MarginOfError

Unless of course abortion isn't about murder at all but about the inappropriate use of the sacred powers we have over life and death. In that case, it's a question of what authority we are given. Clearly, the scriptures give precedent for a society to judge when a person may be put to death. In this light, the question is not 'may we put people to death?' but 'are we exercising this authority righteously and wisely?' As for morally ambiguous, I'm sure, Peter, that you are this site's leading expert on the subject. And just for the record, this is way off the original thread and the proper thing to do would have been to start a new thread with an explanation for the context at the beginning. By the way, I'm still waiting to hear why your interpretations of law and scripture are so superior to all of ours.

You mean like when you looked at this objectively or when you replied to this one so objectively or how about when you studied this so thoroughly and with objectivity. For someone who is so objective you have a terrible case of know-it-all syndrome.

If you don't mind me Tooting my own horn, you can try that post. If you can't get access to it and you're over 18 years old, talk to a mod.

I think it's supposed to mean something like, "you can't show off how good your cake looks if you eat it." If you ask me, it's kind of dumb.

I was quite serious, Elphie. The people at the American Family Association really are so dumb that they wouldn't have noticed this.

Are you suggesting that in order to clean the black mark we should remove anything associated with that regime. Let's get rid of the space program, and everything that came because of it. Say goodbye to microwaves! Let's get rid of the interstates. We don't rely on that infrastructure anyway. Let's scrap animal rights. Free Michael Vick! I can't wait to see the paper companies clear cut Acadia. When we deal with people we often try to accept the good in them. Build on those parts of them, and slowly purge the wicked. It's called progression. In the instance of Planned Parenthood, I've already suggested that we don't have to support it. I've even suggested establishing a competitor. But to establish a competitor that forsakes the wicked practices of the organization, you still have to recognize the good aspects of it. Your attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood by associating it with the Nazis actually works against your argument anyway. Germany did purge most of those putrid elements of its society out of itself. They're a far better country now than they were in 1945. What's to say that in 50 years we can't change Planned Parenthood to be a better organization?

YAY! My first convert! As much as I enjoy your melodrama, ceeboo, I think I mentioned earlier that I would never support or patronize Planned Parenthood. The fact that they provide abortions is enough for me to say that I don't want to give them my support. However, if they were to remove that practice from their clinics, I would have no objection to giving them support. My only point is that whether or not we support the organization, we can recognize that it does both good and bad things while stating that we choose to neither support nor help the organization in any way until it abandons the parts we disapprove of.

Well, would you rather they started at your head or at your feet?

So what you're saying, pam, is that you've never felt discriminated against for the color of your gumdrops?

Would you feel the same way about Planned Parenthood if it discontinued its abortion services?

If you're living in a racially homogeneous area, then race really isn't likely to be much of a thought. In areas where there is racial heterogeneity, it's a much bigger deal. In my opinion, the issue isn't really race any more, but socio-economic status. Minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty, have disproportionate access to education, housing, etc. The fact remains that non-caucasians tend to face more and tougher challenges than caucasians. However, I do not believe that this persists because of racism. I think these issues are a relic of a racist America. Over time we have been able to put a big dent into racism, and I firmly believe racial discrimination is dying (not necessarily dead, but on its way out). We still have a long way to go before we really obtain equality, however (by equality I mean that socio-economic status, education, etc are proportionately distributed across the races).

So you admit shades of gray--even in the pornography industry. Let's just be careful not to assume that because an industry has shades of gray doesn't mean that they span the entire spectrum from black to white. To illustrate, consider the two hypothetical black-white spectra for Planned Parenthood and Pornography: Black______________ Shades of Gray_________________ White Planned Parenthood (----------+----------+----------+---------+----------+----------) Pornography (----------+----------+------) It's perfectly possible for the spectrum of one industry/organization to span the entire scale from black to white while another only covers a portion of it. We could also have a spectrum for drinking caffeinated sodas that has plenty of gray, but touches neither black nor white. Caffeinated Sodas _________(--------+---------+----------+--) How much gray are we willing to tolerate before we draw the line at good and evil? It's a question that is hard to answer because it varies by application, organization/industry, and by the individual involved. There are so many variables that have to be considered that we can really only make the decision on a case by case basis. Note: In saying this, I do not deny that there exist issues that are undeniably wrong. I only mean to say that it can be difficult to categorize an organization on the solely on the undeniably wrong. For instance, a man who encourages a woman to have an abortion is engaging in a wicked act, but does that make the man entirely evil?

Can you clarify that? Because the way it's phrased it implies that you believe the prophet is infallible.

But if you really want to get out of the soda drinking habit, try some Mello Yello

Hey, I paid a good $60 for my online degree. I figure that by now, it's appreciated value is about $40. I wouldn't call $40 nothing!

Once again, reading the reference in question might help you understand something. Elder Oaks quoted Elder Holland in this October's Conference. You can read the entire talk. Ben's comments referred to the explanation for why Priesthood holders wear white shirts to officiate in the Sacrament. This was not done by way of commandment. It was done by was of suggestion, and rationale for the suggestion was given. Again, perhaps you should try reading the source. So now I'm supposed to trust your incredible memory for all of the context of this quote. For some reason I'm having a hard time conjuring up that level of trust.

