Invented Constitutional "Rights"

[Klein_Helmer]

Ladies and gentlemen, you are bearing witness to greatness.

Venkman! Venkman! Venkman! Venkman!

[Timpman]

It's really too bad that members of the church can be advocates of same-sex marriage. I wonder if some really think their intellect is greater than a prophet's leadership.

I am thinking about the positions you have laid out and I've heard all these progressive and so-called intellectual arguments before. I may or may not respond to them.

[Klein_Helmer]

It's really too bad that members of the church can be advocates of same-sex marriage. I wonder if some really think their intellect is greater than a prophet's leadership.

I am thinking about the positions you have laid out and I've heard all these progressive and so-called intellectual arguments before. I may or may not respond to them.

Are you even being serious?

You doubt that the intellect (or perhaps more appropriately, wisdom) of those who opposed antiquated, archaic, bigoted church policies, surpassed those of the "prophets" advocating them?

Yikes.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Klein_Helmer

[Vort]

Are you even being serious?

You doubt that the intellect (or perhaps more appropriately, wisdom) of those who opposed antiquated, archaic, bigoted church policies, surpassed those of the "prophets" advocating them?

Yikes.

Why would he be kidding about that?

What do you suppose it means to be a believing member of the LDS Church?

[Klein_Helmer]

Why would he be kidding about that?

What do you suppose it means to be a believing member of the LDS Church?

That position is nothing short of disastrous for the credibility of the church.

Everyone has blood on their hands, and almost everyone is willing to admit it.

The United States had a policy of institutionalized slavery. Our leaders look back on these circumstances, and admit that they were abominable.

The Catholic Church believed the earth was the center of the universe, and rejected evolution. They have now adopted far more reasonable positions.

The LDS church largely restricted the involvement of blacks, did X,Y,Z, etc, etc, and rather than saying these were unfortunate byproducts of the ignorance of the times, many church members fervently believe that this was the very will of God - on which he would later change his mind.

That is absolutely outrageous.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Klein_Helmer

[skippy740]

Please keep this thread on-topic. If you want to debate your last point... there are other threads.

[Timpman]

What about all of those other people at Mormons for Marriage

The mormon church is very large, and only some actively participate on this website. It may not be easy to accept, but there is a growing portion of the LDS community that feels like I do about gay marriage. So if there is going to be discipline for reading/thinking, then I'm not going to be the only one getting it.

That doesn't change what the prophets say. It's too bad so many don't listen.

As far as your ERA post is concerned, I support an amendment that protects people from discrimination on the basis of sex. It's a good thing we have the 14th amendment and 5th amendment since the ERA didn't pass. Not sure why it relates to constitutional law about the issue of marriage though.

I suggest reading that whole page that I linked to. There were many negative things about the ERA.

I'm not going to respond to all of your points. I am not learned in all the arts and cunning of the people. You can refer to the opinions of wicked judges and the so-called logic of the day. I will bow out with this:

O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.2 Nephi 9:28 

[Vort]

You never answered my question. What do you suppose it means to be a believing Latter-day Saint?

That position is nothing short of disastrous for the credibility of the church.

I don't think it's disastrous. I think it's obvious.

Everyone has blood on their hands, and almost everyone is willing to admit it.

Hmmm. Speak for yourself.

The LDS church largely restricted the involvement of blacks, did X,Y,Z, etc, etc, and rather than saying these were unfortunate byproducts of the ignorance of the times, many church members fervently believe that this was the very will of God - on which he would later change his mind.

That is absolutely outrageous.

Why? I don't find it at all outrageous.

The idea of God "changing his mind" is anti-Mormon tripe. That God changes his commandments to us does not imply that God changes his mind. There is nothing logical about that.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Vort

[annewandering]

I have no blood on my hands and neither does the church. Kindly do not even imply otherwise.

[PeterVenkman]

That doesn't change what the prophets say. It's too bad so many don't listen.

I find this attitude very dangerous because it clearly rejects the value of critical thinking, and I think critical thinking is something to be cherished and encouraged. I reject the notion that we should accept the word of any human being at face value, simply due to their title.

Hypothetical example:

Let's say there was a person you considered to be a prophet and this person asked you to do any of the following things:

1. Drink poisoned kool-aid with your children.

2. Invade a non-hostile country.

3. Murder a pregnant actress in her home.

4. Drop bombs on a family that supposedly lived on your land.

Then what? Should we take an action that our personal conscience abhors while carrying the flag of faith?

I suggest reading that whole page that I linked to. There were many negative things about the ERA.

