Trevor wrote:amantha wrote:What "most people" understand is not for you to say and does not constitute Mormon theology. If its sound hyperbolic it is because the doctrine of the plan of salvation is in reality ridiculous for myriad reasons beyond my eugenics claim.
So, you contend that the majority of Mormons conceive of the lower kingdoms as a miserable place like a "dump." In my life as a member of the LDS Church, I never conceived of them in that way. I do not remember knowing of anyone who believed this or taught this. Can you back up the claim that people in the lower kingdoms are, essentially, left on a dung heap or some such?
I was taught that the telestial kindgom was a place for liars, evil doers, adulterers, etc etc. and yet this place was somehow better than this world. I also learned that the terrestrial kingdom is a place for good people who did not accept the Mormon Jesus. I also learned that those who get to the celestial are divided into three groups. The bottom two get to be servants, but they don't get to procreate. Only those in the top tier get to procreate. The Mormon god gets to say who gets to continue their seed, the fact that all of this is fiction to begin with does not remove the eugenics from the philosophy.amantha wrote:Thank you. So in Brigham's theology you concede that my point has credence. And in McConkie's the eugenics applies to the progressive phase of the eternities before the fantastical "perfection" is achieved. But who know's what version of Mormon doctrine is correct. Either way, a vastly large percentage of "god's children" are denied procreative powers, I.e. eugenics -- modern or not modern -- pick the definition that suits you or not.
Before you get too excited, I only said that if someone were to teach eugenics within Mormon theology, that Brigham's theology would be more amenable to that idea. I never said that Brigham's theology was explicitly eugenic. If you want to argue that it was, that is your job. The denial of procreative powers is one method used in eugenics, but eugenics has the goal of improving hereditary traits, whereas Mormon theosis and spiritual procreation do not.
So don't bring it up if you don't want to have to back it up. Mormon theosis and spiritual procreation are -- News Flash! -- fanstasies. But inherent in their philosophy is the notion of disallowing the less obedient from procreating. Only the "best" are allowed to do that, i.e., eugenics.amantha wrote:Well adjectives can change the meaning of a word or phrase. There is a big difference between a house and a COSMIC HOUSE. I never said it was "cosmic eugenics." This is your phrasing. If you want to believe that Mormon theology teaches that ALL people can progress eternally with no limitations, than that is news to me. I simply don't like other people insinuating that they are a preferred people because they are obedient to their strange beliefs and I am not. If you want to champion their cause, go for it.
I don't see how including or extracting the word 'cosmic' affects your argument one way or the other. I find it strange that you focus on this, as though using the adjective somehow equated with creating a strawman. It really does not. All I said about the idea of progression between kingdoms is that it is out there. It is certainly not mainstream or commonly taught, but some LDS folk interpret post-mortal progression as including that.
Exactly. You just admitted that people cannot progress from the lower kingdoms to the highest of the celestial where they are permitted to procreate, i.e. eugenics. Mormon theology may just be a human invention but that didn't stop the creators from making the mistake of including their eugenic perspective.amantha wrote:If you hear "Third Reich" so be it. I am not responsible for the associations present in your brain. Hitler didn't patent the rights to the super-race idea. Eugenics predates Hitler by a long shot. You are creating more strawmen to beat up. Quit it.
No, I am not creating more strawmen. I am telling you how your rhetoric is misleading. I would wager that many people would read the term "super-race" in the context of a discussion of eugenics as a reference to Nazi Germany's racial policies. You want the benefit of using the terms eugenics and super-race together, while at the same time denying the necessity of hereditary improvement over time as a goal of eugenics. That is contradictory or at least prejudicial. You can make your idea of Mormon eugenics sound sinister without actually describing Mormon theology as eugenic in the manner your rhetoric would suggest.
