We refuse to be bound by the interpretations which others place upon our beliefs, or by what they allege must be the practical consequences of our doctrines. Men have no right to impute to us what they think may be the logical deduction from our beliefs, but which we ourselves do not accept.
So often it seems that someone else tries to define for us what we are, what we believe, in whom we have faith.
My Wheat&Tares post tomorrow is on prayer. I had started one on how correlation was not causation, nor was it cooperation. Thus President Hinckley could state that we needed some limits on guns without being in the same camp as the Libyan dictator who attempted to disarm his opponents the better to kill them all or those who promote various items of gun control in an agenda to remove all firearms from the hands of the population.
If you've ever read Dan Quayle Was Right you are aware that there was a movement aimed at destroying traditional families, encouraging children to have sex, and promoting acceptance of what was, at the time, considered unnatural as natural. Yet, perhaps, favoring allowing all to marry, no matter who, what or when they may, does not necessarily mean embracing or cooperating with that movement. Or perhaps it does.
I'm sure that would have resulted in more commentary, but ever since I read the http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/ post on prayer, I've been thinking more about it again. And deciding that I can define for myself what prayer is, what the consequences of it are, and what I accept about it.