I read it, but I disagree with many parts of it. I know you are leaving the conversation, but I would be fascinated to hear your explanation of why the equal rights amendment was a bad idea.

I'm not going to respond to all of your points. I am not learned in all the arts and cunning of the people. You can refer to the opinions of wicked judges and the so-called logic of the day. I will bow out with this:

lol ok, you are the one that started the thread, and you are the one that asked for my explanation. You are obviously free to dismiss my points as "the logic of wicked judges" and "the arts and cunning of the people", but we live in a secular society, and therefore arguments like mine are the ones that will eventually make it to the Supreme Court when they inevitably turn to this issue.

As for your bible quote about false wisdom, my counter-quote is from Socrates:

"I know that I know nothing." The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I know. skepticism sure is hard to square with faith, but I refuse to abandon skepticism.

[skippy740]

1st - Is he a prophet of God? "Beware of false prophets. By their fruits, ye shall know them"

2nd - Will the Prophet ask me to do anything contrary to the core doctrines of the gospel? (Note that this is one of the "fruits" that you shall know of a true or false prophet.)

This does not mean that the prophet will never ask of anything hard or difficult. He may. The question then is this: Is the request in-line with the gospel? Will I need to follow it to be in harmony with the gospel?

Never follow a prophet where you have not attempted these "tests" and received a confirmation from the Holy Spirit that the person is a prophet of the Lord and that the request is of God.

That is how I apply critical thinking to matters of faith.

[Timpman]

I find this attitude very dangerous because it clearly rejects the value of critical thinking, and I think critical thinking is something to be cherished and encouraged. I reject the notion that we should accept the word of any human being at face value, simply due to their title.

Hypothetical example:

Let's say there was a person you considered to be a prophet and this person asked you to do any of the following things:

1. Drink poisoned kool-aid with your children.

2. Invade a non-hostile country.

3. Murder a pregnant actress in her home.

4. Drop bombs on a family that supposedly lived on your land.

I am talking about prophets of the church of which you are a member! According to your profile, anyway. I'm talking about Adam, Noah, Moses, Nephi, Joseph Smith, Thomas S. Monson, and so on, not random guys who merely claim to be a prophet. Do you think following President Monson is dangerous?

lol ok, you are the one that started the thread, and you are the one that asked for my explanation.

I actually didn't ask.

[Timpman]

As for your bible quote about false wisdom, my counter-quote is from Socrates:

"I know that I know nothing." The more I learn, the more I realize just how little I know. skepticism sure is hard to square with faith, but I refuse to abandon skepticism.

It's in the Book of Mormon. Have you read it recently?

[Vort]

I find this attitude very dangerous because it clearly rejects the value of critical thinking

This is a lie. Or do you refuse to believe your doctor's diagnosis until you complete medical school and your residency?

One can embrace critical thinking and still believe that others might have expertise or knowledge that one lacks. That you don't believe this demonstrates that you understand neither faith nor critical thinking.

and I think critical thinking is something to be cherished and encouraged.

A humorous statement, coming from someone who clearly does not understand critical thinking.

I reject the notion that we should accept the word of any human being at face value, simply due to their title.

That you say this indicates your abysmal ignorance about the structure and function of the Church to which you claim to belong. No one (except antiMormons) claims that Latter-day Saints accept the word of people "simply due to their title".

Hypothetical example:

Let's say there was a person you considered to be a prophet and this person asked you to do any of the following things:

1. Drink poisoned kool-aid with your children.

2. Invade a non-hostile country.

3. Murder a pregnant actress in her home.

4. Drop bombs on a family that supposedly lived on your land.

Your hypothetical example is that of a raving lunatic, or an anti-Mormon. Truly shameful for someone who claims to be a Latter-day Saint.

[Timpman]

Vort is my hero of the day. Scratch that - his profile pic is hideous.

[Dravin]

Vort, I know you're engaged in the current fork the conversation has taken, but I'm actually kinda curious what your explanation is for the distinction between having a right to do something and it being unrestricted. I have my own thoughts, which I've shared, but they're obviously more application/functional in thought process rather than philosophical (though it's not purely functional in thinking). So I'm curious what your thinking is.

Edit: Or did you sneak it in while I was talking with Klein?

[Timpman]

You are obviously free to dismiss my points as "the logic of wicked judges" and "the arts and cunning of the people", but we live in a secular society, and therefore arguments like mine are the ones that will eventually make it to the Supreme Court when they inevitably turn to this issue.

