Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Please follow this blog! click on "Follow blog"
Followers
Counter
Guidelines
My Uncle John wisely said " political opinions of others can be taken as a criticism of ourselves for holding a different position". Be careful! This is a political and Religious debate blog-- your position should and will be criticized. Please, Please, Please-- do not be offended. You are not being attacked, so do not be defensive. It is not you but your reasoning that are under fire-- heated up until the inconsistencies and weaknesses in your reasoning are apparent.
13 comments:
Richard~ I have read the posts through briefly. the large portion of the information being spat across the table is sizeable at that! I see you asking what is the position for people of a LDS mind set to say voting Pro Abortion? In a talk with you and another, you mention the late James E Faust. Along with the question of... how can he be a Democrat? You then proceeded to point out diffrent reasons for someone to be a voting Democrate.
Steping back and not reading all of the text and information that has been already offered on such a large topic. Allow me to add my 2 cents.
The Church is NOT against Abortion.
WHAT!|?!?!?
As we have already stated the church allows for abortion under specfic guidelines. But it does allow for abortions!
The church of Jesus Christ of Latterday saints is not a "THOU SHALT NOT" Church. It is a "You should do this.... or It might be better to not do this... "
The Word of Wisdom being an example. It says, "...to eat meat sparingly." How many members eat fast food 3 times a day having hamburgers, or ham or chicken? Or just look at the month of NOV, and DEC, Turkey for the next 3 months!
It says "...to use spices sparingly." How many members do you personally know or yourself, adding pepper and salt and other spices to all meals?
it says to not drink "hot drinks" but yet there are still members, TEMPLE recomending carring members, drinking their morning coffee every day before work.
It says that we shouldn't have abortions, EXCEPT under specefic conditions.
YET! Under those specfic condidtions WE SHOULD HAVE AN ABORTION.
THAT is why LDS members can vote Democrat. THAT is why they can support Obama.
I do not support that way of thinking, but, i understand why they think THAT way.
It is nice to see you engaged in these conversations I will talk to you more on Facebook and catch up with you there! Take care Brother! :)
.... (I'll use the "girly language" because i could give a rats @$$ what others think abut it!)
--Nick Perkins--
The argument you posted makes sense if the information is correct.
I could be mistaken (ill do some research)But I don't currently think that the following things are correct-- specifically:
The church endorses drinking coffee and being worthy to attend the temple.
The church encourages some people to have abortions under any circumstances. (as in saying "you should have an abortion")
From what I understood (the church will permit an abortion without church discipline under 3 circumstances: rape, incest, mother or child in danger.)
But otherwise there will be church disciple if a person has an abortion.
I know a bishop I can ask who has the church handbook.
Also, I know that LDS people have every right to vote for anyone they want, I just don't understand why unless:
a.they have never had all of this properly explained to them by someone who cared enough to go through all of the steps and lay it out logically.
b. they were misinformed about something and just made a mistake due to misinformation
c.they felt so strongly about some other topic (the Iraq war or Solar panels) that it skewed their moral logical reasoning inhibiting them from see the entire issue properly
d. they do not understand how to make moral logical arguments properly
e. they do not understand the seriousness of abortion and the churches stance on it properly (or maybe I'm the one who is mistaken-- Ill look into it)
f. their parents or some person that they look up was a democrat so they are following this individual without doing the ground work properly.
g. They have some kind of different view of how laws and government operate which causes them to think that the president is completely disconnected from such topics as legalizing abortion.
h. They think that somehow by making abortion illegal, they are taking away free agency-- as if laws had that much power.
i. They think that if enough people in the united states don't think that abortion is bad, that we shouldn't make it illegal whether it is wrong or not.
... there are perhaps a few other circumstances that I could think of, but they go along the same lines mostly.
December 1945 letter from LDS First Presidency
Share
Sat 10:43am
COMMENT MADE BY GARRET GIBBONS
I just wanted to bring the whole Captain Moroni/LDS War theology topic to its own place, if anyone wants to discuss it.
Improvement Era 47 (February 1946):76-77
Commentary from http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/dialogues/chapter13.htm
"In much the same spirit, the First Presidency in December 1945 issued a letter to each member of the Utah delegation to the U.S. Congress, outlining seventeen reasons for opposing the "compulsory universal military training" being proposed by the Truman administration. Such a law, they wrote, would "teach our sons not only the way to kill but also, in too many cases, the desire to kill, thereby increasing lawlessness and disorder." The ways of war, they argued, are "wholly [p.142] un-American." The creation of a military caste would be a threat to the "equality and unity which always characterize the citizenry of a republic." An immense standing army and the "creation of a great war machine" would be a temptation to ambitious dictators intent on the destruction of freedom: "The possession of great military power always breeds thirst for domination, for empire, and for a rule by might not right." The First Presidency warned, in terms exactly prophetic of what has happened in the ensuing forty years, that the building of "a huge armed establishment" would contradict any protestations of peace and in fact encourage other nations to follow a similar militaristic course, so placing upon the peoples of the earth crushing burdens of taxation that with their present tax load will hardly be bearable, and that will gravely threaten our social economic, and governmental systems .... We shall make of the whole earth one great military camp whose separate armies, headed by war-minded officers, will never rest till they are at one another's throats in what will be the most terrible contest the world has ever seen .... What this country needs and what the world needs, is a will for peace, not war."
Report Note
| Updated on Saturday
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 10:44am on September 20th, 2008
Any ideas? I think that we're off-track as a nation. War IS a moral issue, and we've been warned against what our nation is currently doing.
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 4:16pm yesterday
I would like to discuss this at least a little bit. First, I would like to say that I hate war, I hate killing, and I love peace.
When people try to use this form of Logic:
Moroni is righteous. Moroni went to war.
Therefore going to war is righteous.
This is obviously critically flawed reasoning.
This form however does work.
Moroni is righteous. Moroni went to war.
Therefore going to war does not mean in and of itself that you are unrighteous.
This is a correct conclusion that demonstrates logical reasoning.
So this leaves us back to where we started on this- going to war could either be a bad thing or it could be a necessary thing. However, attempting to say that the church stance is pro or anti this war, is going farther than they have gone. Using a talk from 60 years ago, regarding a different war and a different circumstance to attempt to prove that this war and the decisions made in this circumstance are wrong is as equally flawed as the "Moroni-war logic" that I displayed.
But I still appreciate that you posted a revision of that great talk because it effectively demonstrated the opposite view point, using the same logic as the Moroni argument, in the opposite direction-- countering both arguments and leaving us where we were before the captain Moroni argument was made which tried to prove that the war was a holy and righteous endeavor.
The Church has NOT said this.
So here is where the church stands on this issue:
The Church has no official standing on this issue. Either for or against this war.
I have more...
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 4:27pm yesterday
So what are we to do as latter-day Saints? That has clearly been left for us to carefully and prayerfully discern.
