Keeping Religious Zealots Out of Power

[_bcspace]

I wouldn't call it hate speech though, so much as Newspeak..

LOL! Liberals know that 451 degrees will take care of that book. But as you know, liberals are always looking to medicate anyone who disagrees or put them in a concentration camp.....

How about a little Animal Farm to complete the trifecta?

[Guest]

Yeah, I know that, Gaz. I've seen it in Church too many times not to know. Love only to a point (repentance), forgive only to a point (repentance), accept only to a point (repentance). Justifications as to why the Prodigal Son might still not attain "exaltation", while the "faithful son" will "inherit all that the Father has". It's all very "Mormon", and a way of encouraging total devotion "less you lose your heavenly reward". Those who toil one hour cannot possibly receive the same reward as those who toil 12 hours. And so forth.

First of all, "love" had different meanings, and all of them cannot be applied simultaneously. Second, there are distinct differences between the connotations and applicability of the terms "love", "forgive" and "accept". Thirdly, the idea that one who toils one hour will not receive the same reward as one who toils twelve is not Church doctrine, and has been explicitly repudiated numerous times by the Brethren.

It's all very limited and legalistic. "Top dog" gets to heaven by works and obedience, bottom dog eats crumbs for all eternity. Sheep go right, goats go left. Earth consumed by fire, tithe-payers survive, non-tithe-payers burned to a crisp.

I have no idea whatever what your talking about, but I'm trying, believe me, I'm trying.

Maybe that will help you understand why I don't accept the Mormon concept of God. And why I think atheism is growing so very fast. Dawkins has been given a Hawaii tidal wave to surf home with. That's why many don't just turn to atheism, but actively oppose religion, because it confronts the common sense and sense of fairness of most people, and that's why some have called the "Christian God" a "tyrant". It didn't start with Thomas Paine, nor Voltaire, and it's not going to end with Dawkins. But I already know how you feel about all this.

In other words, our God has standards (as we do), grounded in principle, and you would prefer a God who does not. You don't want a God, but a nonjudgmental cosmic therapist who winks and looks the other way at your behavior while filling you with sweet platitudes about "self esteem".

I understand...

As for Dawkins, far more people, both those of higher education and less, are immune to Dawkin's Romper Room atheism than you imply. His own quasi-religious scientism, combined with his lumbering intellectual incompetence in other subject areas he would be required to acquaint himself with substantively to be taken seriously by those other then the already committed Madalyn Murry O' Hair crowd, will not do him much service.

[_Droopy]

I wouldn't call it hate speech though, so much as Newspeak..

LOL! Liberals know that 451 degrees will take care of that book. But as you know, liberals are always looking to medicate anyone who disagrees or put them in a concentration camp.....

How about a little Animal Farm to complete the trifecta?

Actually bc, I just picked up a book that I've been wanting to read for sometime on precisely these issues by Mary Eberstadt called Home-Alone America: The Hidden Toll of Day Care, Behavioral Drugs, and Other Parent Substitutes

Leftists will despise this book and its central thesis because it strikes to the very heart of their entire world view. So, I think for this thread, we have Orwell, Bradbury, and Eberstadt, and that's a nice combination for the present (we could throw in a little BKP as well, but no need to turn the heat up until the pot boils over).

[_Droopy]

Well, lets chuck in Zamyatin and Huxley, just to be on the safe side...

[_bcspace]

(we could throw in a little BKP as well, but no need to turn the heat up until the pot boils over)

Awwwww....... I always wanted to see a good decking.

[_Ray A]

In other words, our God has standards (as we do), grounded in principle, and you would prefer a God who does not. You don't want a God, but a nonjudgmental cosmic therapist who winks and looks the other way at your behavior while filling you with sweet platitudes about "self esteem".

I understand...

I'm almost out of time for today. I have other "financial rewards" to look after. Just following Jesus advice about making to myself frends with the Mammon for practical purposes.

No, I don't think God "winks" at everything. I do happen to believe in karma, a universal system of action-reaction, reward-punishment. You know it as "as you sow, you reap". My beliefs are based on many years of studying something far more empirical than scriptures, people who have had close encounters with "the Divine". I know most scientists don't accept this either, but I'm okay with that. I consider this, however, on firmer ground than scriptures which are "more express" for the "benefit of man" (D&C 19). I.E, "man" needs to be encouraged to do good by scriptural threats of damnation. But until he proceeds to a greater understanding, hellfire and damnation may just have to do, for some.