Yes, arguments like your's will make it to court, but that doesn't make them RIGHT.

[Guest]

Vort is my hero of the day. Scratch that - his profile pic is hideous.

I wanted to Thank and Laugh at the same time, but alas, it won't let me...

[Vort]

Vort is my hero of the day. Scratch that - his profile pic is hideous.

Seriously? Bagging on poor Halldora?

For the record, I think she's rather beautiful and not in the least masculine-looking. But it's those big puppy-dog eyes that so effectively reflect my own purity of heart that really does it for me. (Okay, maybe I'm a bit TIC on that last sentence. But my intentions are good.)

[Vort]

Vort, I know you're engaged in the current fork the conversation has taken, but I'm actually kinda curious what your explanation is for the distinction between having a right to do something and it being unrestricted. I have my own thoughts, which I've shared, but they're obviously more application/functional in thought process rather than philosophical (though it's not purely functional in thinking). So I'm curious what your thinking is.

Edit: Or did you sneak it in while I was talking with Klein?

I read yours and Klein's exchanges and thought about responding, but hadn't yet gotten to it. Let me define what I think is meant by a "right".

My definition of a right is expounded in the Declaration of Independence:

"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."

A right is an inborn social freedom to which all people have claim merely by virtue of being human. In religious terminology, we say it is "God-given" (or in the wording of the Declaration of Independence, "endowed by their Creator"), emphasizing that its existence is not conferred by governments or by documents. Rather, inherent in the very condition of being human and living among other humans is the existence of these rights.

For example: All humans have the inborn, inherent freedom to think as they wish. That is their right, conferred by nature or God or whatever überpower you want to acknowledge. Not all governments recognize this right, of course, and there are many (perhaps even our own) that would abrogate this right if they could -- indeed, that actively seek to abrogate it. That does not change the fact that freedom of thought is a natural right, and that any decent government worth supporting will defend it.

The three rights listed in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are not the only rights; as the Declaration of Independence says, these three are "among" our God-given rights.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are an attempt to further enumerate these God-given rights. Thus, we have the freedom to assemble, to worship how and whom we please, to keep and bear arms for our defense, to keep silent instead of being forced to provide self-incriminating information, and so forth.

In all these cases, please note: The right does not exist because it is listed in the Constitution. It is self-existent. The Constitution merely enumerates that right so as better to acknowledge and defend it.

Many today say things such as, "We have a right to health care!" Viewed from the pure perspective of rights as given above, such statements are quickly recognized as absurd, a perversion of the very meaning of the idea of "rights". We have no "right" to have everyone else take care of us. As Christians, we are taught that we should care for others, that we are our brother's keeper -- but that is a far cry from claiming that there exists a right for such treatment.

Hope this illuminates my position a bit.

[Dravin]

Okay, I figured your thinking was more towards the more philosophical end of the spectrum considering your earlier post. Note that I agree with the concept of inalienable God given rights, I just find that outside of a philosophical discussion their utility is limited. When talking about homosexual marriage, for instance, the pertinent aspect on debating the legality of homosexual marriage boils down to if they have, or should have, the functional (or government protection/sanction) or not.

So within the more philosophical context the idea of unrestricted non-rights (if I may phrase it that way) is quite simple. Thank you for your response, I don't know if it'll make sense to Klein but it makes sense to me.

Edited April 19, 2012 by Dravin

[PeterVenkman]

I am talking about prophets of the church of which you are a member! According to your profile, anyway. I'm talking about Adam, Noah, Moses, Nephi, Joseph Smith, Thomas S. Monson, and so on, not random guys who merely claim to be a prophet. Do you think following President Monson is dangerous?

Again with the investigation about my authenticity. I shouldn't have to tell you about graduating seminary or being an eagle scout or attending church or doing baptisms for the dead or doing splits with missionaries or preparing and delivering the sacrament or personally baptizing people and I sure don't have to tell you about the content of my own prayers or patriarchal blessing...so either come out and tell me why you think any of this is relevant to the conversation we are having or leave your doubts about my religious disposition out of the conversation.

People on this forum love to tell me that I'm too fringe to be part of the group. That's fine, it's not the first time I've heard it. But I haven't resigned, and I haven't been excommunicated, and after all these conversations I'm glad LDS.NET doesn't have the power to do it.

Do I think following Monson is dangerous? I will keep saying it as many times as I need to: I think it is dangerous to follow any human being without being skeptical of what they are saying. This goes for Monson as much as it goes for the Pope and Carl Sagan and Charles Manson and Jim Jones.

