings. I am indeed drawing largely from the Judeo-Christian tradition, because, despite the freedoms our laws provide, the philosophies that drive our community (national) are the largely the product of it. Even atheists are often appreciative of some of the ideas and forms that have come out of that legacy.

On the topic of "power granted you by the State of Washington," it is not the power to marry two people (they can only marry each other - you can only officiate as an OFFICIAL granted the authrority to declare the contract entered into legally. No matter what you postulate to the people entering into the contract, or if they even refuse to utter a word to you or themselves, the only legally binding act is in signing the marriage contract at the time of officiation. I know this to be true as I've been authorized several times by law and custom to officiate over marriage and other 'solemn' acts). I recommend you expend some effort in study of contractual law and the authority of the State.


You are making a legal case for allowing anyone to marry as they please, I suppose. You'd like put age limitations on that. You might find rationale for not allowing polygamy--though imho it has more historic claim that same-sex marriage does. It's my simple contention that communities have the right to restrict marriage, based on community standards. I'm not going to be persuaded by legal arguments. Those I gleefully turn over to the Courts. And, if I don't like what the judges decide, and I am motivated enough, I might then begin lobbying to change the law.

Your use of the phrase 'authority by precident' is the same one used for millenia to rationalize serious abuses such as genocide, murder, opression, slavery, stigimitization, and separation; hardly something I'd be proud of.


Nevertheless, precedent is something you overturn by lobbying the people, so they agree to change it. When you short-circuit the community by getting judges to legislate from the bench, too often you create festering dissension. Note how the controversy over abortion just will not go away, despite the seeming conclusive decision of 1972.

Put it any way you want it; there is no intellectually honest way to defend descrimination in any form. We are warned "not to judge," but that does no]t mean "accept anything that goes, from anyone" (accepting discrimination is just as bad as making uninformed judgements), it simply means "judge not lightly," which means not before having honestly and intellectually examining a topic.


Well then, since a significant % of married people commit adultery, perhaps we should create a different type of marriage recognition for them. After all, if all the adults are consenting, perhaps an open marriage type contract, with a fluid number of adult parties involved??? Call it discrimination, but communities ought to be able to define marriage according to broad consensus of standards.

I really couldn't care less that you're a paid clergyman (even though Nephi had a few choice words about your profession... Something on the lines of calling it an abominat]ion; ya know, "eat thy bread from the sweat of thy own brow all the days of thy life" and all that),


If honesty is what you want, might I suggest that you simply admit that you do care what I am, and are highly suspicious because of the work I do? Why say you don't care and then sight your scriptures along with a particular shrill interpretation? :cool: OH...and as FYI, LDS chaplains get paid the same as I do. :-)

I simply take exception that you use that avocation, whether or not you state what it is, as a basis to make claims that are utterly indefensible. You have no moral authority because you strap on a rat cather. You have none because you hold a Doctorate of Divinity or Theology. You have no authority because you lead a congregation. In fact, I'd say that you'll be held to a higher standard than the rest of us because of your assumption of authority or knowledge.


Once again, I make no claims on this forum to any particular authority. My handle merely indicates that I may have some uniquely informative experiences to bring to the table. After all, why would I expect that my training and ordination from another religion would carry any weight here??? Would an IMAM go to my church's forum and demand to be respected for his spiritual authority and position? What you say I imply doesn't make sense.

Edited by prisonchaplain, 16 July 2010 - 12:51 PM.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -- Lord Acton


#35 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 01:15 PM

I stand with the Founding Fathers when I say that I want no laws put on my person, or that restrict my freedom, based upon someone else's interpretation of scripture. Period. I make no excuses for my desires; they are in line with the foundation of this nation. I would not restrict the contracts that may be entered into by consenting adults of informed consent and sound mind. I have always expressely stated that only adults or those in their majority may enter into contracts of any variety; I don't know where you see that I have been ambiguous on that point. I would never be OK with those in their minority, not of sound mind, or of informed consent to willingly (without duress) enter into contracts of performance; even though I did by enlisting into military service at 17. I was not mature enough, mentally or of suffecient experience to know what it was that I was doing or why. I took an oath I was incapable of truly understanding or performing. I toughed it out, as I keep my word, but I learned from that experience what it is to submit to a contract without understanding what it truly entails. I don't care what you do for a living; trash-man, astronaut, president of the United States, or skilled tradesman; that's your business. I simply give no creedence to or recognize any authority from your occupation. Your knowledge of scripture may be greater than myself, although that's irrelevant. I do not need to read and understand the 99 theories to follow the Laws of God as set forth in his commandments and in the oaths I took or the covenants I made. I also don't need, nor particularily want, anyone shoving their particular view of morality down my throat. Abortion? In most cases its an abomination; but its none of my business what others do with their bodies. Do not, however, demand that I participate in any way though financial support; monies taken from me without my permission, by force of law and threat of punishment or death for disobedience, just to take that money and give it to another who is in performance of an action I am in disagreement with, and which is not specifically called for in the Consittution or Bill of RIghts. Potato- Why do I disagree? Because even the Prophet can be wrong; Joseph Smith was severely punished a number of times for preaching false doctrines and even leading an Army against detractors in another state. Any President of the Church who uses their position of authority to espouse the creation or removal of a political law in a government that is free from religious interfierance is preaching a false doctrine. We are to be in this world, not of it. And using law to prohibit others from excercising their God-given rights to drink beer or enter into a contract with their neighbors cat, in my opinion, is a gross abuse of authority and station. The Church just had to pay a sizeable fine to the government for illegal interfierance with a recent election; harldly a righteous activity in my opinion. Ya know, that whole "being subject to Kings, Potentates, laws, etc" part of the Articles of Faith.