I will share some of my thoughts on the subject, they are imperfect, but they are the best I can do with what I have. I will also say that I have already found counter arguments to every one of my arguments, and counter arguments to every counter argument-- and so on- but I just don't have the space to put it all on here, so I will be brief and hopefully introduce some ideas that may be new or helpful to you. I hope that you are open minded and that you decision is not already made un-amendable or unalterable because this would just a waste of my time, please try to be open minded. I try to be, and my position changes as I receive a superior argument-- to which I have not received-- not even close.
I am going to have to write my current positions in several messages because they are too long to fit into one.
My opinions based on all the different information I have studied-- along with its sources.
Regarding the war in Iraq.
Was it the right decision to go into there in the first place?
I am not entirely certain, I wish that more attempts were made to peacefully re-solve things through acts of charity, through diplomacy, through clearly explaining our intentions as a Nation BEFORE we entered the area angry after 9-11 with guns in our hands. I think that, that would have gone over a lot better and there may have been less violence, fear, death and hatred. Maybe if we would have used this approach first we would have received more support from the local governments and we wouldn't have had to disturb so many people with our presence... Perhaps, or perhaps not. I have read a LOT of information that supports both sides (which I try to be open minded towards), but this argument seems to be fairly logical to me, based on how I would feel in their situation.
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 4:52pm yesterday
Is it in the better welfare of the greater portion of the people of the world for us to remove our military presence immediately?
From everything that I have read and looked at it appears to me that it is NOT in the better welfare of the greater portion of the people of the world for us to remove our military presence immediately. -- there is A LOT to explain behind this argument, but this is a very grounded position considering that nearly 3/4ths of all informed and experienced politicians from all parties agree with this position. The Republicans are almost unanimous on this position and from what I have heard, the Democratic politicians (not the voters) are currently split, and some only some are constantly in favor of IMMEDIATE AND COMPLETE DEPARTURE (some have vacillated on this subject depending on who they are talking to-- just as Republicans do with other subjects-- its a politician thing).
Just because I have a lot of company on this position DOES NOT mean that it is right however.
The correctness or incorrectness of this decision is based on laying out the probability of the outcomes of departing immediately and staying a while longer, based on terms that could be mutually agreeable as "good" or "bad". First of all it must be weighed whether something is good to immediately reverse solely on the grounds that it was poorly done or bad to do. Some people say, "it was bad to go in, and so we need to leave now" This is flawed logic. Let me give you an example of how this argument has no substance in and of itself. If I barged into someones apartment foolishly because I was angry and this caused someone to choke on their meal, am I justified to leave immediately with them choking, and not help to correct or undo what I have done-- necessitating me to stay longer? Obviously this demonstrates my point. Leaving immediately is not always the correct course just even if coming was the wrong choice. BUT this still obviously does not mean that it is right to stay.
Delete
Jacob Call
(BYU) wrote
at 5:04pm yesterday
Okay, I'm about to go to heck for this, but as a lifetime OSC fan, I've got to list the link. A kid I just met had it as his status, and although it only tangentally crosses our plane here, I think I like it. Sorry again, but then it actually ties into what McKenna and/or Richard's been talking about, even if it's rather political (and written by a Democrat -- the sinner! hehehe)
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-09-07-1.html
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 5:28pm yesterday
All that this does is negate the flawed logic of "leaving now, because it was wrong to come" and open up the possibility of a conclusion that may be "more good" -- I am going to stray from the topic at hand because the first necessity of any argument is to establish "clarity of terms" and when I say words such as "right" and "wrong", this is assuming that we agree on terms of good and bad-- which I possibly may not be safe to assume, seeing as you appear to support a candidate who has openly come out and said that he supports the legal right for individuals to execute their partially born infants. And your support of this candidate's view on the war, and monetary matters [subjects which the church and prophet has made no position]-- I am assuming, in your mind, outweighs the importance of supporting the prophet and church in their position which they have CLEARLY made-- stating that partial birth abortion is a wrong practice and that we should oppose this-- and that we are also asked in the church whether or not we support any group or individual whose practices or teachings are contrary to the positions of the Church.-- This is a very strong statement, just as the above statements which I have made above are strong-- I am not attempting in the least to be offensive, but I honestly and sincerely desire to understand your reasoning on the above statement regarding right and wrong, because if I see that we disagree on a subject, which appears so clearly to me-- then it is not a stretch at all for me to imagine that we would disagree upon the correctness in an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and that we would also disagree on most things, whereof necessity in choice must be made where both options are imperfect in their completeness of good or bad and a distinction must be made between the better of the two arguments. I want to make very clear here-- I have dropped the argument regarding Iraq temporarily, and am trying to address a subject that may help "clarify terms"
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 5:52pm yesterday
The above post may appear very critical, judgmental, and contentious-- please understand that I have no ill intention and that I am not attempting to be negative or contentiously emotional at all-- I honestly, sincerely, and truthfully just want to understand and see some of you logic on this because I think that it may be much more effective in "clarifying terms" or unveiling your definition of good and bad-- for example-- here is an argument that has been made. "Abortion should be legalized because if it is illegal it is taking away the woman's right to choose." This argument is absurd almost to the point of idiocy to me. It holds as much logical strength as the following argument. "murder should be legalized because if it is illegal it is taking away the human races' right to choose." This also supports the fallacious idea that making something illegal is removing the free agency of an individual. Laws do not and cannot remove agency-- else why would God give them. The fact that God, through his church has counseled you to vote according to his spiritual laws (oppose killing babies) Using the logic in this argument also would render one to come to the conclusion that there should therefore be NO laws because laws remove agency. God makes laws-- not to remove our agency but to guide us-- governments also make laws-- but the reasons vary. So here you have a decision to make. Is it better for us to support a candidate who supports the war and opposes abortion, or a candidate who supports leaving Iraq immediately, and supports the legalization of murdering partially born infants. You might say that if we make abortion illegal then people will still do it, and it will just go on the black market. Is that a just reason to legalize something? If we use reductio de absurdum we would also be caused to say that we should legalize murder because if we make it illegal than people will still do it and it will just go on the black market. is this just- or logical at all?
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 6:03pm yesterday
understanding whether or not we should remain in Iraq is completely dependent upon our understanding of such terms as right and wrong, better or worse. It is also based on our understanding of justice. I have stated some of my thoughts. You might think that I have side-stepped the issue of whether it is right or wrong to stay in Iraq. I have stated my position on remain in the war. What I have side stepped is the ground work that leads me to this conclusion-- my reason for doing this is because many of the terms are hazy and difficult to address-- even though I have spent a very great deal of time analyzing them. To help me to understand you better I have resorted to addressing a subject that is more clear to me, so that I can understand if you use logic in making your decisions or if you just have a very different idea of justice, right or wrong than I do. I apologize if any of my assumptions regarding your positions are incorrect or fallaciously presented in any way-- this was not my intent, I just want to understand-- and I hope that you are open-minded. If you present me with a stronger argument, which I cannot counter argue-- I would be joyed to change my position. In the mean time, I think it would be wise for me to follow the counsel of the Church leaders, and on such matters as the war in Iraq-- study the source of information more than the information itself. There is SOOO much more that I could and want to say about all of this, I have spent SOOO much time thinking and studying these things through, I have much to say regarding them. I look forward to your reply, Thank you-- Richard Wadsworth P.S please do not be offended, I apologize if I offended you at all.
