Do you really support Religious Freedom

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Of these two things, what's more important to enemies of the LDS Church?

Would it be 1.) exercising your freedom to attack the LDS Church? Or would it be 2.) defending the religious freedom of people of faith including the LDS Church to practice their religion as they choose and speak out on public issues of morality?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm

[Russ]

Of these two things, what's more important to enemies of the LDS Church?

Would it be 1.) exercising your freedom to attack the LDS Church? Or would it be 2.) defending the religious freedom of people of faith including the LDS Church to practice their religion as they choose and speak out on public issues of morality?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm

I posilutely, absotively support your right to believe that secret handshakes are supposedly mandatory for eternal life.

I also reserve the right to tell you that Jesus knew nothing of it.

Is this a great country, or what?

[Father_JD]

Of these two things, what's more important to enemies of the LDS Church?

Would it be 1.) exercising your freedom to attack the LDS Church? Or would it be 2.) defending the religious freedom of people of faith including the LDS Church to practice their religion as they choose and speak out on public issues of morality?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm

Why do you think it should be an "either or", Fig?? Sometimes even the LDS Church gets something "right" such as opposing ****sexuality...that is unless one of your future "prophets" sez he had a revelation that ****-sex is ok! :rolleyes:

[BrianH]

Of these two things, what's more important to enemies of the LDS Church?

Would it be 1.) exercising your freedom to attack the LDS Church? Or would it be 2.) defending the religious freedom of people of faith including the LDS Church to practice their religion as they choose and speak out on public issues of morality?

I am not sure why you have inserted a dichotomy here since any true freedom of religion would NECESSARILY include BOTH - the freedom of Mormons (and anyone else) to practice their religion AND the freedom of critics to voice their criticisms of Mormonism or any other religion. However, if, in some imaginary world, I was forced to choose, I would chose your second option.

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

.that is unless one of your future "prophets" sez he had a revelation that ****-sex is ok! :rolleyes:
---You think YOUR church's leader might someday convince OUR church's leader that her pronouncement (that God is cool with gay marriage and gay clergy) is correct? Don't hold yer breath waiting for that to happen, Padre!

[Father_JD]

---You think YOUR church's leader might someday convince OUR church's leader that her pronouncement (that God is cool with gay marriage and gay clergy) is correct? Don't hold yer breath waiting for that to happen, Padre!

It wouldn't be a case of Jefferts-Schori convincing Monson. It WOULD be a case of Monson getting a warm-fuzzy that ****-sex is NOW ok. :D

And the really FASCINATING thing is that some of the hierarchy really believe the HOLY SPIRIT IS TELLING THEM THAT GAY SEX IS OK, jeff.

In other words, they've already slipped down the slippery slope of "latter-day revelation", although they wouldn't call it by that label. And they have ZERO problem of their new "revelation" contradicting the Bible, just as LDS have ZERO problem that Mormon "revelations" contradict the Bible.

[Bat-Man]

I am not sure why you have inserted a dichotomy here since any true freedom of religion would NECESSARILY include BOTH - the freedom of Mormons (and anyone else) to practice their religion AND the freedom of critics to voice their criticisms of Mormonism or any other religion. However, if, in some imaginary world, I was forced to choose, I would chose your second option.

-BH

.
Your lack of comprehension is showing again, BrianH... and yours too, Father_JD.

Fig didn't insert a dichotomony in his post, and he didn't say anything to suggest you couldn't choose BOTH options.

He simply asked which of the two options you would favor MORE.

Heh, your heart is showing every time you open your mouth.

[Father_JD]

He's implying a dichotomy and there's NO compelling reason why anyone should favor one over the other, Bat-Man.

[Bat-Man]

He's implying a dichotomy and there's NO compelling reason why anyone should favor one over the other, Bat-Man.
Heh, he's IMPLYING no such thing, Father_JD.

YOU are the one who is IMPLYING that Fig was implying a dichotomy.

... just as you IMPLY a LOT of OTHER things which are NOT true.

[Father_JD]

Heh, he's IMPLYING no such thing, Father_JD.

YOU are the one who is IMPLYING that Fig was implying a dichotomy.