You can wager all you want but you can't read minds. Just because the Nazis are famous for their evil doesn't mean that I am equating anyone else to them. That is simply your diversion from the main point. You are trying to libel by argument by associated my argument with Nazis. Its an old and successful tactic, so I understand why you would use it.amantha wrote:I am glad that we agree. The concept of perfection must include ALL perfect qualities. You can control human mating through religious marriage rituals which include obedience as a central factor. You can control the procreative power through proscriptive and prescriptive theocratic lawmaking. In fact, it seems to me, to be one of the best ways to control people. Control their hearts and minds and you can control their seed. By the way, have you never heard those church talk where every succeeding generation is "the best" generation ever, that they have been held in reserve for this time to face the forces of darkness because, of course, the implied notion is that the previous generations were not as worthy.
You seem to be talking yourself further and further into this bogus nonsense you are constructing. We do not agree. Indeed, you have not even forwarded a consistent position to agree or disagree with. I do disagree that theosis and the conception of spirit children as found in current LDS doctrine is eugenics. It lacks the important aspect of the genetic improvement of spirit children over time thanks to selective breeding programs, period. It is not eugenics.
The reference to the most recent generation being "the best generation ever" has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics. It has to do with identifying these children as more valiant than preceding generations because of the choices they made in the pre-mortal world. That you would even try to see this as eugenics tells me that you are constructing your thesis on the fly and terribly misusing your evidence in the process. No one to my knowledge, at least in contemporary Mormonism, has taught that these choice spirits are choice because they are the product of a celestial eugenics program, I.e. that they were bred to be more valiant than the people of the past.
No you are correct, only me and BH Roberts, as far as I can tell, are noticing the inherent eugenics built into the plan of salvation concept. Eugenics involves a weeding out process wherein the "best" are allowed to procreate and the rest are not. This is absolutely and definitively true about the highest level of the CK. Eugenics applies until the Mormon perfection is achieved, which is a fantasy anyway. The concept of eugenics is there, you just refuse to see it. Fine by me.amantha wrote:Not in Brigham's plan apparently and even if that were true (which who knows if it is, but keep beating those fantasy strawmen of yours) the Mormon plan of salvation requires advancement toward perfection which can include all kinds of things. Who are you to decide what that perfection includes and that heredity cannot be spiritual. Apparently Mormons believe that they are "spiritually" part of the house of Israel -- creating some kind of pseudo-genetic bond. This "spiritual lineage" concept sounds like more elitism. For you to be good with god, you have to belong to a certain family line, even if that is only "spiritually."
Your argument is flying off into so many byways that it is difficult to follow you from one sentence to the next. From what we can piece together of Brigham's concept of eternal progression, the Father is always further along in progression than his children because he keeps progressing while they are ever moving along the same path to reach where he used to be. It is certainly not the case that his grandchildren are more advanced than he is by virtue of a eugenics program.
As far as the House of Israel stuff goes, it used to be the case that the prestige message in the patriarchal blessing was that the person was a literal descendant of Israel, not a spiritual one. Yet it was also taught that one literally became part of Israel through the power of the Holy Ghost. Now, even if one were to read this as a transformation of DNA (which Joseph Smith had no concept of), it does not constitute eugenics. Eugenics is selective breeding for the purpose of promoting better genetic traits. It is not the transformation of the living person through the power of the Holy Ghost.
It is clear to me that you have not studied your LDS history and doctrine very well. You have a flawed understanding of it that leads you to string together evidence in creative but incorrect ways. Your theory simply does not work.amantha wrote:Who know's what current LDS theology really is.
The Mormon god does not allow 99.999999% of his children to procreate in the eternities. Why? Who knows really. It's all a fantasy land made up by Joe and his buddies. Only the best are allowed to procreate. This is eugenics at its core.
You have chosen a narrow definition and so have failed to see the the concept of eugenics as it has been applied to Mormonism. It is apparent that you are a person which a narrow view of Mormonism who wears blinders when it is useful for the sake of argument.
But you get to foist this eugenics crap on them because they haven't defined it well enough for you? Get real.
I am being real. Your protectiveness of Mormon theology is nice, but misguided. Early Mormonism was based on a privileged caste of elites who were taught that only the most zealous would be able to procreate in the eternities. That is enough information to see the inherent eugenic philosophy.
There are many shades of the color yellow. You have picked one and decided that the rest are not yellow and yet they remain yellow despite your disagreement.