Delete
Cassie Nichols Lee
(Phoenix, AZ) wrote
at 10:07pm yesterday
Holy cow. Thank you. I am back for a short post. This was my exact concern yesterday. I feared that if I differed so much with all of you on these basic ideas, then I can no longer debate you on anything else. The two issues: 1) Church leaders clearly come out against abortion and that trumps anything that they haven't clearly come out against. And second, if we say that legalizing something doesn't stop people from doing it, then why don't we legalize murder?
Thirdly, the Supreme Court is the body of people that will likely make future decisions on the abortion issue. You say Bush has done nothing on the issue. He appointed two justices with pro-life leanings. That is huge. We'll have 2 possibly 3 justices retire in the next 8 years. This is one of the most important elections yet.
I don't want to say anything else b/c I'm not helping with any of this. I want to say thank you to Richard for helping me understand why yesterday was difficult to swallow. And thanks to everyone for reading.
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 10:42pm yesterday
Brief, knee-jerk response:
1. Richard, thanks for your post(s)! You should get a facebook account.
2. You're talking about some different issues than we have discussed, or have misinterpreted some comments. For starters, I posted the letter (not a talk) as something to look at. I think that we're well on our way to fulfilling the conditions described in it. I'm not trying to say that Obama should be president because of that letter.
3. I like your logic, though you have so many conjectures based upon conjectures, such that it'd take a lot of time to talk it through, point-by-point. A lot of it I agree with, but I don't think that all of your assumptions are sound. I could go through and identify my own concerns with some of your logic, but I don't know if it'd be appreciated or helpful.
4. Abortion is a key issue, but based on your logic, every Stake President, every Bishop, every Sunday School teacher, every member of the church who has voted for a Democrat shouldn't be welcome in the temple. Is that what you meant to say? Extreme conclusions like that should be warning flags that your logic has a critical hole. I've had Democrat Stake Presidents sign my own temple recommend, and I've felt the Lord's Spirit confirming that I am welcome in His house, even though I often oppose some of the morals of the Republican party. (I don't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican.)
Also, based on your logic as I see it, the moment any major Republican candidate adopts a position that goes against LDS morals, nobody can vote Republican, either. Plus, since John McCain resorts to mud-slinging campaigning, he's not being Christian. You can't vote for him, now, right? So do we become an apolitical people, isolationist and sitting in our ivory towers? Of course not.
The world is a messy place, and we are in an imperfect political system with an imperfect judicial system and very imperfect secular leaders. We do the best we can.
That's my quick reply.
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 11:43pm yesterday
Thank you, and thank you for your reply.
1. That's a good idea :)
2. sorry for the mistake, hope you can see past my mistakes.
3. Thank you, I would actually like some help with my assumptions, and would definitely appreciate it if you identify your concerns with my logic, I am sure I made plenty of mistakes and I try to be open-- I will take no offense :) -- I don't care if I am wrong, I just want to understand.
4. is going to take a bit of space to reply too :)
Delete
Dan Korth
wrote
at 12:06am
Jacob,
Thanks for posting that article. That was awesome!
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 12:38am
4. I agree with you, Abortion is a key issue— but I didn't mean say anything about the worthiness of democratic bishops or mean to ask if you felt the spirit in the temple, but I'm glad that you do. The Temple is wonderful—I love our new temple here in Rexburg, it's such a blessing.What I meant to do was to explain my position and why-- and I was wondering what your reasoning is. I didn't mean to ask whether you felt justified in your reasoning because your stake president and bishop are democrats, at least I assume that isn't your reason for your position—I think that they would encourage you to think it through for yourself— I would be more than happy to pose to anyone the same positions I am posing to you. Going on-- I assumed that in your mind, your support of this candidate's view on the war, and monetary matters [subjects which the church and prophet has made no position]-- in your mind, outweighs the importance of supporting the prophet and church in their position which they have clearly made-- stating that partial birth abortion is a wrong practice and that we should oppose this-- and that we are also asked in the church whether or not we support any group or individual whose practices or teachings are contrary to the positions of the Church. My logic never stated that any stake presidents etc. are not worthy to enter the temple, but if I did say that, I would agree with you-- that would be very unstable reasoning. I was not intending to judge anyone, except myself. This is why I stated my position. Then I gave my reasons for my position- and I was wondering what yours where. sorry for all my mistakes, and sorry again if I seem offensive, I am not trying to be, I just want to understand and be understood.
Delete
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 12:53am
You're very loquacious, Richard. :)
Briefly, "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government" (D&C 134:9).
"We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy. " (D&C 134:7)
Some people have the belief that abortion is okay. Murder and abortion may be the same thing to me and to you, but apparently the majority of the U.S. doesn't feel that way. If we legislate against common consent, it will turn out like alcohol in the prohibition era: far worse.
I will vote for specific laws that defend traditional marriage and eliminate abortion. More importantly, however, I will attempt to persuade people to feel like I do, and I won't be condemning if they don't feel just like I do--tolerance would have allowed the Saints to stay in Kirtland, Nauvoo, etc.... Tolerance is a Gospel principle, but we still need to defend the truth. So we do it through persuasion, long-suffering, etc..., and eventually our nation will see abortion for what it is.
What about the environment, raped by Republican policies? Adam was given stewardship over the earth, and the Democrats seem to care a lot more about preserving the earth as a functional biosphere. That is a moral issue for me; if it's not for you, we can talk about that separately. The point is that there's a lot more at stake here than abortion, the war and the economy. Politics are sticky and messy, and if there were a clear answer, President Faust and President Hinckley wouldn't have died while supporting either party. Think about that one.
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 12:54am
Cassie raised an intriguing point about supreme court nominations--I'll be thinking about that argument!
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 12:56am
I apologize if I missed something that you were trying to say-- were you saying that you are opposed to voting for McCain because he is a "mud-slinger"? I have the same problem with him-- that really bothers me too. It really is all about choosing the lesser of two evils, we can't be isolationists-- you're absolutely right. also I wasn't sure If point 4. was meant to be the full response to my post-- I am not sure if that was just a comment or not. If it is a comment never mind-- but if that is your response, I have a little bit of a hard time with it because it doesn't seem to make sense to me-(it could just be my problem)- but basically the logic form is as follows "its okay for me to vote for a democrat because other people are voting for democrats.", that same form could justify such conclusions as "its okay for me to be a Catholic because other people are Catholics" or other things like that. Maybe the form that you meant was.
