It is currently Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:40 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:21 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
You wouldn't know serious intellectual content if it bit you on the finger. My undergrad work was done in sociology and the family was a particularly interesting area of study for me. Open a book, Loran... read for a change, before you start typing. Your intellect is showing (kinda like that slip of yours).



And as anybody who has studied the dissolution of the humaities and social sciences in higher ed will tell you, the discipline of sociology has been so politicized, so riddled with ideology, and so given over to intellectual faddism that a liberal like yourself claiming to be an expert on anything remotely like the history of the family is suspect on its face. It is suspect because sociology, like cultural antthropology and some other hard hit disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, for all intents and purposes, no longer an academic discipline, but a ideological project of the acacemic Left. Your marriage-as-artifact-of-the-industrial-revolution concept is well known to me and it is nothing more that an politically driven revisionist theoretical structure from a highly theoretical social science discipline that has become notorious for its hearty appetite for cultural Marxist and post modernist ideology over serious acamemic inquiry.

That theory is not be any means accepted throughout the academic world nor by any means by all others in other disciplines, like history. Frankly, if your woeful performance on DDT (which is an empirical, scientific question and hardly saddled with all the subjective biases, uncertainties, and theoretical problems of the study of the history and attitudes of ancient societies about marriage) is any measure, your undergraduate work in sociology is probably about as worthless as Howard Zinn's historical scholarship.


Everyone's (well, mine anyway!) favorite apologist, Armand Mauss, was one of my professors. His specialty is Sociology. You want to take up the argument with him, go ahead. He's the one who first opened up the doors to a most fascinating topic of study.

And if I cared about DDT, and your pitiful response, we'd have a conversation about it. Since I don't, and we aren't, that should tell you something. You made a blanket statement that I refuted. You then took offense that I didn't give you proper homage. Tough beans, Loran. You think you're an authority on everything under the sun, but you aren't; your sources are as biased as mine; you just get all pissy because mine are in direct opposition to yours. Get over it. In case you haven't noticed, no one keeps score here, so declaring yourself the winner simply shows your lack of character, not your intellectual superiority.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Some interesting food for thought, and I've italicized some of the statements that relate directly to the debate going on here. Allan Carlson, Ph.D. (http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc_acc_ ... &opt=EXACT)


Quote:
Second: Marriage is the Union of the Sexual and the Economic.

This is not my original observation. Rather, this is the classic definition of marriage long used by cultural anthropologists to explain this institution: namely, men and women cooperate economically in order to produce and rear children. According to the great 20th century anthropological surveys, marriage as such is found "in every known human society."[17] Paleo-anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy, writing in Science magazine, musters the evidence showing that men and women are drawn together by an innate desire for a lasting pair bond. Indeed, he sees this development of economic cooperation in permanent pair-bonds as the key step in human social evolution.[18] It is certainly true that for thousands of years and for hundreds of generations, humankind organized most economic tasks around the family household. The growth, preservation, and preparation of food; the provision of shelter and education; the construction of clothing: all of these tasks, and hundreds more, took place in the home. Wife and husband specialized in their labor, to be sure, according to their relative strengths and skills. The work of both, though, was home-bound and essential to family survival.

Some cast the industrial revolution of the last 150 years as the material source of contemporary challenges to marriage.[19] Industrialism tore apart the natural home economy. More precisely, this revolution shifted the place of work from the home to the factory or office; it displaced the generalized productive skills of husbandry and wifery with exaggerated specialization and commercially purchased goods.

There is much truth in this analysis. However, some go on to argue that a new family form is now needed: an "egalitarian" family, without role specialization or home production of any sort, that would accommodate the industrial impulse. But it will not work. I agree with Kingsley Davis that such an "egalitarian family system"–as dreamed of by the Bolsheviks and as seen today most fully in Western Europe–cannot be sustained. High levels of divorce and cohabitation combined with low birth rates actually "raise doubts that societies with this egalitarian system will [even] survive." [20]

The necessary alternative is to find new ways of articulating and advancing marriage as an economic partnership. Between 1948 and 1969, for example, the U.S. government did treat marriage as a true partnership for purposes of taxation, allowing married couples to "split their income" like all other legal partnerships. One clear result was "the marriage boom" of that era: a phenomenon that ended only after the elimination of income splitting.[21] In addition, calculations from Australia show that the traditional "home economy" has not disappeared at all. Even in advanced industrial societies, the uncounted but real value of continuing home activities such as child care, home carpentry, and food preparation is still at least as large as that of the official economy.[22] Moreover, a growing number of Americans are actively reversing the industrialization of key activities that were once the family's: this is how we should see home schooling, for example, now embracing over two million American children.[23]




