Doug -- I'm not questioning your experience, but you seem to assert that dissent in the LDS is impossible.
Yet Google found 37,500 results for a search on "prop 8 lds dissent" when I searched, after reading your first reply, to see if I had misundertood what I was talking about. -- rec -- On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Douglas Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hey, Roger. > > I lived up there near SLC for three years, right in the heart of Mormon > country. I actually know quite a bit about their beliefs and practices -- > both the good and the bad. > > For those interested in an excellent in-depth book on the history of the > Mormon religion, I recommend "Under The Banner of Heaven, A Story of > Violent Faith" by Jon Krakauer. > > During the three years that I lived in Pocatello, ID, I met a few former > Mormons who had been successfully "deprogrammed" . Many of them had > interesting, and sometimes dark stories to tell about the true inner social > workings of their former "faith". > > --Doug > > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Roger Critchlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't know, Doug, why don't you read this Salt Lake Tribune story about >> dissent within the LDS, and tell me who's making snap decisions based on >> doctrine. >> >> http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_10797630 >> >> -- rec -- >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Douglas Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> I don't know, Roger. The LDS indoctrination machine is one of the more >>> efficient operations that exists these days. It seems to supply a fairy >>> tale that is particularly beguiling to a certain type of personality. Once >>> that vision of sugar plums and seven levels of heaven is planted, it seems >>> nearly impossible to uproot. >>> >>> I'm sure they'd be happy to take your money, though. >>> >>> --Doug >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Roger Critchlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think someone should contribute $30,000,000 to foment a schism in the >>>> Church of the Latter Day Saints based on their internal conflicts on this >>>> issue. >>>> >>>> -- rec -- >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Orlando Leibovitz < >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Owen, >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion the word marriage should not be removed. I believe that >>>>> civil marriage should be available to all consenting adults. Various >>>>> religions can then do as they please. If, in fact, this is a civil rights >>>>> (constitutional) issue then religions that violate civil liberties should, >>>>> at the least, not have 501c3 status. I try to understand but am not >>>>> sympathetic to religious angst about this as I would not be if you >>>>> substituted black, jew, Christian, etc for the word gay. >>>>> >>>>> James, I am grateful to the Quakers for many of the positions they have >>>>> taken. >>>>> >>>>> Orlando >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> James Steiner wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Consider also the relligions that have.supported and do sanctify >>>>> same-sex marriages, without regard for, indeed in spite of, the legal >>>>> status of such unions, e.g. the Meetings of Friends (Quakers). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/9/08, Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 9, 2008, at 12:09 AM, Orlando Leibovitz wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion this is not a marriage issue, it is a civil rights >>>>> issue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And there you have the problem in a nutshell. "Gay marriage" >>>>> confounds the two. >>>>> >>>>> One the one hand, the word "marriage" creates considerable angst on >>>>> gay issues within the various religions. The recent Anglican/Episcopal >>>>> split was largely over gay marriage and gay bishops. This is a >>>>> complex issue where religions have to confront difficult problems >>>>> within themselves. And definitely a church/state boundary. >>>>> >>>>> On the other hand, gay civil rights are clear: they are being violated >>>>> and the strictly civil rights have to be granted immediately. "Civil >>>>> union", however, may be a distasteful term to the gay community. >>>>> >>>>> Most of silicon valley had to deal with this within their corporate >>>>> laws. They all grant gay civil rights by now. They simply had to >>>>> change the concept of "partner" and insurance, spousal rights and so >>>>> on were easily solved. I don't believe religions are concerned about >>>>> this solution. As far as I know, the government does not object, and >>>>> even allows for joint tax filing. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if the word "marriage" were taken out of the equation, would >>>>> it at least help obtain civil rights for gay couples? >>>>> >>>>> -- Owen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Orlando Leibovitz >>>>> >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>>>> www.orlandoleibovitz.com >>>>> >>>>> Studio Telephone: 505-820-6183 >>>>> >>>>> ============================================================ >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
