Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

1 Follower

About Mordecai

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth
  • Birthday 06/21/1974

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    religion, philosophy, English/literature, science, politics, sports, anthropology

Recent Profile Visitors

1,837 profile views
  1. The SPLC is a hate group itself. They lie or at least twist the truth. If you look at the actual numbers from unbiased sources, the only apparent hate crime increases have been against Muslims, and those have occurred only in Democrat-controlled areas, strangely. I just finished a long debate with my brother on this, and in the process, looked closely at the numbers and even how those numbers are gathered. Citing the SPLC is citing someone at war with conservatives, and they are among those who lie and distort without conscience. The Atlantic is also far left. And if I am correct, and the radical left is at war, there would logically be a backlash. Do you think the pipe bomb guy, who harmed no one and who couldn't have harmed anyone, is as bad as the guy who shot Republicans for supposedly "killing people" by repealing Obamacare? Please. And the guy shooting up the synagogue called Trump a "Jewish schill." What was his motivation? I imagine it came from the anti-semitic rhetoric coming from Richard Spencer, who admits he's a socialist and sounds basically like a Wilsonian progressive. That's the opposite of right wing. We also hear enormous amounts of anti-semitic rhetoric coming from the left, of course. How about Ilhan Omar? Linda Sarsour? Are they right wing, too? And what "extremist, violent" rhetoric are you referring to? You would think the left would embrace evolutionary biology, i.e. humans would not be prone to violence unless they #1 believed their survival or the survival of their family was at stake or #2 their status/reproductive opportunities were threatened. The left says, "Rich people have your stuff." Chimpanzees have been observed to go to war with other chimps over resources. War instinct. The left says, "Republicans are NAZIs," implying I'm planning on killing Jews. Never mind that I'm Jewish by ancestry. The left says, "Republicans are destroying the planet." Obviously, if we destroy the planet, you'll be dead. So you'd better fight me. I'll send you my address, so we can brawl. The left says, "You're a victim of white, male Republicans!" Low status? Few reproductive opportunities and few resource. Better fight! The left says, "Race defines you before individuality," which appeals to tribal instincts. Again, tribes war against each other for survival. The left says, "Republicans are standing in the way of progress!" Oh, no. You and your descendants will lack resources, thanks to Republicans. They say we are "evil," like we're predators. "Speech is violence!" Better fight me over my "dangerous" words. I mean, which of this stuff was not said by the NAZIs and communists who together, murdered well over 100 million people? Because of those words. Not words like Trump says, which are just chest thumping, posturing and positioning. Very different.
  2. I've been trying to uncover the meaning of Romney's run for President and what it should symbolize to us as members of the Church and feel I've come up with a good way for members to interpret it. This interpretation was partly inspired by Ben Shapiro's comment the other day on Mitt, something I had just recently decided was the case myself. Shapiro argued that when the left "castigated" Mitt as a "racist, bigoted homophobe," a man who was actually the "mildest, most milquetoast man in all of history," they broke politics in America, and civility was destroyed. However, as we know, that was a process, with Mitt as the final straw. Maybe the third in a line of candidates that represented offerings of peace, perhaps parallel to the standards of peace discussed in the D&C: "And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue; and if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord..." (D&C 98, emphasis added). First we had GWB, who never defended himself against slander. McCain, similarly. Romney, the most "mild, milquetoast" candidate represented a final standard of peace. All for naught, as the radicals continued to ruin everyone that would not join their church. I suspect their rhetoric will continue to lead to more violence, especially their mantras that parallel communist and fascist rhetoric. Jesus seemed to be in a type of war with the Pharisees. He constantly pushed to undermine their authority, by publicly labeling them as "hypocrites" and "vipers," as well as, more importantly, performing miracles while brazenly breaking their oppressive rules. Maybe we ought to look for a bolder candidate next time and stop thinking we can smooth things over by being nice. It won't work.
  3. Then they need to repent and work on loving themselves. If you are your own enemy, that's pretty unhealthy.
  4. I'm not saying that merely loving those who love us is a good thing. I'm saying that if you love decent people, including ones that aren't part of our local tribe (like the Samaritan), more than you love Gadianton Robbers, that's probably normal and seems to me to be recommended. I've never read that we should love Gadianton Robbers equally. If Katherine the Great is correct, and love merely means we help take care of others, the Church's official policy is to take care of members first and then people outside the Church. That seems consistent with, "By this shall all men know, ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another," as opposed to, "love to everyone."
  5. I don't think we're expected to love everyone equally. Jesus taught, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35); speaking to disciples, it sounds as if Jesus is talking about disciples loving disciples. Perhaps more convincing, after stating we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, when Jesus is asked, "Who is my neighbor," He doesn't say, "Everyone:" To me that suggests that we don't need to love everyone equally; we put a priority on people with basic decency. Doesn't mean we don't love others, but Jesus suggested that the Pharisees were not our brothers but were "children of the devil," being murderous oppressors. Not saying we shouldn't love them; Jesus specifically said to love our enemies. He just didn't say to love them equally. Regardless, I think it's rather natural to love decent people more than we love Gadianton Robbers, and I don't think that's a sin.