Good people vote democratic. I vote democratic.
Therefore that doesn't mean that I am bad.
This is the same form I used regarding the war issue-- it is a solid argument. If that is what you meant-- yes I do think that you are a good person, though I don't know you personally, you seem well intentioned and I like your family- especially your brother John and your dad, Steve. I look forward to hearing more-- Richard
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:31am
Okay- Im going to get right down to it before I go to bed because I cant sleep-- Here is my whole dilemma starting with a response to your most recent post... I'm sorry but I didn't understand the relevance of the scripture used in what we were talking about. You left off the end which was basically gave clarification for the beginning ", "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, --whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." Killing someone sure seems like denying individual rights to me… The only thing that seems to be saying to me is "give people their rights to belief whatever they want, but when governments start taking away peoples rights—that is wrong." i.e. when they start permitting people to kill babies, that's wrong. The next verse actually says that it is NOT okay if a belief takes away the right of life from someone else. And the verse that you quoted in its entirety supports that we are "BOUND to enact laws for the PROTECTION of ALL citizens …"
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:32am
Also, according to what I understand about Roe vs. Wade and the way in which the Judicial branch operates-- you were incorrect- and the majority of the U.S. DOES feel the same way as you and I—the Judicial branch was responsible for this law—not the voters. From the information I gathered the voters are overwhelmingly in favor of putting it down, it's the same way with gay marriage and gay parent child adoption. So the common consent argument does not work in this case—but this also leads to another belief I would like to question; are you suggesting that it is good to support someone who votes for something bad just because it is more popular among the majority?
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:32am
But even with that; prohibition is one thing, baby murdering is something else, even then, just because God's laws have negative consequences in some way is no reason not to try and enact God's laws. Using that reasoning we would legalize marijuana and all kinds of illegal drugs because "people will do it anyways and it will just go on the black market and give criminals money" to me, that doesn't give adaquate justification for removing the negative legal consquences of socially and peronally wicked and damaging behavior—though there are some alternatives that are a lot smarter to me—like high fees on harmful and dangerous products—(that's another discussion—but a fun one).
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:33am
I am glad to hear that you will vote as you said. I hoped that you would. According to what I have read it was pride that caused a lot of the problems which drove the saints out, which is kind of like tolerance—but tolerance is one thing and electing candidates is something else. I am glad that you will attempt to persuade people to feel like you do. I am trying to persuade you to feel like I do, but this confuses me because you say that you feel like I do, but you seem to not follow those feelings as far as I can tell. If you feel that abortion and murder are the same thing- how on earth could you possibly ever even consider in a million years to support a candidate who is pro-abortion??
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:33am
I am beside myself with confusion at LDS people who believe that Abortion is the worst kind of murder, and yet will vote for candidates who openly endorse and support it and even go and select other leaders in our other government branches (judicial) who support it, as Cassie wisely pointed out. Legalizing baby murder is the same as legalizing murder—I read the little bit about making it illegal wont stop people from doing it and it will just go on the black market. That is true, absolutely true, but I hope that wouldn't stop you from not supporting a candidate who supported adult murder instead of baby murder—because adult murder is against the law and people still do it all the time and it is on the black market. So that reasoning doesn't work at all—
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:34am
I am so confused, I know other people who are LDS who are also voting for Obama, knowing that he is appointing 2-3 justices, and it is the justices that caused all these wicked rulings to bypass the popular vote and be legalized by a vocal minority who merely appealed to the supreme court—as was the case with Roe vs. Wade. How could anyone feel right in their minds to do such a thing? I wish that they would tell me, but they just give little weak arguments like "other people are good people and they are voting for him too" or "I think that we should pull out of Iraq right now—and that's what he said too" or "I like his plan for solar panels, because its environmentally friendly and I think republicans aren't very friendly to the environment, and Adam was supposed to take care of the earth." WHAT THE HECK??? Do any or all of these issues combined come even remotely close to even the slightest part of justifying KNOWINGLY electing a president who will appoint 2-3 justices who are likely to be responsible for such atrocities as making it easier and legal to MURDER INNOCENT BABIES by the tens of thousands EVERY DAY!!??
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:34am
Im not even worried about the babies, I am worried about the souls of the women and men who choose abortion because it is easy and legal—In the questions asked for baptismal worthiness, does it ask if you pollute? Does it ask if you signed up for the army? NO—it asks if you ever had or supported an abortion—if the answer is "yes", an interview with a higher church authority is needed—sometimes an apostle! Clearly this is a VERY, VERY HEINOUS SIN! And MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than not using solar panels on your house or thinking that pulling the troops out Iraq immediately isn't a good idea right now because it might end up in a lot more people dying that it would cause people surviving. Any candidate in my opinion who lacks the ability to reason properly on such a clear and obvious principle as "should partial birth abortion be legal" has given reason for us to have some serious concern regarding his ability to reason properly at all or have the light of Christ in any degree in his person such as to be able to have any capacity to lead this nation righteously at all. That is my personal opinion, which I am entitled too, and I am open to legitimate argument, facts, debate stating anything else.
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:36am
wow... Im glad I got that out.. I hope that I can get a response that makes sense to me. sorry about some of the capitalized words and sentences like WHAT THE HECK and stuff like that, its just that I am really confused, and feel inadequate to express my level of confusion. anyways-- it is SO LATE-- good night, and thanks for opening up the topic. :)
Delete
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 8:30am
My point 4. was not to say, "other good people are voting Democrat," as you seem to have interpreted it. My point was that your logic is flawed if you think that a large portion of the active leadership of the church (Democrats) aren't worthy to go to the temple. Logic leads us to interesting conclusions, but we need checks, like in physics, to see if the answer is in the right ballpark. You seemed to strongly imply that anyone who votes Democrat isn't worthy to go to the temple--is that what you meant to imply? If that's your conclusion, I think that there's a strong possibility that your logic has a huge hole in it. (If I concluded that anyone who watches FOX news can't possibly have a brain or they wouldn't keep watching, my logic probably also would have holes in it.) My point 4 was in response to that.
You have some interesting ideas, and I appreciate your expression of them! The judicial nominees argument is literally the only good argument I've heard to support voting for McCain, and it's something I'll be thinking about.
In terms of general support for/against abortion and gay rights, it's not that activist judges have determined the laws. I don't know where you've lived during your life, but a significantly large portion of the United States thinks that 1) Pro-choice is important, and 2) People should be allowed to marry whoever they want. Many people share our views about marriage and abortion, but it's not as cut-and-dry as you seem to think it to be. Rural areas tend to have very different sets of cultural values than suburban/urban areas, and maybe you haven't been exposed to the reality about how people feel. I respect and share your values, but you really need to recognize that it's not like 99.8% of Americans hate abortion and gay rights, yet a few activist judges are making people change their minds. I suspect that you've reduced the judicial influence to 0 and 1 values in your logic-based paradigm, and over-simplified it.