The above implies two things, the first being that nobody is denying that for thousands of years, marraige had an economic basis. What Harmony neglects to inform us is that it still does, that this is unremarkable, and that her claimed absense of actual love between men and woman in ancient times is nothing more than an ideologically conveinent assumption that she's attempted to pass off as historical fact. Indeed, we have the ancient Roman and Christian tombstones inscribed with the touching tributes of love and affection to departed wives or husbands, the anceint poetry, the biblical relationships (and other sources. The Book of Jasher adds to the account of Abraham's wife's funeral that it was of a kind normally reserved for kings or other nobility) and texts like Romeo and Juliet from a time centuries before the industrial age that bespeaks a teenage romantic affection opposed by the respective families that looks not at all unlike modern post WWII relationships involving the same age group and very much the same social dynamics, including extreme, self destructive behavior in rebelleion against the forces (the adults and their interests) tyring to keep the lovers apart.

That ancient peasants had little time or inclination for the specific kind of romantic love associated with industrial age western society is probably true as far as it goes (but these people never wrote any books or kept any records, so its really impossible to do anything but specualte through whatever modern filters we bring to that table about what they really thought about relations such as this), but such plausibilities are used by folks like Harmony as a stick to beat the horrible Judeo/Christian/Mormon sexual moral norms, traditoinal marriage, family, and gender roles she so fears and loaths.

And its not a proper or balanced use of historical knowledge.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:14 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
You wouldn't know serious intellectual content if it bit you on the finger. My undergrad work was done in sociology and the family was a particularly interesting area of study for me. Open a book, Loran... read for a change, before you start typing. Your intellect is showing (kinda like that slip of yours).



And as anybody who has studied the dissolution of the humaities and social sciences in higher ed will tell you, the discipline of sociology has been so politicized, so riddled with ideology, and so given over to intellectual faddism that a liberal like yourself claiming to be an expert on anything remotely like the history of the family is suspect on its face. It is suspect because sociology, like cultural antthropology and some other hard hit disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, for all intents and purposes, no longer an academic discipline, but a ideological project of the acacemic Left. Your marriage-as-artifact-of-the-industrial-revolution concept is well known to me and it is nothing more that an politically driven revisionist theoretical structure from a highly theoretical social science discipline that has become notorious for its hearty appetite for cultural Marxist and post modernist ideology over serious acamemic inquiry.

That theory is not be any means accepted throughout the academic world nor by any means by all others in other disciplines, like history. Frankly, if your woeful performance on DDT (which is an empirical, scientific question and hardly saddled with all the subjective biases, uncertainties, and theoretical problems of the study of the history and attitudes of ancient societies about marriage) is any measure, your undergraduate work in sociology is probably about as worthless as Howard Zinn's historical scholarship.


You don't by any chance also go by the name of Michael Savage do you?

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
No. But you could ask David Horowitz, William F. Buckley, Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell, Allan Bloom, Alan Charles Kors, and any number of other first rate intellectuals with intimate knowledge of the problem about it and they can fill you in.

Would you like a list of think tanks and books on the subject by serioius Conservative and Libertarian scholars and public intellectuals?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:04 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
Coggins7 wrote:
No. But you could ask David Horowitz, William F. Buckley, Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell, Allan Bloom, Alan Charles Kors, and any number of other first rate intellectuals with intimate knowledge of the problem about it and they can fill you in.

Would you like a list of think tanks and books on the subject by serioius Conservative and Libertarian scholars and public intellectuals?


To the extent the people you've listed share your narrow, dogmatic, intolerant, simplistic, stereotyped, black and white, ignorant world view, I'm not much interested in them.

If they are thoughtful and serious, I am curious as to why you're reading them.

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:22 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:13 pm
Posts: 1831
Location: Canada
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
(By Guy Sajer) I think that they feel morally and intellectually superior because, well, they are compared to narrow-minded religious dogmatists who are obsessed with other people's sex lives and who attribute a grossly disproportionate importance to one's sexual orientation in the moral hierarchy.

Just what, in your opinion, is the underlying moral principle (without referencing scripture or appeal to authority) that makes homosexuality immoral?