As for Dawkins, far more people, both those of higher education and less, are immune to Dawkin's Romper Room atheism than you imply. His own quasi-religious scientism, combined with his lumbering intellectual incompetence in other subject areas he would be required to acquaint himself with substantively to be taken seriously by those other then the already committed Madalyn Murry O' Hair crowed, will not do him much service.

I'm not committed to either "crowd". I'm only explaining why so many turn to them. It's more of a reaction to religious legalism, and possibly rejection, and no doubt genuine disbelief in any god too. I still see no compelling reason to totally abandon the idea of God, or a purposeful universe. And from what I've read, many others don't either, and even Mormons who have had "epiphanies" have said that religion is not as important to God as the emphasis as we place on it. And don't forget this important qualifier, if you want to use scripture: "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first." If you believe in God, then he sees the true intent of the heart, and the end of all things. You don't. Therefore, you [we] should be careful in judgement.

[_beastie]

I don't believe this could possibly ever happen, seeing as how I spend time with and talk to my kids in a respectful manner.

So gaz thinks that children of parents who "spend time with/and talk respectfully to" could not possibly turn out gay.

You are astonishingly ignorant.

by the way, does your wife know that if you had a 16 year old child acting on gay tendencies, you'd throw him/her out of the house? This is a serious question, I want to know if you're married to someone as equally heartless and cruel as you are.

And for what other sins would you throw your minor children out of the house?

[_Jason Bourne]

I really don't think it quite accurate to describe the Church's neutrality on the scientific issue as on of "not knowing". The Church is neutral on the scientific issue, but the Gospel does not seem to be, and Elder Oaks' teaching of the Gospel here would indicate that the Church, to the extent his statements are view as authoritative, perceives the origins of homosexuality, for all intents and purposes, pretty much as the present scientific knowledge allows: that homosexuality's origins are a deeply complex and unique stew of social, psychological, and, in some number of cases, biological biases, susceptibilities, and predispositions, a set of complex dynamics that is going to be very difficult-if not impossible-to disentangle one from another.

Note that the Church's position here, through Oaks, is not regarding the orgins of homosexual behavior or the homosexual identity (Gay), but of homosexual feelings, inclinations, or susceptibilities which are differentiated from one another very clearly. This must be the case if the cardinal doctrines of agency and the fairness and integrity of the Plan of Salvation are to be preserved.

I think Oaks teaching here provides a great deal of nourishing food for thought, especially in its central contention that while many things, homosexual perceptual biases being one, have some genetic component to their origin, none of this determines our behavior or sets us firmly, in a deterministic manner, upon some inexorable and predetermined course.

And this is where the Church and the world part company and lock horns.

I don't really have any problem with your summary. What seems certain is the Church does not state it is an explicit CHOICE in all cases. And the Church is not for irrational and angry approaches to persons who are homosexual-even for one who chose to practice it. The standard is the law of Chastity. Yet it seems there is love and compassion for those who struggle and even those you choose not to follow the Church on this issue. None of this drown them garbage Gaz is spouting. And it seems the Church has modified and softened its approach to homosexuals as well.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

A repentant adulterer can be forgiven and the sealing can still be in effect. Where do you get this strange idea?

After a person has advanced in righteousness, light, and truth to the point that the fulness of the ordinances of the house of the Lord have been received so that he has been sealed up unto eternal life, and his calling and election has been made sure, then as expressed in the Prophets language, the law is: "if a man commit adultery, he cannot receive the celestial kingdom of God. Even if he is saved in any kingdom, it cannot be the celestial kingdom." (History of the Church, vol.6, p.81; [i]Doctrines of Salvation, vol.2, pp.92-94

I will take the scriptures over this obscure comment from the history of the Church. If this is really the case why does the Church allow for restoration of blessings for repentant adulterers?

[_The Nehor]

Theocracy in no way implies the Law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ and who's rituals, outward ordinances, as well as legal structures were ended.

OMG, Cogs! I think the sun, moon, and stars just aligned. You and I actually agree on something. LOL

Really? But no LDS believe otherwise (if they understand basic Gospel doctrine and New Testament theology at least). The only person I can think of who seemed to think that some of the Mosaic law was still applicable, or should be, was Nibley, and that was only in the narrow niche of economics, not social or general theological issues.

No, Nibley just thought we were serious when we called the Law of Moses the lower law and expects that the Higher Law will be, well, higher. He saw in the Law of Moses a precursor to Consecration and used it as a source to describe it's possible applications. If he was wrong, the principles of consecration will be higher and more charitable then the Law of Moses, not less so.