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 8:46am
You stated, "LDS people who believe that Abortion is the worst kind of murder, and yet will vote for candidates who openly endorse and support it and even go and select other leaders in our other government branches (judicial) who support it, as Cassie wisely pointed out."
Have you heard Obama endorse abortion? I haven't. Does he say, "I encourage everyone to get an abortion!" I haven't heard that; maybe he's said it. I don't pretend to follow politicians around and log everything they say (especially since I inherently mistrust most politicians in this political system) Does he say, "I support people getting abortions. I want to make it easy"? He may, but I haven't heard that, yet.
In general, those against Pro-life policies are Pro-choice, not Pro-abortion. They have honorable reasons to respect a person's right to choose. They're not bad people, like you infer, and I don't know if their souls are in danger, as you seemed to state. You know that abortion is against God's will. Lots of people think that the soul either doesn't exist, separate from the brain, or that it enters the body later in the conception process. In fact, we as LDS people don't know for sure when the soul enters the body, either. We know that we should appose abortion, and we see why. Rational, moral, good people have come to the conclusion that Pro-choice is the rational, moral, good way to go.
I'm not saying that it's the right way to go, but I respect their logic, morals and beliefs. I don't believe that my religious beliefs should be imposed upon their political voting behavior. IMPOSED. I want to persuade the world that abortion is wrong, but until I do I can't force them, and that's what I meant by one of the scriptures I posted. I'm not going to argue over doctrine with you, now.
On Iraq, I never said that we should pull out of Iraq right now. Where did you get that from?
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 9:38am
Here's a question for everyone. Richard's argument is compelling, and as I understand it is as follows:
1. Statement: The church stands against abortion.
2. Statement: The democratic party is pro-choice.
Statement: Pro-choice allows for abortion.
Therefore: The democratic party allows for abortion.
3. Statement: To merit a temple recommend, LDS members should not support any parties, organizations, etc. whose teachings or practices are against the teachings of the church.
4. Conclusion: Supporters of the democratic party do not merit a temple recommend.
(Richard, please correct this interpretation of your logic, if I have misrepresented it)
So this makes many, many prominent members of the church, including the late James E. Faust, unworthy to enter the temple. This conclusion's consequences seem improbable, so I question the logic.
Here's my question, and it's a real one:
* Does the church stand against abortion
a) for its members?
b) as a legislative act, for all people?
In the case of b), it would be as Proposition 8, as Eric Gifford has pointed out, where the church has come out and said that LDS members should vote for traditional marriage on a specific law. I hadn't heard about Prop. 8 or the church's position on it until this discussion, so I wonder what else may have come up in local politics. Has the leadership of the church ever come out to say that we should support political actions that ban abortion?
I don't know of any case where they have, and at the present I find that Richard's logic is flawed at the very first statement: namely that the church opposes abortion by its membership, but does not compel those outside of its religious influence to comply to LDS standards.
Any responses?
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 9:42am
And just to get things moving, here's the church's statement online. Take note of the very last sentence:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 10:07am
Here's my latest thought on the anti-abortion-by-means-of-supreme-court-nominations issue:
There's going to be a cycling of justices through the Supreme Court, and even if we get 100% conservative, anti-abortion justices now, and they overturn Roe V. Wade, is the U.S. safe from abortion? No! All it will take is a shift in public opinions to elect another series of liberal presidents to nominate liberal justices who will change the previous rulings to where they think public standing should be.
It's going to reflect public opinion, and if your only reason to vote Republican is abortion, you may end up regretting it. If you feel economically towards the right, please vote Republican! I know a good man who voted for Bush 43, based solely on his stance on stem-cell research. This voter later told me that he deeply regretted that simple logic. It's too easy to be effective.
Really, the church seems to condemn abortion by its members, and would discourage all people from using it as a matter of convenience. If the church wants us to legislate against it, then we'll do that. But they're not asking that.
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 10:15am
nope, you messed up the point and logic pretty bad-- Ill help you out in a bit but I have to go to class-- everyone who reads this-- that is NOT my argument, please read what I wrote.
Delete
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 10:17am
I'm not the only one who interpreted the logic that way. I look forward to the clarification!
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 10:19am
Richard wrote:
"And your support of this candidate's view on the war, and monetary matters [subjects which the church and prophet has made no position]-- I am assuming, in your mind, outweighs the importance of supporting the prophet and church in their position which they have CLEARLY made-- stating that partial birth abortion is a wrong practice and that we should oppose this-- and that we are also asked in the church whether or not we support any group or individual whose practices or teachings are contrary to the positions of the Church."
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 1:40pm
You have misrepresented my logic and I am explaining how. For you to read into my intentions the way that you did and come to conclusions that I did not state would be similar for me to do this with someones reasoning about the Iraq war:
pre-statement: the Iraq was is unnecessary violence and killing. (yes or no)
pre-statement: unnecessary killing is murder. (yes or no)
1. Statement: The church stands against murder and unnecessary killing.(y/ n)
2. Statement: The republican party is pro the Iraq war. (y/n)
Statement: Pro Iraq war is unnecessary killing-- which is basically murder.
Therefore: Therefore the republican party is pro murder.
3. Statement: To merit a temple recommend, LDS members should not support any parties, organizations, etc. whose teachings or practices are against the teachings of the church.
4. Conclusion: Supporters of the republican party do not merit a temple recommend.
5. This isn't correct because the prophet and most of the apostles and most of the members of the church are republicans. This conclusion's consequences seem improbable, so I question the logic.
Do you see how that just doesnt work-- Now imagine if had been around you long enough to quote steps 1 and 2 from your own mouth. But Then I added in steps 3, 4, and 5 just because you stated a fact "we are asked in the church whether or not we support any group or individual whose practices or teachings are contrary to the positions of the Church"-- and ran with that and concluded that therefore you must think that the prophet should excommunicated for supporting murder. and then said "hey everybody, Garrett is saying that the prophet should be excommunicated for supporting murder-- what do ya'll think about that?" That would be pretty ridiculous right?
Delete
Jill Andrus Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 2:01pm
Good point. Sorry to misinterpret, but it really did seem that that was what you were implying with that statement. If you were not implying that, what were you trying to say?
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:07pm
so lets move on the the real point of what I actually was trying to asking you before you came to those incorrect conclusions.
