Although I don't agree with John's terminology and system of reference in this
regard, logically speaking I don't see why he'd have to take back his
accusations. It's still a civic duty to vote -- that's clear LDS doctrine as far
as I know (okay, I'm extrapolating from the 12th AoF, but the point is I don't
think it's a controversial view).

Paul Osborne wrote:

> Sounds reasonable to me.
> Wouldn't it be a gas to learn that President Hinkley did in fact vote for
> Bush? I wonder what JWR would say then? Would he then take back his
> Gadianton
> accusations?
> Paul O

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“We do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the
worst thing is to rush into action before the consequences have been properly
debated…To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was
a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly
character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was
totally unfitted for action.” – Pericles about his fellow-Athenians, as quoted by
Thucydides in “The Peloponessian Wars”

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to