The fact that people will see what they want to see in this symbol is precisely why I wouldn't put one up in my yard. While I may understand what it is meant to represent, there are too many people out there that don't. I don't need a fallout like this one coming to my doorstep. If someone wants to put one up in their yard, I have no objection to that. When the community freaks out about the burning cross they put up, I'll do my best to explain that there isn't any need to label that person a racist. But I'm not going to feel sorry for the person for what they end up going through. One of the first rules of communication is that the message understood by the receiver is really the only message that matters. And Elphs, I love you, but you're wrong. It is entirely possible that the people working for the AFA couldn't catch this similarity this bears to the KKK symbol. You seem to be forgetting that the AFA is a collection of some of the worlds greatest morons that hates anyone that doesn't submit to their brand of Christianity.

You're right, I seem to have skipped over that sentence, for which I apologize.

In the Article of Faith you quoted, it says "if there is anything lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." And then you admitted yourself that some of the services Planned Parenthood provided are good. Do they not deserve praise for what good they are doing? Is it really hard to praise and criticize the same entity in one breath? I'm not asking anyone to support Planned Parenthood. You don't have to like them. You don't have to support them. You don't have to patronize them. And no, the good and wholesome services they provide do not justify the unacceptable and wicked ones. In fact, I myself would never give a dime directly to Planned Parenthood. But I will recognize that a large portion of what they do is good. I'm perfectly willing to say I would like to see them do more of these services, and less of the services I disagree with.

I imagine he would probably ask if there was another alternative. By the way, what are the alternatives? Where can a woman go to get basic and necessary checkups at an affordable price for those with low income and no insurance? If you're want to demonize an entire organization for 3% of its services, go right ahead. If you're going to demonize an individual for using the noble and respectable services of the organization when there is no other alternative, perhaps you should take a lesson in compassion and then work on establishing an alternative organization that will provide the noble services without the wicked ones. When Christ chased the money changers out of the temple, that was all he did. He didn't burn down the temple entirely. Furthermore, under your logic, the Southern Baptist Convention is a purely evil organization, because they teach against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The one piece of badness, the one cockroach, negates every good thing the SBC does. Sorry, Sister, the world is full of shades of gray.

Interesting. I've never heard that one before. PM me and tell me what they say. In other interesting things about mormons, I found out this weekend that Christ was crucified in Utah. Why don't they tell us this stuff in Sunday School?

Like I said, I don't think this was deliberate, and I sense no maliciousness from the AFA in doing this. When you know these are produced by the AFA, it's pretty easy to understand what the intended message is. But if you had no idea who made these, or for what reason, it becomes ambiguous, and sort of obscures your intended message. This is one case in which perception is probably more important than message.

Stillborn children pose an interesting conundrum. The First Presidency has stated that they may be included on Family Group Sheets (or whatever they're called), but temple ordinances are not performed for them. At the same time, is was stated that this policy causes "no loss of eternal blessings or family unity." So, on the one hand, they don't need the temple blessings, but this doesn't preclude them from being attached to the family. Conflicting evidence. I've heard it argued before that the spirit doesn't enter the body until birth. The justification for this was that the night before Christ's birth, He is telling Nephi that he is about to come into the world. In fact, depending on the exact time of Christ's birth, and adjusting for time zones, the difference between His conversation with Nephi and His birth may have been as small as a few hours. To me, however, it seems preposterous to imply that a Being who oversaw all of creation, and regularly communicates via supernatural means, couldn't find a way to send a message across the world. Some assert that life begins at conception/fertilization of an egg. Yet, for 20 years, the Church has been backing off its position against birth control, leaving the matter to individuals and couples. Furthermore, the Church takes no position (either for or against) embryonic stem cell research, which relies heavily on fertilized eggs, generally two days old. One could argue that these policies imply that the Church doesn't interpret life to begin immediately at conception. More likely, however, the Church just doesn't want to make the interpretation because it doesn't matter. From my experience, and everything I've read and studied and pondered and felt, my best guess is that there isn't a pre-defined moment when a spirit enters the body. It most likely varies across fetuses. Some are quickened sooner than others. President Brigham Young once stated as his opinion that "when the mother feels life come to her infant it is the spirit entering the body" (JD 17:143). Some mothers may feel this early, some may feel it late, and some may not feel it at all and still have a healthy, live child. So, when a mother says she's felt her child's body be quickened, I'm not going to argue. But I don't think it's appropriate to generalize her experience to the entire population. It's been my observation that this topic is most commonly brought up in relation to abortion, which is somewhat silly to me. I don't think that abortion would be any more morally acceptable to the Church even if it were revealed that the spirit doesn't enter the body until 3 minutes before birth. I've always interpreted the Church's opposition to abortion to be based on principle--against the improper use of our divinely given gifts to create life. (Not sure that made much sense, but I can't seem to compose a better way to say it)

The lawn ornament, a cross wrapped in white christmas tree lights, bears frightening similarity to a burning cross. A burning cross was used most notably by the Ku Klux Klan as a way to intimidate non-Caucasians. I have my doubts that the similarity was intentional, or that it was meant to send a message to a minority community. But it is an unfortunate occurrence. Apparently the AFA needs a better marketing team (not to mention better leaders, better agendas, and better thought).

I'm so terribly sorry if I made you feel like a tare. That was certainly not my intent. What I apparently very poorly articulated was that perhaps Planned Parenthood itself can be seen as a wheat and tares situation. I promise you, I have nothing against what you said nor against the choices you made. Please forgive me for not being clear about that.