If I posed this question to... lets say --James E. Faust, an apostle, and a democrat, and asked him how he logically justified voting for a democrat (how would we even know that he is voting for Obama?) when that democrat supported abortion, what his reasoning behind this decision was-- he would likely give me a very intelligent and logical response, to which I would likely be very satisfied-- but I am almost positive that he would not respond with things like.--
"other members of the church are voting for democrats too". or
"I think that solar panels are healthy for the environment and that is more important than his stance on legalizing killing babies". or
"I like his economic plan and that is more important than killing babies" or
"people are just going to end up killing babies anyways so I might as well not bother to elect leaders who will fight against it, and just look at other issues instead" or
"people are going to kill babies anyways, and then it will end up on the black market, so we should just allow it to be easier for people to kill babies and not elect leaders who oppose it because more people want it"-- etc. etc.
I hope that you can see how each each of these positions are significantly lacking in sound logic, and I just can't imagine any logical & faithful LDS person using any one of these and continue to vote for a pro-abortionist when after a brief discussion the flaw in moral logic is so blatantly obvious. Now-- there are LDS people who still vote for pro-abortionists, and these pro-abortionists have selected supreme court justices and those supreme court justices are the reason that it is so easy to have an abortion in the united states-- SO, understanding the government properly, and being able to use moral logic properly would naturally lead one to NOT vote for a pro-abortionist if there is a choice.
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:21pm
This leads me to conclude that.
1. There is a VERY VERY powerful counter argument to my argument that I have not been able to find anywhere which overpowers my argument
or
2. If the LDS people still vote for a pro-abortionist they must:
a. have never had all of this properly explained to them by someone who cared enough to go through all of the steps and lay it out logically.
b. they were misinformed about something and just made a mistake due to misinformation
c.they felt so strongly about some other topic (the Iraq war or Solar panels) that it skewed their moral logical reasoning inhibiting them from see the entire issue properly
d. they do not understand how to make moral logical arguments properly
e. they do not understand the seriousness of abortion and the churches stance on it properly
f. their parents or some person that they look up was a democrat so they are following this individual without doing the ground work properly
... there are perhaps a few other circumstances that I could think of, but they go along the same lines mostly.
And so the reason that I have brought up this abortion subject was to clarify terms-- and help me see where you are coming from-- It may just be that you have never had anyone bring all of this to your attention before in this way. I highly respect Mitt Romney, and he was pro-abortion for a while-- and he is a very intelligent man too. I think that he just hadn't thought the whole situation all the way through and was a little bit blinded from his parents position which they had because a relative died trying to give herself an abortion because it was illegal. I understand this and I still have a great deal of respect for him-- he came to understand better once he was in office and realized that this issue wasn't personal or family anymore-- it had to do with the blood of hundreds of thousands of babies-- which he then had to look at the result of his law practices-- leading him to become a legal administrator anti-abortion.
Delete
Jill Andrus Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 2:25pm
Alright, you want a response from a card-carrying Democrat who plans to vote for Obama, I'll give you one. For me, abortion is a non-issue. Now, don't even try to tell me I don't care about killing babies-as a new mom I feel very strongly about this, but I'll tell you why it's basically a non-issue for my vote. It's too hot of a political topic right now. Honestly, even if we elected every proclaimed "pro-life" Republican running, I don't think anything will change until PUBLIC OPINION changes. People don't murder and wouldn't even if it were legal b/c there's a basic public sentiment that it is wrong. That view is NOT held in regards to abortion right now, and that is the problem! Ever talked to a woman who's had an abortion? I have. They don't usually see it as infanticide. To them it's a life choice of whether or not to have a baby. THAT is what has got to change if we want fewer abortions in this country! Basically the nation is split in half on the issue, and the politicians know that, so neither party is going to be willing to do something that would make half of their constituents mad at them! It's the way politics work-once elected, the president will be looking for re-election and therefore unwilling to push any legislation that would cause that much controversy. That said, my decision on who to vote for then turns to other topics, ones that may actually be addressed in the political arena. The war, for example (and I do consider unjust war murderous: it's ambitious leaders using the blood of innocent people for political or personal gain), the environment, the economy, the poor, etc. These topics matter, too! And with the abortion issue neutralized in my mind, there remains no question where I will cast my vote.
I hope that I don't offend you with the strength of my opinions, but I hope this explanation has helped you to understand a little bit better someone who thinks differently than you.
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:26pm
By the way here is some more of the talk that you quoted by Dalin H. Oaks-- "If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God's servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?"
From Weightier matters by Dallin H. Oaks
Please read the entire talk-- the part that you quoted might have been interpreted by someone and might have skewed the purpose of the talk making it out of the context of the whole talk a little bit-- don't feel bad, I do it all the time on accident.
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:31pm
Thank you for your comment, thank you sooooo much for being straightforward about it too-- that was awesome! Please read the quote by Dallin H. Oaks and the rest of my writing and use of moral logic and let me know what you think :)
Delete
Jill Andrus Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 2:37pm
I also want to add that it's important for people like us to speak up about our beliefs. Looking at what I just wrote, it looks pretty cynical, but I do believe change is possible. I just don't think it'll happen by voting for a Republican based on one issue. Yes, there are LDS people who support the Democratic party, like me. However, I'm guessing most of us are anti-abortion. I think it's important to make our voices heard by our leaders so they know that abortion is a cross-cutting issue. Not all Democrats are "pro-choice," and honestly, I really doubt all Republicans are anti-abortion. I'll bet some have even had abortions. What's important (in addition to changing public sentiment, as I've said) is letting politicians and everyone know that this issue is bigger than political parties.
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 2:51pm
Let me break down your points so it is easier to analyze them...
abortion is a non-issue (meaning that you completely ignore the subject)
because:
1.Abortion is too hot of a political topic.
2. The president does not have influence to change laws.
3.Other people dont think that abortion is murder.
4.politicians aren't willing to do something that would make half of their constituents mad at them.
therefore:you have decided to ignore this position completely and to vote for candidates based on their other positions.
is that correct? help me fix it if I messed up :)
Delete
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 2:58pm
Richard, who are these pro-abortionists? You keep using that term, but I think that you're being simplistic and narrow-minded. Democrats aren't pro-abortionists. I've never heard Obama or anyone in the Democratic party advocate an abortion.
Don't use smiley faces if you're being mean.
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 3:02pm
I will go ahead and address each of your four points.
1. Using that reasoning I would ignore the war issue too.-- refuted
2. The president does not have influence to change laws. -- this is very incredibly false, It was the president who appointed the supreme justices who made the ruling of Roe vs. Wade. This is perhaps the greatest power and influence that the president has-- and it is VERY powerful, because justices remain justices almost until they die-- and there are only so many of them and they constitute the interpretation of the constitution which is VERY VERY influential.
3. I hope that you would agree with me, that you should vote according to your feelings and your opinions-- not the feelings and opinions of others-- if you feel that abortion is murder, then I believe that you have a responsibility to, within reason, do what is in your power to stop it-- or support those who may have the power to stop it. let me know if you disagree
4. this is false-- one of way too many examples would be: George Bush has pushed this war and CLEARLY more than half of his constituents are mad at him.
therefore: all fo the 4 reasons are not correct, and so the conclusion does not appear to be sound to me.