Followed by Coggins (Bold added by RM)

Well guy, you make many of the more general points I've been making about the liberal mind and attitude here and on another post quite clear for me, for which I should thank you.

What you have written above is just standard early seventies leftist can't of the kind I grew up hearing throughout the pop culture and media of the day. Conservatives as a whole, have never been obsessed with other people's sex lives. It is the Left and secular social liberals, beginning in the late sixties, that became obsessed and has remained obsessed with sex per se during that period up to the present. Loran, you weren't asked to analyze his thinking. You were asked to answer the Guy's question.

Now, the underlying moral principle that makes homosexuality immoral is simply the general gospel principle that marraige as a concept is only intelligable when uderstood as occuring between a man and a woman and that such a marriage has as one of its primary purposes the creation, nurturing, and raising of children. It is further a general principle that any sexual activity whatever, outside of that covenant is illegitimate, including heterosexual premarital activity, extramarital activity, and, therefore, by definition, homosexual activity which is not even compatable with natural human physiology and anatomy. He asked you to forego the the traditional tie-in to church-stuff, and here you are referring to it right after your diversionary tactic of avoidance...

Homosexuality is also, however, a perversion of appropriate sexual relations as well as immoral, or outside the boundries of human integrity that form the moral and spiritual core of such relations.


OK, so maybe You/Loran think your above sentence is a direct response... However, IMSCO, it in no-way supports "immorality" as understood in a "moral" society. In such a society, as the one sketched in the sand by Jesus when he asked the one without sin to cast the first stone... A moral society is concerned with abuses; with inflicting pain to another; with taking away 'free-will' from others simply because they don't follow-the-leader. Yes "human integrity" is a most important aspect of an accoutable society. It must not be sacrificed to accomodate an edict.

The core of an individual, or the collective, should be formed by a spiritual appreciation of individual differences that do not bring pain and/or injustice to others.

It appears that Your moral-high-ground might simply be so in the minds of those who lack the 'charity' to live the higher laws introduced by Jesus???

Your camp, so-to-speak, seems to dwell on "...appropriate sexual relations..." as the crux of the matter. Really, where do we find that idealism to be preached from pulpits--to a GREAT degree? Seems we've moved from lust to love, to relationships as the base for family security. Both D.O. Mackay and H.B. Lee made that the purpose of home and family in their famous quotes. Yet a long way from the norm in LDS and other sectarian religions...

Could it be possible that neither you nor i (among others) know so little about "God's" ways, and fall so short of measuring-up by the "NEW" moral-code he left us with, that the world could improve IF we just gave a chance to setting aside violence and dogmatism to practice 'charity in all things'. And that ain't no Leftist Bull-S*** Bro!! Warm regards, Roger


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Coggins7 wrote:

Quote:
(By Guy Sajer) I think that they feel morally and intellectually superior because, well, they are compared to narrow-minded religious dogmatists who are obsessed with other people's sex lives and who attribute a grossly disproportionate importance to one's sexual orientation in the moral hierarchy.

Just what, in your opinion, is the underlying moral principle (without referencing scripture or appeal to authority) that makes homosexuality immoral?



Followed by Coggins (Bold added by RM)

Well guy, you make many of the more general points I've been making about the liberal mind and attitude here and on another post quite clear for me, for which I should thank you.

What you have written above is just standard early seventies leftist can't of the kind I grew up hearing throughout the pop culture and media of the day. Conservatives as a whole, have never been obsessed with other people's sex lives. It is the Left and secular social liberals, beginning in the late sixties, that became obsessed and has remained obsessed with sex per se during that period up to the present. Loran, you weren't asked to analyze his thinking. You were asked to answer the Guy's question.

Now, the underlying moral principle that makes homosexuality immoral is simply the general gospel principle that marraige as a concept is only intelligable when uderstood as occuring between a man and a woman and that such a marriage has as one of its primary purposes the creation, nurturing, and raising of children. It is further a general principle that any sexual activity whatever, outside of that covenant is illegitimate, including heterosexual premarital activity, extramarital activity, and, therefore, by definition, homosexual activity which is not even compatable with natural human physiology and anatomy. He asked you to forego the the traditional tie-in to church-stuff, and here you are referring to it right after your diversionary tactic of avoidance...

Homosexuality is also, however, a perversion of appropriate sexual relations as well as immoral, or outside the boundries of human integrity that form the moral and spiritual core of such relations.