Edited by john doe, 16 July 2010 - 06:00 PM.
tone it down please

"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte

#36 GaySaint

GaySaint

    Senior Member

  • Inactive 2+ Years
  • 578 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 01:21 PM

CP: I don't think people are arguing. I think they are trying to discuss the reprocussions of breaking up real families by using a secular government to force religious ideals on people who do or do not share in the LDS beliefs. There are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, find themselves having to unit secular belief with church teaching in this regard to better understand the spiritual reprocussions of a church getting involved with a secular government to enforce one particular moral code, especially when doing so damages another group of people.

#37 Wingnut

Wingnut

    A little nutty, with wings

  • Members
  • 10313 posts
  • LocationCleveland, OH

Posted 16 July 2010 - 01:40 PM

I don't care what you do for a living; trash-man, astronaut, president of the United States, skilled tradesman, or a practicer of priestcraft; that's your business.


You are quite possibly the most offensive person I've ever had the misfortune of being in contact with.

Any President of the Church who uses their position of authority to espouse the creation or removal of a political law in a government that is free from religious interfierance is preaching a false doctrine.


So are you saying that President Monson is a false prophet, or are you just being obtuse? Oh and by the way, site rule #1 states: 1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

The Church just had to pay a sizeable fine to the government for illegal interfierance with a recent election; harldly a righteous activity in my opinion. Ya know, that whole "being subject to Kings, Potentates, laws, etc" part of the Articles of Faith.


Actually, they paid a large fine for incorrect reporting procedures.
Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. -- C.S. Lewis

If we're going to be stupid about this, we're going to be stupid on my terms. -- my husband

#38 crazypotato

crazypotato

    Banned

  • Inactive with Posts
  • 439 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 02:01 PM

CP: Can you point me to a reference where a church leader has said this? I'm curious as to the context, and official doctrine surrounding the statement :).

I have heard of "declining morality" mentioned as one of many causes that will lead to a society wicked enough to usher in the second coming, and have heard homosexuality mentioned as one of many factors in a declining morality, but haven't heard that legalizing gay marriage would directly lead to the downfall of society.

And that seems rather strange to me considering that at high estimate, only 10% of the population is gay. The other 90% must be doing some rather wicked things as well for society to fail. If the fact that that 10% of the population can't get married is the only thing holding up society, then that other 90% has "some 'splanin' to do."


We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.


And here the prophets are saying the disintegration of the family brings calamities foretold by prophets. This includes gay marriage as well as abuse, adultery, etc, any sins by people breaking the laws of chastity or harming the institution of marriage. There is no singling out of gays, it is anybody harming marriage.

#39 crazypotato

crazypotato

    Banned

  • Inactive with Posts
  • 439 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 02:11 PM

CP: I don't think people are arguing. I think they are trying to discuss the reprocussions of breaking up real families by using a secular government to force religious ideals on people who do or do not share in the LDS beliefs.

There are a lot of people who, for whatever reason, find themselves having to unit secular belief with church teaching in this regard to better understand the spiritual reprocussions of a church getting involved with a secular government to enforce one particular moral code, especially when doing so damages another group of people.


I understand that you disagree with the prophet and that is your right. However, hearing different points of view as to why the prophet is wrong is HOPEFULLY not going to sway any believing members' testimony of the prophet as our infallible leader.

#40 MisterT

MisterT

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 373 posts

Posted 16 July 2010 - 02:12 PM

You are quite possibly the most offensive person I've ever had the misfortune of being in contact with.


You must not get out very often.

I've recommend to you once that you put me on your ignore list; apparently you're just looking for a fight. You need to get control of yourself, man; you're acting very immaturely.

But thank you very much, I appreciate your attention. Its nice to know that people sometimes read things and think about them a little before responding...


So are you saying that President Monson is a false prophet, or are you just being obtuse? Oh and by the way, site rule #1 states: 1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.


Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. And drop your juvenile attempt to bait me; I've been the subject of professionals, and you sir, are not a professional. You're not even a very good amateur.

I've said nothing derogatory, I've simply pointed out the recorded history of the church as documented in the D&C by one of my ancestors.

But keep trying to point out supposed rule violations, its a comical attempt and it makes me smile; something I haven't done much of lately. So again, thank you very much.

BTW, I think you've violated the rule against inflammitory statements and personal attacks. Shame on you; go punish yourself now.


Actually, they paid a large fine for incorrect reporting procedures.


So wait, you're saying WE were fined for incorrect reporting of funds spent in interfierance of electoral procedure? Besides that being money I've paid voluntarily out of my own pocket for the maintenance and spiritual missions of the church, the fact remains that the law was broken; a not spiritual act. Were you or I to do that, and not have the money on hand from the freely given donations of members, we'd be sitting in jail right now.

There is no justification for 'incorrect reporting;' the church has the resources to ensure that can't happen accidentally, and knowing the internal operations of the church as I do, and the strict and incredible effort that is made to comply with law, I'm forced to conclude that this was not an accidental omission, but a purposeful action by someone high enough in the hirearchy to OK what happened.

Regardless, Tomato, tamato, its same-same.
"I pity the foo who doesn't listen to MrT." - Hordak

"There comes a time when diplomacy fails, when all discussion is fruitless. You will then face me under a different and final circumstance." - Col. Michael "Mad Mike" Hoare

"God is on the side with the best artillery." Napoleon Bonaparte




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq