<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: LDS Member: &#8220;Church&#8217;s Stance Mocks Our Belief In Free Agency&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 14:10:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cd</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149/comment-page-1#comment-18238</link>
		<dc:creator>cd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3149#comment-18238</guid>
		<description>&quot;You have to separate the canonized doctrines from the personal beliefs of some of the Mormon leaders. Not everything the Prophet Brigham Young personally taught or believed is necessarily accepted doctrine in the Mormon Church.&quot;

The more I read about the LDS Church, the more it seems to me that it really is very strongly tiered into leadership and membership.

The latter class seems almost oblivious of the intentions of the former but are highly compliant.  There seems to be a very deliberate and quite extensive policy of information control by the leadership.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You have to separate the canonized doctrines from the personal beliefs of some of the Mormon leaders. Not everything the Prophet Brigham Young personally taught or believed is necessarily accepted doctrine in the Mormon Church.&#8221;</p>
<p>The more I read about the LDS Church, the more it seems to me that it really is very strongly tiered into leadership and membership.</p>
<p>The latter class seems almost oblivious of the intentions of the former but are highly compliant.  There seems to be a very deliberate and quite extensive policy of information control by the leadership.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tavdy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149/comment-page-1#comment-18165</link>
		<dc:creator>Tavdy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:33:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3149#comment-18165</guid>
		<description>In support of Jim Burroway&#039;s use of the term &lt;i&gt;anti-marriage&lt;/i&gt;, legalising gay marriage or civil unions appears to have a strengthening effect on straight marriage. Divorce rates in Norway, Denmark and Sweden, which were rising steadily since the &#039;60s, either levelled out or began falling after civil unions were legalised on those countries 15 to 20 years ago. I believe that marriage rates have also risen there in the last 15 to 20 years.

Conservatives would predict a rise in divorce rates; gays would predict no change to an established pattern - but both predictions are wrong. There seems to be something about allowing gays to marry which helps prevent straight marriages from breaking up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In support of Jim Burroway&#8217;s use of the term <i>anti-marriage</i>, legalising gay marriage or civil unions appears to have a strengthening effect on straight marriage. Divorce rates in Norway, Denmark and Sweden, which were rising steadily since the &#8217;60s, either levelled out or began falling after civil unions were legalised on those countries 15 to 20 years ago. I believe that marriage rates have also risen there in the last 15 to 20 years.</p>
<p>Conservatives would predict a rise in divorce rates; gays would predict no change to an established pattern &#8211; but both predictions are wrong. There seems to be something about allowing gays to marry which helps prevent straight marriages from breaking up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Burroway</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149/comment-page-1#comment-18146</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Burroway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3149#comment-18146</guid>
		<description>Re: &lt;em&gt;I notice you say anti-marriage. I just wondered if you meant: anti-gay marriage?&lt;/em&gt;

No, I mean anti-marriage. After all, they are trying to prohibit marriage among some people -- or further prohibit it where it&#039;s already prohibited.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: <em>I notice you say anti-marriage. I just wondered if you meant: anti-gay marriage?</em></p>
<p>No, I mean anti-marriage. After all, they are trying to prohibit marriage among some people &#8212; or further prohibit it where it&#8217;s already prohibited.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cowboy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149/comment-page-1#comment-18145</link>
		<dc:creator>cowboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:30:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3149#comment-18145</guid>
		<description>We can never be sure what the real reason for the change of policy for Priesthoodship in the Mormon Church.   It’s pure speculation on our part and unless we were inside the meeting with the Mormon Twelve Apostles and the Prophet and his Councilors that was held in the Salt Lake Temple we do not know the real reason.

I liken it to a membership into a country club.  It simply was a change of rules for a club membership.  Not unlike a C.C. would change their rules for including Blacks or Jews or   Catholics onto their pristine golf course.   There was no “revelation” only if you define revelation as a extremely powerful feeling that came over everyone in that Temple meeting.   In my mind, it was just a Board of Directors coming to an agreement.
 
The change for polygamy in the late 1800’s was the result of pressure from the Government.  The elimination of practicing polygamy was termed a “manifesto”  (not a revelation).   As you can imagine, there were orthodox factions that broke away from the main-stream Mormon religion because of this manifesto.  It’s still controversial in certain circles of Mormons.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We can never be sure what the real reason for the change of policy for Priesthoodship in the Mormon Church.   It’s pure speculation on our part and unless we were inside the meeting with the Mormon Twelve Apostles and the Prophet and his Councilors that was held in the Salt Lake Temple we do not know the real reason.</p>
<p>I liken it to a membership into a country club.  It simply was a change of rules for a club membership.  Not unlike a C.C. would change their rules for including Blacks or Jews or   Catholics onto their pristine golf course.   There was no “revelation” only if you define revelation as a extremely powerful feeling that came over everyone in that Temple meeting.   In my mind, it was just a Board of Directors coming to an agreement.</p>
<p>The change for polygamy in the late 1800’s was the result of pressure from the Government.  The elimination of practicing polygamy was termed a “manifesto”  (not a revelation).   As you can imagine, there were orthodox factions that broke away from the main-stream Mormon religion because of this manifesto.  It’s still controversial in certain circles of Mormons.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149/comment-page-1#comment-18135</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3149#comment-18135</guid>
		<description>the change in heart regarding race occurred, if I recall, in the late &#039;70&#039;s as they were coming under increasing criticism because of third world missionary efforts showing only first world results.

didn&#039;t they have a revelation about polygamy right about the time they were being considered for statehood, but for the polygamy issue?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the change in heart regarding race occurred, if I recall, in the late &#8217;70&#8242;s as they were coming under increasing criticism because of third world missionary efforts showing only first world results.</p>
<p>didn&#8217;t they have a revelation about polygamy right about the time they were being considered for statehood, but for the polygamy issue?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cowboy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149/comment-page-1#comment-18131</link>
		<dc:creator>cowboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3149#comment-18131</guid>
		<description>I notice you say anti-marriage.   I just wondered if you meant: anti-gay marriage?

------------   

You have to separate the canonized doctrines from the personal beliefs of some of the Mormon leaders.   Not everything the Prophet Brigham Young personally taught or believed is necessarily accepted doctrine in the Mormon Church. 

The Mormons have seen the errors of their past racist history.  I can still get into some rather heated discussions with Mormons about this because I don&#039;t think the change to their doctrine in regards to Blacks and their Priesthood blessings was a “revelation” (per se).  

The biggest mistake I can lay at the feet of the Mormon leadership:  They have NEVER EVER apologized for their racist past.  Formally, that is.  

Again, I repeat, mark this down, carve it in granite:  Mormons will regret the day they worked to defeat anti-GAY marriage and how they treat(ed) their gay Saints.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I notice you say anti-marriage.   I just wondered if you meant: anti-gay marriage?</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;   </p>
<p>You have to separate the canonized doctrines from the personal beliefs of some of the Mormon leaders.   Not everything the Prophet Brigham Young personally taught or believed is necessarily accepted doctrine in the Mormon Church. </p>
<p>The Mormons have seen the errors of their past racist history.  I can still get into some rather heated discussions with Mormons about this because I don&#8217;t think the change to their doctrine in regards to Blacks and their Priesthood blessings was a “revelation” (per se).  </p>
<p>The biggest mistake I can lay at the feet of the Mormon leadership:  They have NEVER EVER apologized for their racist past.  Formally, that is.  </p>
<p>Again, I repeat, mark this down, carve it in granite:  Mormons will regret the day they worked to defeat anti-GAY marriage and how they treat(ed) their gay Saints.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149/comment-page-1#comment-18123</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 18:03:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3149#comment-18123</guid>
		<description>Oh yes-- there&#039;s nothing so dangerous as an open mind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh yes&#8211; there&#8217;s nothing so dangerous as an open mind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben in Oakland</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/09/28/3149/comment-page-1#comment-18122</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben in Oakland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:57:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3149#comment-18122</guid>
		<description>All I can say is:

WOW!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All I can say is:</p>
<p>WOW!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
