No, that is not what I was suggesting, Roger. Dissent within the LDS is a proven fact: witness the FLDS/LDS split.
What I was trying to say was that if your suggestion that a monetary incentive be provided to create a schism within the LDS religion, where the intent is for one faction was to assume a more rational approach to societal diversification issues like same-sex marriages, the attempt would probably fail. The reason being that the LDS view of "proper" societal positions for men, women, and marriage aren't very rational to begin with, and they are fixed by an extremely rigid and ritualistic dogma. A dogma that succeeds to a very large extent of creating "members for life". I was, however, mildly surprised to see the issue being discussed openly in the Salt Lake Tribune. A web page, BTW, that I can no longer access. Has it been taken down, of is there a more innocent explanation? Ten years ago you would not have seen "bad" LDS news of this type appearing in a Salt Lake paper. --Doug On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Roger Critchlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.cowasm/lds/ci_10797630<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