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 3:25pm
sorry-- wasn't trying to be mean-- I truly am not. Sometimes when positions are attacked it is hard for people to separate the position from the person, I've probably made mistakes by insulting the person behind the logic-- that is wrong and I am sorry if I did that-- I hope that you understand that I think that your family and you are great and good people I am just trying to ask you to sincerely look at your reasoning and post your reasoning so that I can understand if there are is perhaps that there is a VERY, VERY powerful counter argument to my argument that I have not been able to find anywhere which overpowers my argument. I really want to find one, please help me to find one. If I missed one that you said and did not address it properly, please re-post it. or if I didn't adequately refute a position made, please find a hole in my reasoning or come up with a counter argument. thanks.... hehe, I would put a smiley face here, but Im kinda scared now that it will be taken wrong...
Delete
Garrett Wesley Gibbons
(BYU) wrote
at 3:27pm
Richard, we've never met, but it seems like you're very smart and very sheltered. I wonder if you have many friends who will talk to you. If you go around demanding moral justification (from people you've never met, mind you) for any viewpoint that opposes yours, you're obviously sick. You seem to ignore many of my statements and talk past them. I don't think that you're interested in learning, dialogue, or overcoming your parents' own political beliefs. I wonder how much of what you're saying would come out of your folks' mouths if I were having this discussion with them. You are condemning and intolerant, standing behind your "moral logic" that doesn't allow for discussion. Write your ideas on a website and send us a link. You've actually destroyed an interesting discussion that used to be happening on this thread, and a lot of it seems to be directed towards ideas and people that exist in your mind. You can use feminine language to soften your judgments all you want (ie: "thank you sooooo much ;)" ), but it's clear that you're not interested in discussing: only condemning.
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 3:38pm
in answer to your question: "Richard, who are these pro-abortionist?" Im sorry if I didn't make it clear that I was talking about Obama-- and anyone who promotes the legalization abortion. Sometimes people try to say "pro-choice" I think that, that wordage is very deceptive. It is emphasizing ONE of the choices of the woman, but denying ALL RIGHTS and CHOICES-- (including the right to life), of the baby. So it is significantly less accurate in my opinion to say "pro-choice" when that "choice" is the LEAST liberating of all decisions that could be made to all involved-- physically, socially, mentally, and spiritually. But that is only semantics-- sort of like calling a "talk" a "letter" again I am sorry for my mistakes-- there are plenty of them I am sure, I hope that you can see past them and look at the moral logic and other points that I have made and be open minded. If you are saying that Obama is not "pro-legalization of abortion" I would be interested in hearing about that. I would also be open minded to any arguments or counter arguments that you can pose in regards to anything that I have said-- thank you and sorry if I am offending you or sounding mean-- I don't mean to.-- Richard
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 3:43pm
wow, that went pretty wrong, sorry about that-- I was just trying to get to the answers-- Im sorry-- please forgive me for my problems, I must be very poor at expressing myself-- again sorry, and sorry that I led you to you think such of me. I guess now that I have been directly insulted that badly, it would be pretty stupid for me to continue. I'm sorry for anything wrong I did.-- Richard
Delete
McKenna Richard Wadsworth
wrote
at 3:45pm
i would be interested in talking to anyone else whose responses to my debate aren't direct insults to my character in response to my logic. -- you can state them on my wall-- again sorry, Richard
John Gibbons wrote
at 3:46pm
Richard, I've read that talk as well and I agree that it is important for us to enact laws that support out beliefs. That is why I do not support the republican party. I vote according my beliefs and values, just like you. Our beliefs and values are the same, actually, but our decisions can be totally different. For example, you indicated that some may have this view: "I think that solar panels are healthy for the environment and that is more important than his stance on legalizing killing babies" then you followed with a few other such statements of various issues being weighed against the decision to kill babies. In my opinion abortion is not the only issue. Also, I agree with the LDS News room , which states that "The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." This is one issue that the church has YET to ask it's members as a church to vote against, unlike Proposition 8, about which it has been very clear.
John Gibbons wrote
at 3:51pm
Therefore, I don't think anyone in the church should feel compelled to vote republican because that one party is the church's party. I believe you should just vote as you individually have figured, rather than seeking a doctrinal backing in one party or the other. Besides, both parties have doctrinal backings in the scriptures.
Garrett Wesley Gibbons (BYU) wrote
at 4:08pm
John, Richard has already "refuted" that argument. He's not interested in discussing it, just telling us what he thinks. I'd post it on his wall if you want him to see what you've written, since he says that he's not going to post on here.
Andrew King (Sequim High School) wrote
at 6:01pm
Government is an interesting thing. Everyone today has some sort of moral standard by which they live their lives (well... at least everyone ive met :P). Now depending on background, religion, ethics, we all may differ a bit on these "moral" issues, but in part they are about the same.
My way of looking at government is that; Government is the implementation of these moral values. How we implement them is where government discussion comes forth, (some say big government, others say small..etc). I do not believe that there is a "correct" answer when regarding the implementation of government. That is why i consider myself an independent. Perhaps one way works best for some people... and another works best for others, but in theory they are all "correct" (in one sense).
The real argument comes into play (for me at least) as to what party will uphold my moral values the best. The democratic party generally holds a Pro-Peace agenda which is my greatest attraction to them, as well as their environmental side. The republican party holds a (generally) negative feeling towards gay marriage and abortion. As to which agenda holds all my moral values... neither, i personally am quite distasteful of both and if i were old enough to vote (yeah... im not... sad.... lol... but i do love politics) i would be caught right in the middle of the candidates honestly (ive thrown around that i would vote for nader just as a protest vote :P).
The honest truth of politics (in my mind) is that we could argue all day and no winner would be declared. Its a game somewhat in my mind. It all depends on the person and i truely believe that you can be right and TRUE and vote democratic, vote republican, or whatever party it may be.
Morgan Rhys Gibbons (BYU) wrote
at 6:20pm
wow, Richard-
WALL OF TEXT
you've overposted. we've all tried to contribute to the group discussions here equally. There's a lot of power in brevity, and you kind of lost me in a nauseating wash of posts. You spent a lot of time breaking down other's voices and feelings into the way you see them, and using your own brand of logic to demonstrate that they are insufficient in comparison to your own.
It is discouraging to see someone focus so much on themselves and their own argument- now i know there will be a temptation to try to counter this as you read it, please quell that urge- but i really hope we as LDS people can be a light to the world and all that and avoid the debative, forceful and obsessive mess that this unfortunate discussion has been debased to. There are battles to be fought out in the world, no question, but let us be united as saints (and yes, i mean you and I and all of us, no one is excluded here) as we try and fight the battles within ourselves. Our ability to influence the world around is is limited until we win those victories- otherwise we will push many, many people naturally inclined to God away from the Christ we claim to represent.