Quote:
OK, so maybe You/Loran think your above sentence is a direct response... However, IMSCO, it in no-way supports "immorality" as understood in a "moral" society. In such a society, as the one sketched in the sand by Jesus when he asked the one without sin to cast the first stone... A moral society is concerned with abuses; with inflicting pain to another; with taking away 'free-will' from others simply because they don't follow-the-leader. Yes "human integrity" is a most important aspect of an accoutable society. It must not be sacrificed to accomodate an edict.




I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools.

"Morality" is integrity of relationship, and that integrity does not end with only those closest too us (and it cannot so end, as the quality of our relationships with them will determine the quality of our relationships with the greater community and with the nation as a whole, as the effects of those most intimate relationships are manifested in effects through wider and wider concentric circles of societal structure). In other words, in a gospel context, acute abuse of others is only one manifestation of "immorality". Our private behavior, as with our private thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and core characterological attributes, have effects outside of those uniquely private spheres. "Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated.

This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy. In this context, anything we do to one another that hinders, retards, or in severe cases, cripples or destroys our ability to move closer to our Father in Heaven, become more like him, and eventually return to his presence as outlined in LDS theology, is immoral, since it is a relationship of disintegrity in that the consequences of such actions, even when full consent is present, is, being destructive to the happiness and ultimately, spiritual and personal fulfillment of the individual as a child of God, destructive to all involved in that consensual relationship.

In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.


Quote:
The core of an individual, or the collective, should be formed by a spiritual appreciation of individual differences that do not bring pain and/or injustice to others.


I agree with this (although I have no idea what 'the collective" means), but from an LDS standpoint, this is a fragment of a larger whole.


Quote:
It appears that Your moral-high-ground might simply be so in the minds of those who lack the 'charity' to live the higher laws introduced by Jesus???


Sexual immorality of all kinds were condemned as the grossest and most serous of sins by Jesus' Apostles, and they are the only recourse we have when deciding what Jesus actually taught in the New Testament texts. We have no book written by Jesus, nor any teachings of his that have not come down to use from his disciples. You either believe what they said Jesus taught, or you reject both them and Jesus. You can't have it both ways here.


Quote:
Your camp, so-to-speak, seems to dwell on "...appropriate sexual relations..." as the crux of the matter. Really, where do we find that idealism to be preached from pulpits--to a GREAT degree? Seems we've moved from lust to love, to relationships as the base for family security. Both D.O. Mackay and H.B. Lee made that the purpose of home and family in their famous quotes. Yet a long way from the norm in LDS and other sectarian religions...


I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'll just say that, as far as the church goes, it is not the church that dwells on appropriate sexual relations. This is a fundamental late 20th century, post sixties misunderstanding. It is the secular world that has become preoccupied with and dwells upon sex and sexuality per se that necessitates a continuous response from those who, according to New Testament mandates and LDS theology, are obligated to warn the world and individuals within it of the ultimate consequences of these behaviors and cultural patterns.

Quote:
Could it be possible that neither you nor i (among others) know so little about "God's" ways, and fall so short of measuring-up by the "NEW" moral-code he left us with, that the world could improve IF we just gave a chance to setting aside violence and dogmatism to practice 'charity in all things'. And that ain't no Leftist Bull-S*** Bro!! Warm regards, Roger


Your conernts here are valid, but I'm not sure how they are relevant to the crux of the matter here, which is human sexuality. Non-consensual immorality such as violence and other violations of the free agency and rights of others are a concern of the church, as is the consensual immorality that occurs when we do things to,or with each other, than cripple or truncate our relationship with our Father in Heaven.

Loran


Last edited by Coggins7 on Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:26 pm 
harmony wrote:
Loran, you live your life based on a promise from a man who gazed into a hat looking at a seer stone. Don't talk to me about adolescent fantasies. You have your own problems with "fantasies". At least mine are based on reality, not a none-too-well-disguised knockoff of contemporary 19th century religious bombast.


What a hypocrite you are. Posting anonymous statements like this, while carefully claiming elsewhere to be a recommend holding active member of the Church. You are either lying about your church status, or a complete coward. Either way, your position does not look attractive.

P


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:35 pm 
harmony wrote:
Quote:
Your slip is showing again, Loran. Marriage as we know it is a recent phenomena, a product of the Industrial Revolution. Prior to then, marriage was only utilized by royalty and the aristocracy, to ensure inheritances and property passed from generation to generation. The general population made do with simply living together or jumping over a stick type of ceremonies. Marriage's main purpose never was to nurture children. Marriage was a legal action regarding property.