  6. I'd say that depends. You can contend against evil by having the spirit of contention yourself, contending with anger "one against another," as opposed to contending for what's right.
  7. So what does it mean when "Gideon withstood him with the words of God?" I think he was clearly countering the claims that there was no God and no Savior, using the scriptures and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Maybe he was using the scriptures, speaking on God's behalf instead of his own behalf. But I don't think this was a friendly discussion! Gideon, I suspect, was calm and composed, using the scriptures rationally, without anger, but what he was saying was probably rather bold and straightforward. We read other examples of this with Abinidi, explaining the meaning of the scriptures in what many would describe as a "contentious fashion." Saying, "Ye have not understood [the scriptures]," was not going to make the priests of Noah happy! That was a "contentious" thing to say, but you can't really say that was of the devil, can you? Jesus went as far as to call the Pharisees, "vipers," to their faces, suggesting that they were subhuman killers. Not too nice! Of course, that's pretty much what they were, murderous and beyond feeling. Speaking the truth boldly to the wicked, I think, is righteous, as long as your ego isn't in it; easier said than done, of course, trying to counter evil without your ego involved. But I think the righteous can and should do it.
  8. This has been a subject of debate for a long time and, ironically, many suggest you shouldn't debate, because it's "of the devil." I've been listening to--like seemingly everyone else--Jordan Peterson; he argues for, among other things, evolutionary biology, where human instincts for hierarchy are directly analogous to those of chimpanzee instincts. This, to me, suggests that, "the natural man," may be natural in the sense that, in part, our animal instincts drive us to contend for position in a hierarchy, one against another. A debate or argument can be a means of climbing a hierarchy, either as an authority on doctrine or as an intellectual elite. Conversely, the book of Jude suggests we should contend (Greek: struggle) for the faith against those that would corrupt it. How do you do that without "contending with anger, one against another?" If we want to take our desire to climb the hierarchy out of the equation, I think you contend without the idea of your own position or status in mind, but the status of God. God, being all powerful and a permanent fixture, hopefully at the top of our emotional hierarchy, isn't someone who needs us to be angry, as God can't be harmed by man in any way. So we can argue for other people's good, without anger, by thinking about God and arguing loyally for Him. If you don't get angry, and you have no thought for your own ego, I think you are keeping with what Jude recommends, which is to contend for the faith, as opposed to contending with anger with others for a higher intellectual or religious status. So contend in the context in which Jesus uses it, doesn't mean to not debate, in my hypothesis; it means that you are competing for position, a higher status in a natural, instinctual hierarchy. The debate per se isn't the contention, in itself; it only can be, if you are going "one against another" in pursuit of a higher position. Alma 1:9:
  9. I don't think we need to completely phase out "LDS" to be true to the D&C declaration that the Church shall be known as, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The "of Latter-day Saints," phrase is merely meant to differentiate the Church of Jesus Christ of today from the Church at its founding. The phrase "of LDS," can do that, as long as you leave, "The Church of Jesus Christ," in place. Why not, "The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS," for short, so people associate _The Church of Jesus Christ_ with _LDS_, which is really the whole point? Less confusing for outsiders. Once people remember the _Jesus Christ_ part, the essential part, then we can explain that LDS means "Latter-day Saints." Priorities. One thing at at time. Otherwise, people will be very confused, and we will sound very long winded.
  10. Obviously it's easier if you have the mutation already. You missed my point. The question is, where did you get the mutation. Are you telling me that huge populations produce that one magic mutation and then, by completely implausible chance, that one mutation gets isolated? Think about the problem. Even with a large population, the chances of a useful mutation occurring is astronomically small. Then, you need yet another astronomically small chance of that creature getting isolated with a small breeding population, which still doesn't guarantee the mutation gets passed on and, especially since inbreeding tends to reduce fitness, increases the likelihood of extinction, adding to the higher risk of extinction caused merely by having a small population. I mean, the odds of that are astronomically small as well. So you need two miracles, basically, for this to work. I know a lot of biologists argue for this, but that is because they have nothing else. They're being ridiculous, from a mathematical standpoint. But who needs math, when you have ideology?
  11. My current theory is that Brigham Young was right, that all of the creatures on earth were brought from other worlds. Since life on earth was put here according to a designed timeline, we end up with discoveries like this very recent one: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/228798/20180530/massive-genetic-study-reveals-90-percent-of-earth-s-animals-appeared-at-the-same-time.htm
  • Create New...