Andrew King (Sequim High School) wrote
at 6:26pm
There are a number of thoughts i had while reading through these comments, here are a few.
- It could be argued that if our negative economy continues to fall we will have to pull out of iraq as well.(dont ask me though... im not an economist)
- To say that abortion is baby murder is LARGELY debatable in my mind. We truly do not know when the spirit enters the body. All we know is that abortion is wrong, but i find it wrong to call it baby murder. In either case it is killing the "POTENTIAL" of life but we do not know that it IS killing life, it could be, it may not be. All we are told is that it is wrong (in most cases). "Thou shalt not kill, nor anything like unto it," -- Perhaps it is fair to say abortion is like unto it... but it really can be argued that it is not pure murder. (what it is, we dont know... but based on all knowledge we have now, it may or it may not be).
****----------My personal (although i really dont know) belief is that the spirit enters the whom many times throughout pregnancy but does not fully enter it until birth (Noting 3 Ne. 1: 13 - which i realize is really lame to bring scripture into it but im just saying.)
- It is perhaps relevant though that Someone who has had an abortion can be baptised, someone who has murdered cannot. The reason however is debatable. Similarly (and i realize this is off topic but i find it a good point) someone who is homosexual can be a member in good faith as long as they do not participate in homosexual activities (Just as someone who is unmarried can be a member in good faith as long as they do not participate in sexual activities.. err you know what i mean).
****---Another personal opinion of mine is that our government is largely untrustable and because of that, any knowledge that we think we know in terms of what is going on in iraq, or the agenda's behind it... is largely skewed. The media lies...badly... (perhaps my perception comes from just reading 1984 in my lit class though :P)
McKenna Richard Wadsworth wrote
at 6:46pm
Sorry for over posting...it's all fixed. --Richard
Delete
Garrett Wesley Gibbons (BYU) wrote
at 6:51pm
Andrew, you have some interesting ideas! It's great to hear them. I think one of your points is especially strong: that people who have had abortions can be baptized while those who have murdered can't. I haven't checked the church handbook about it but I think that you're right.
Thanks for posting and keeping it real.
Wadsworth, you weren't supposed to delete your comments.... We don't hate you. I just couldn't handle any more negativity.
Garrett Wesley Gibbons (BYU) wrote
at 7:17pm
Seriously. I didn't appreciate your insults, either.
I just found your reply to my reply. I apologize for making fun of you.
You didn't refute all of our arguments. We were basically tired of you spamming a reasonable dialogue with your posts; I wanted to get you out of the dialogue. Sorry for offending. By the way, I felt bad and deleted the post in question, just because I respect your character enough.
I didn't reply to each of your absurd "refutations" because you had clearly not made an effort to understand many of the previous replies. There are people that want to discuss and people who want to rant-- you had proved yourself to be a ranter, so I didn't want to waste any more time. No disrespect.
Richard wrote: "I re-read my entire argument and could not find one place where I attacked him personally as he did 7 times to me-- I did find where I stated that his arguments were fallacious, wrong, didn't make any sense, did not use logic, I didn't see how he could have it, were taking things out of context, and even one was representing a logic form that I felt was idiotic."
You just insulted me 7 times in that paragraph. Happy? If you want to narrowly define insults as attacks on character, you insulted millions of Saints, including the late James E. Faust, by implying that we are sinful, ignorant, following our parents without reasoning through the facts, etc..., because we don't feel the way you do. That's insulting.
Richard wrote:
"Andrew has made good arguments and I agree with him on a lot of points that he has made- but just because I dont agree with Garrett doesnt mean that I am close minded-- perhaps it would be well for all of us to analyze ourselves to see if we are close minded- since he is not overcoming his own parents beliefs or having dialogue-- instead he just insults and wont use reasoning"
There, you just insulted me again. have you met my parents? I don't feel the same way as them on a lot of issues that are related. You're being closed-minded.
What, you hold your little blog to trash my character? Why didn't you reply to me directly? I'm glad I went to your little blog to see what you'd written about me. "Come, discuss religion and politics on my blog, and I'll make fun of you before you ever come!" Way to make friends and influence people!
Richard wrote:
"9."I think that you're being simplistic and narrow-minded"
Though this was intended to be an insult-- I totally agree with it. Quoting the scriptures: "narrow is the way.." "by plain and simple means..."-- Not to say that I am on the narrow or that my words are those simple means mentioned in scripture-- its just to say that there is nothing wrong with finding simple answers if those answers are correct, and if something is correct, that seems to narrow things down bit to me-- if my narrowing and simplifying is not reasonable show me how."
Way to wrest the scriptures.
Re: Nick's comment, he is right. The church officially encourages people to have abortions under those two circumstances he listed, namely forcible conception (rape) and extreme health risk to the mother.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion
So, by definition, the pro-Life stance is the one against the teachings and practices of the church, contrary to your claim before.
11. and 12. of your complaints were not written by me. You're taking things out of context and misrepresenting.
It's disappointing to see a latter-day saint who is so quick to condemn other people with his logic. I don't feel any moral remorse, I just felt that you were condemning much of the church because you don't tolerate other viewpoints.
Richard wrote:
"10."You're very loquacious, Richard. :)" -- "Don't use smiley faces if you're being mean."
Haha-- take your own advice.
-- loquacious means to be a talkative babbler-- a babbler is one who speaks foolishness or is a fool."
Like you said, I chose to be eloquent (your word) and not waste time and space. Don't expect us to reply to your obsessive posting throughout the night, just to defend ourselves against your condemning attacks. I chose not to argue with your points. The Savior chose not to reply to all of his critics' attacks, and often addressed their character.
I didn't mean "loquacious" as "babbler," etc..., but if you assign yourself that title then fair enough. My dictionary simply says "talkative" for the definition. That's how I meant it.
Garrett, I just wanted to thank you. You have taught me a lot, and helped me to be a better person. I feel like the Savior has used you to edify and teach me things so that I can repent and change. At first it was so hard to see it because I felt condemned and insulted, that was why I fought to defend myself... I am sorry. Thank you so much for helping me to see the error of my ways. If it wasn't for the things that you wrote to me on the other blog, I may have never seen how insensitive I was being in the first place, and if it wasn't the things that you wrote here, I may not have seen how SENSITIVE (defensive) I was being here. That blog that I have erased now was almost COMPLETELY about myself-- it was selfish and self centered, I erased it because it was a hypocritical embarrassment and broke the very rules that I was trying to enforce. Thank you again. -- you-- my friend are welcome on my blog or to enter a debate or discussion that I am in anytime-- anywhere. You help me to see the error of my ways which is exactly what I need, because I have so many errors. Thank you. I am sorry, I was wrong.
Post a Comment