Coggins: The above is as devoid of serious intelletcual [sic] content as was your pityfully uneducated posing over the DDT issue. Marriage "as we know it" is a product of the last century and a half? Bluster on Harmony, your leftwing intellectual retardation is becoming a real drag.


Well, I am a left-winger. I can't believe how ill-read you are, Harmony. Marriage ceremonies (monogomous, I might add) were in ancient Greece, Rome, Babylon, Persia, Syria and the Celts. In the more advanced civilizations, homosexuality was generally considered a vice although often tolerated with a wink and a nod. I suggest you read Durant for an overview of world history before making statements like this. He's one place to start.

The Church co-opted marriage in the Fifth Century, and basically everybody had to be married or were considered committing a mortal sin and not able to take communion. It was not a "property" consideration alone.

P


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:51 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
What a hypocrite you are. Posting anonymous statements like this, while carefully claiming elsewhere to be a recommend holding active member of the Church. You are either lying about your church status, or a complete coward. Either way, your position does not look attractive.



I don't know to what extent you've followed the knock down, drag outs I've had with Harmony in this forum, but she's laid this trip on me on more than one occasion. She has, according to her own account of the matter, a substantial list of Mormon "credentials, including the Temple recommend, callings, continuous church activity, etc, and all of this is apparantly to demonstrate that people like her who, for all intents and purposes, are utterly and implacibly hostile to the vast majority of church teachings and doctrine, its culture, the normative politics and social attitudes of most of its people, and a visceral despisal of most or all of its general authorities, post past and present (at least if they ar male).

I've met another such individual, a signiture books type self styled intellectual and critic of the church known as Mel Tungate (on a couple of email lists some years ago) and his approach was the same: I've got a Temple recommend, I go to church regularly, I've held callings, I've been in the Bishopric, etc., so how can you say the things I believe and teach aren't compatible with the church (this particular individual believed that Joseph Smith was not only a fraud, a lecher, and murderer, but had no substantive belief in the accounts of the origin of the BofM and church at all. My positon was that this made him, de facto, a non-member, at least intellectually. He drops his wallet and shows me all his Mormon credentials. Case closed).

Interestingly, Scratch just mentioned last night that he didn't hate the church at all; that all he wanted to do was save, or redeem it from its lower self.

It seems that the "all I'm trying to do is help" and "I'm a faithful active member just like you" school of anti-Momonism is fast becoming a popular bait and switch polemical tactic.


Last edited by Coggins7 on Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:55 pm 
Indeed.

When I first started corresponding with Harmony, she used an interesting phrase. I can't recall it but I can paraphrase it: "I hold a recommend just like you do. Who knows, I can be sitting across the temple aisle from you some day and you wouldn't even know it."

The first time she used it, I thought it was an effective rejoinder and did make her hit pieces against living people and the Church more effective.

The second time she used it, I rolled on the floor with laughter.

The third time she used it, I assumed that she has a computer clipboard somewhere and just calls it up whenever she needs it.

And, good observation. She plainly hates men, or at least males in authority.

Another one of her tactics is to pose "questions." I remember a very long list of questions directed to temple content which, if answered, would have caused those even marginally affiliated with the Church discomfort. I recall that nobody was willing to tackle them. But, she argues often by "questions," reasoning that "questions" aren't really taking much of a position. But, her recent post about the foolishness of believing in a person who looked in a hat (gee, why is this a surprise; David Whitmer described this method of translation from the get-go; oh, that's right, she has never heard of "An Address to All Believers in Christ").

But, enough about her.

P


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:44 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
This is precisely what made me, as well as some others from the old ZLMB forum, suspect that she was actually LSD, a particularly virulent individual with whome many (including Wade and I, some months ago), engaged in the verbal equivalent of all out thermonuclear war with issue after issue. We were all put in our places about that (I think), but the overall style is still present and suggestive. LSD had a particularly radical Feminist, what could only be described as animus against males per se and LDS males with a proverbial vengeance.

I've still got to give Vegas credit for the Mormon wives as "sexual meat dolls" line. If I were Roger Corman I'd be working on the screenplay for that as we speak.