I actually didn't ask.

Then why did you say this on page 1:

Didn't he say those arguments were made in 2008? Let's have a fresh discussion instead of looking up old threads. Forums would be quite dead if we couldn't discuss anything that had been discussed previously.

and why did you say this on page 2:

PeterVenkman's detailed arguments are not there. This thread is supposed to be focused on Constitutional "Rights" rather than "Youtube and my faith reduced to rubble".

and why did you use my arguments to start a thread about the constitution and rights guaranteed by it if you did not want my perspective?

and why did you run away from the conversation about the constitution as soon as I chimed in?

It's in the Book of Mormon. Have you read it recently?

ZING! Congratulations, I mistyped the scripture from which your quote came. I must be a heathen. In truth, haven't read it all at once since 2008.

This is a lie. Or do you refuse to believe your doctor's diagnosis until you complete medical school and your residency?

One can embrace critical thinking and still believe that others might have expertise or knowledge that one lacks.

I don't take the doctor's opinion at face value if that's what you mean. It's always good to get a second opinion and compare the thoughts of multiple doctors...that would be an appropriate use of skepticism and critical thinking for me in the context you provided.

As a side note, I also think morality / ethics is an area where there aren't really experts. We commonly conflate technical knowledge with moral knowledge, but we all have the ability to understand and evaluate moral / ethical decisions. To me, this is one of the presumptions underlying the holy ghost and baptisms at age 8 rather than newborn.

That you don't believe this demonstrates that you understand neither faith nor critical thinking.

A humorous statement, coming from someone who clearly does not understand critical thinking.

That you say this indicates your abysmal ignorance about the structure and function of the Church to which you claim to belong.

AHA, but I already beat you to the punch. I already conceded that I don't know or understand anything (see Socrates quote). I'm not offended that you feel this way, if I seem ignorant, then that's true. No false claims to wisdom here!

What do you suggest is the appropriate punishment for my abysmal ignorance about the function of the church?

Edited April 20, 2012 by pam
references to political candidate

[Timpman]

ZING! Congratulations, I mistyped the scripture from which your quote came. I must be a heathen. In truth, haven't read it all at once since 2008.

I was being snotty and I am seriously sorry about that.

Then why did you say this on page 1:

Didn't he say those arguments were made in 2008? Let's have a fresh discussion instead of looking up old threads. Forums would be quite dead if we couldn't discuss anything that had been discussed previously.

and why did you say this on page 2:

PeterVenkman's detailed arguments are not there. This thread is supposed to be focused on Constitutional "Rights" rather than "Youtube and my faith reduced to rubble".

and why did you use my arguments to start a thread about the constitution and rights guaranteed by it if you did not want my perspective?

and why did you run away from the conversation about the constituti

Edited April 20, 2012 by Timpman

[Vort]

I don't take the doctor's opinion at face value if that's what you mean. It's always good to get a second opinion and compare the thoughts of multiple doctors...that would be an appropriate use of skepticism and critical thinking for me in the context you provided.

So then, as long as you can find two or three prophets who agree on a moral issue, then following their counsel is not an abrogation of your critical thinking duty?

As a side note, I also think morality / ethics is an area where there aren't really experts. We commonly conflate technical knowledge with moral knowledge, but we all have the ability to understand and evaluate moral / ethical decisions. To me, this is one of the presumptions underlying the holy ghost and baptisms at age 8 rather than newborn.

So a ten-year-old, or a fifteen-year-old, is equally capable of making important moral or ethical judgments as an adult? Is this what you allow your children to do -- make moral decisions with no input from you, since they are obviously equally capable of making such judgments?

The fact that you think there are no experts in morality or ethics really means nothing, except perhaps that your judgment is highly questionable (something that you freely admit).

AHA, but I already beat you to the punch. I already conceded that I don't know or understand anything (see Socrates quote). I'm not offended that you feel this way, if I seem ignorant, then that's true. No false claims to wisdom here!

Then why ought we, or anyone else, listen to you? You admit you have nothing to offer.

Why do you reference various feminist texts and authors? By your own philosophy, their opinions are exactly as worthless as your own.

What do you suggest is the appropriate punishment for my abysmal ignorance about the function of the church?

Pushups. They are unpleasant, but build upper body strength.

[bytor2112]

The question is asked often, "how does homosexual marriage hurt traditional marriage? How does it help? And Venkman.....are you gay? And if you haven't read the Book of Mormon since 2008....is it because of Prop. 8? Are you inactive? Just curious....