... just as you IMPLY a LOT of OTHER things which are NOT true.

I'm not implying. He's IMPLYING. I'm being very EXPLICIT here. :rolleyes:

[Bat-Man]

I'm not implying. He's IMPLYING. I'm being very EXPLICIT here. :rolleyes:
You're being explicit in stating that Fig is implying something, but all you have to show for the idea that Fig is implying something is your own explicit implication.

Not that I'm surprised by all of this, personally, Father_JD.

You frequently state that other people are IMPLYING things which they do not actually say.

[Father_JD]

You're being explicit in stating that Fig is implying something, but all you have to show for the idea that Fig is implying something is your own explicit implication.

LOL. Is this the Mormon version of Abbott and Costello's "Who's On First" shtick?? :p




You frequently state that other people are IMPLYING things which they do not actually say.

Duh. Thanks for pointing out the obvious: Things which are implied are not "actullly said" meaning explicitly. :rolleyes:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Why do you think it should be an "either or", Fig?? Sometimes even the LDS Church gets something "right" such as opposing ****sexuality...that is unless one of your future "prophets" sez he had a revelation that ****-sex is ok! :rolleyes:

I asked which is more important to you. That isn't an either/or question.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

He's implying a dichotomy and there's NO compelling reason why anyone should favor one over the other, Bat-Man.

You got it wrong, JD.

I asked which is more important to you. Implying a pecking order, not a dichotomy.

[James Banta]

Of these two things, what's more important to enemies of the LDS Church?

Would it be 1.) exercising your freedom to attack the LDS Church? Or would it be 2.) defending the religious freedom of people of faith including the LDS Church to practice their religion as they choose and speak out on public issues of morality?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm

Both of these are guaranteed right under the First Amendment.. I praise God that choosing one or the other is not something I have to do.. IHS jim

[Father_JD]

I asked which is more important to you. That isn't an either/or question.

They're both equally important is my opinion. ;)

[Father_JD]

You got it wrong, JD.

I asked which is more important to you. Implying a pecking order, not a dichotomy.

No pecking order as far as I'm concerned. :rolleyes:

[alanmolstad]

Of these two things, what's more important to enemies of the LDS Church?

Would it be 1.) exercising your freedom to attack the LDS Church? Or would it be


2.) defending the religious freedom of people of faith including the LDS Church to practice their religion as they choose and speak out on public issues of morality?
[/url]

Oh Man!...... that a long 2nd question........

[Apologette]

Ah, remaining true to the Gospel of Christ found in the Gospel, which includes defending the faith "once" delivered to the "saints," which would be us, the sanctified in Christ, would be most important to us..

[alanmolstad]

Of these two things, what's more important to enemies of the LDS Church?

Would it be 1.) exercising your freedom to attack the LDS Church? Or would it be 2.) defending the religious freedom of people of faith including the LDS Church to practice their religion as they choose and speak out on public issues of morality?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm

At first I looked at this post as a tricky manner to talk about a Mormon's wish for more people being more nice to his religion.

And I also understand the point a Christian might raise that you should not pose a "This way or that way" type of question in such a way...



Now after all this time I have a new way to answer the question Fig raised...
Here is a new way to look at the same type of question -


What is more important to me, Saving a boat load of people from dying in an overturned boat?, .....OR......defending a boat owner's right to go out on the water and go where and when they want?





That's the same question that Fig asks, just without the religion in it.



My answer is that while I will always support the right of a boat owner to enter the water and go where he wants and enjoy the freedoms that come with that, I have to also point out that while thats is important to me, the need of others is greater at the given moment too...Thats saving a life is more important in the moment than supporting a boater's right to go where he wants on the water.


I think the same about Fig's question.

My answer is that while I do think that supporting religious freedom is important to me, its also important that I answer the calling on my heart from the Lord, and use my given situations to speak out to the evils of Smith's life style, and to his being a false prophet and that Mormonism is a non-bible evil in this world that leads it's members to eternal ****ation.



It's more important to me that I work to save a soul from ****ation in this short moment here to reach out people with my warnings, rather than supporting a given tax break of a Mormon church day care etc, etc,etc