Loran


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:11 am 
God

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:13 pm
Posts: 1831
Location: Canada
Hi Loran, thanks for your response--especially its civility, much appreciated! Pasted from your post, into which i'll interject in italics:
Quote:
I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Possibly. However, in Jesus' words--as we have them--he seems to spend more time presenting what some call, "the social gospel" than speaking about, "fornication, adultery, and homosexuality". In the incident of the adultress brought to him, he did not endorse stoning her. He barely rebuked her. He simply said "...sin no more." He also took occassion to chide the self-righteous Pharasees, "...you think you're so pure...when you lust...you've committed adultery in your heart..."

If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. "...societal messes..." are obvious, and a challenge! However, to ascribe them all to the 'sexual revolution' i think is to ignore other social factors, old and new, that are causal of what is symptomatic as seen in infidelity and its sad, and serious, consequences.

All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools. This social morass, you well describe, unfortunately is not new. It was the focus 2,000 years ago of Jesus as he wept over the conditions of his people. His prescriptions of remedy however, have not been taken regularly; if indeed they have really been glanced at... "Two New Commandments..." have as yet not come into their own, generally speaking. Yet, we do see, and experience, "...spiritually healthy children" and adults, who are about-good-works... Loran, there is no doubt in my mind that "Family Matters". However, IMSCO, the 'family' to this point in time, has not filled its mandate well; with exceptions of course. Otherwise the social dysfunctions laid out above would not exist to the extent they do...

"Morality" is integrity of relationship, and that integrity does not end with only those closest too us (and it cannot so end, as the quality of our relationships with them will determine the quality of our relationships with the greater community and with the nation as a whole, as the effects of those most intimate relationships are manifested in effects through wider and wider concentric circles of societal structure) In total agreement! .

In other words, in a gospel context, acute abuse of others is only one manifestation of "immorality". Our private behavior, as with our private thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and core characterological attributes, have effects outside of those uniquely private spheres. Total agreement--in every social context!

"Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated. A bit garbled here, but i would say, "not necessarily so"???

This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy. In this context, anything we do to one another that hinders, retards, or in severe cases, cripples or destroys our ability to move closer to our Father in Heaven, become more like him, and eventually return to his presence as outlined in LDS theology, is immoral, since it is a relationship of disintegrity in that the consequences of such actions, even when full consent is present, is, being destructive to the happiness and ultimately, spiritual and personal fulfillment of the individual as a child of God, destructive to all involved in that consensual relationship. A very long sentence. To which i generally agree. I will extend it beyond LDS theology, as i think that is too limiting. "Children of God" are not confined to LDSism but are privy to their divine heritage wherever they abide...

In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.
,

The last paragraph demands more serious consideration than i can give it at the moment. However, i do not think anyone can escape the consequence of their actions. That is more than a priciple. It is an unavoidable reality. I'd like to pick this up later... Warm regards, Roger


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:00 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Loran, you're arguing for my points.

1. Marriage was (and still is, to a great degree) about property and inheritance. Please show me where anyone but the money'ed was married. All you've shown is that the aristocracy and the landed gentry and the politically powerful were married. Big deal! I already said they were. And why? Marriage was about property. Why do you think the father required a bride price? (because his daughter was his property and he wanted compensation for his loss). Why do you think the ceremony had (and still has) the father "give" the bride away? (because anciently, women were property, exchanged in return for other property). What was the most common way to cement alliances? Answer: through marriage. The rich married each other, made sure there was a male heir in order for the bloodline to continue, and then found the love of their life elsewhere. Our romantic attitude towards marriage is a result of Victorian England, and escalated since then.

Slaves did not marry. The poor did not marry. The vast majority of people did not marry. They loved, they copulated, they had children, but they did not marry. Heck, Adam and Eve were not married. How do we know this? Because marriage didn't exist then! Marriage is a legal action, combining the assets of two families, and it didn't exist until people began to own land. That's when inheritance laws were born. Marriage was for those with money who wanted to pass their wealth to their progeny. It required paying a fee, paying the clergy to perform a ceremony, money to buy food to feed the guests, money to maintain the bloodline.

2. You're conflating love and marriage. Modern marriage looks a lot different than ancient marriage did. You cite ancient gravestones as proof of love and marriage, but they are the aberration, not the norm (which points again to the amount of money the married had at their disposal... engraved gravestones required money). The only thing your gravestones show to me is that their owners had money, so of course they were married. They certainly don't prove that slaves or the poor married. Slaves didn't have gravestones; the poor didn't have gravestones. They died wherever they stood and were lucky if the animals didn't eat them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bret Ripley, Doctor CamNC4Me, Google [Bot], Philo Sofee and 50 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group