Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is "slowing growth" really a concern, as opposed to membership loss?


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know who here is arguing for the commingling of religion and government. (Hint: While co-opting government and its institutions in the service of a secularizing assault on faith and on its adherents certainly doesn't hurt that cause, it is not a sin qua non for conducting that assault.)

Secularism in government is no threat to religion.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Secularism in government is no threat to religion.

And who here, pray tell, is arguing that secularism in government is a threat to religion?  Not I: The fact that government is secular has precisely nothing to do with any argument I have made on this thread.  Hint (Again):  While co-opting government and its institutions in the service of a secularizing assault on faith and on its adherents certainly doesn't hurt that cause, it is not a sin qua non for conducting that assault.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And who here, pray tell, is arguing that secularism in government is a threat to religion?  Not I: The fact that government is secular has precisely nothing to do with any argument I have made on this thread.  Hint (Again):  While co-opting government and its institutions in the service of a secularizing assault on faith and on its adherents certainly doesn't hurt that cause, it is not a sin qua non for conducting that assault.

You suggested there is a "secularist assault on religion" that "threatens the way of life" of believers. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Teaching evolution in public schools? Not having teacher-lead prayer sessions at the beginning of public school classes? Secularists participating in the public debate about truth (e.g. Sam Harris's A Letter to a Christian Nation)? Letting gays marry? Letting blacks sit in the front of the bus?

Seriously. I have no idea what this assault is that you claim "threatens the way of life" of believers. Neither does anybody else, apparently.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You suggested there is a "secularist assault on religion" that "threatens the way of life" of believers. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Teaching evolution in public schools? Not having teacher-lead prayer sessions at the beginning of public school classes? Secularists participating in the public debate about truth (e.g. Sam Harris's A Letter to a Christian Nation)? Letting gays marry? Letting blacks sit in the front of the bus?

Seriously. I have no idea what this assault is that you claim "threatens the way of life" of believers. Neither does anybody else, apparently.

Fine.  I will happily leave you to your ignorance. ;) 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm as Christian as they come. Christianity has a long history of torturing and murdering other Christians. Heck they do it to any that disagree with their brand of Christianity.

Well you'd better renounce Christianity, and quickly, too, if it is that nasty.

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

As the philosophy that the desires of the individual progresses and takes dominance all things are possible to the "other".  The unborn cannot speak so it is extremely easy to discount their value. Whereas now it is acceptable for the seriously ill to kill themselves it does not take too much to push that acceptance to an acceptance of those whose quality of life is deemed "bad" - those in a coma, those who are mute, mentally impaired, etc.  

Society has elevated the demands of the individual to untouched heights - a person who thinks they are a particular gender must be respected because of their thoughts; thus society must bow.  The concept of the family unit is almost meaningless in society today.  It is not mother, father, and children - a unit that grows, functions, etc.  Today the family unit is anything you want it to be:  two women, two men, or a whole lot of anything in between.  

We have done an poor job of philosophically addressing the motivations of the Left for casting aside society values and morals in favor of satiating the desires of the individual.  It is evident the Left does not comprehend what they are doing or the meaning of their actions.  Worse, the Right has sat on their hands and the best defenses were developed is the Bible "says" or it is immoral - we have not addressed what is actually happening or the slippery slope these actions imperil society.

I love how you paint the breakdown of the family as a left thing.  The number one thing that is causing the breakdown of the family is divorce.  Last time I checked, Mormon's had about the same divorce rate as anyone else. Is that the left's doing as well? The claims of the right valuing family is an empty mantra. They tear up families through divorce just as much as anyone else. Is all the right stands for is hypocracy. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well you'd better renounce Christianity, and quickly, too, if it is that nasty.

 

Saying you are a Christian does not mean you follow the teachings of Christ. History and current behavior by some claiming to be Christian has taught that lesson quite well. It is time to quit painting all christians as the good guys and everyone else as the bad guys.  There is no evidence that either group has the exclusive on good behavior. 

No need to renounce Christianity.just because you expect better behavior out of followers of Christ. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Analytics said:

You suggested there is a "secularist assault on religion" that "threatens the way of life" of believers. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. ... Secularists participating in the public debate about truth (e.g. Sam Harris's A Letter to a Christian Nation)? ...

I didn't want to bite. Honestly, I would prefer to leave you to your own ignorance, and happily so, but here's a clue for you: I don't see any of the religiously devout arguing that secularists should be excluded from full participation in the public square.  The reverse, on the other hand ... :unsure::huh::unknw: 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
3 hours ago, california boy said:

I love how you paint the breakdown of the family as a left thing.  The number one thing that is causing the breakdown of the family is divorce.  Last time I checked, Mormon's had about the same divorce rate as anyone else. Is that the left's doing as well? The claims of the right valuing family is an empty mantra. They tear up families through divorce just as much as anyone else. Is all the right stands for is hypocracy. 

I don't think that the break down of the family is caused by the Left directly; I just they place no value on the traditional family unit.  I would even go so far as to say the Left falls somewhere between being antagonistic or ambivalent toward the traditional family unit.  One of their main focuses is on the individual - if you desire it then it must be good, it must be right and we support.  It parades as freedom, but as a religious individual I think the result is anything but freedom.  

The actions of the Left influence or assist in the breakdown of societal standards that have been around for thousands of years.  Their influence has befuddled a weak Right that is fooled by this rose colored philosophy of the ultimate or primary importance is the wants and desires of the individual and ignored what creates a strong society.  It is the failure of the Right to properly - and I cannot do it - identify why these principles lead to chaos and the destruction of society.  The destruction of the family is a vital part of that, but it is just one part.  

Cal, this is not about absolving Mormons, conservatives, or anyone else of their participation in those things that destroy or weaken society.  That is a straw man you are building there, but it is not what I am saying.  

You might want to put down that self-righteous indignation for a bit.  My comments are about philosophies and principles; it is not about individuals or persons.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, california boy said:

Saying you are a Christian does not mean you follow the teachings of Christ. History and current behavior by some claiming to be Christian has taught that lesson quite well. It is time to quit painting all christians as the good guys and everyone else as the bad guys.  There is no evidence that either group has the exclusive on good behavior. 

No need to renounce Christianity.just because you expect better behavior out of followers of Christ. 

It's just as wrong to negatively paint all Christians with a broad brush as it is to claim that all Christians over the years have been faultless (which, by the way, I never see anybody doing, so your complaint is a straw man, and a hackneyed, trite one at that).

Which was the point of my sarcastic post to thesometimesaint, and which I would think you should  have been able to grasp.

If there is a good-guys/bad-guys dichotomony, I'd say it's the church of the Lamb of God vs. the great and abominable church or church of the devil that is identified in the Book of Mormon. There are professing Christians on both sides of the dichotomy, but the observant and faithful ones belong to the church of the Lamb.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I would even go so far as to say the Left falls somewhere between being antagonistic or ambivalent toward the traditional family unit.

That the intentional destruction of the traditional family has belonged to the Left since at least the days of Marx and Engels is not a point of historical debate.

In these parts, we have recently heard from a high-profile academic, speaking at a Marxism conference, that her push for radical gender theory in the schools is a specific attempt to free individuals from the 'bondage' of traditional family relationships and obligations.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's just as wrong to negatively paint all Christians with a broad brush as it is to claim that all Christians over the years have been faultless (which, by the way, I never see anybody doing, so your complaint is a straw man, and a hackneyed, trite one at that).

Which was the point of my sarcastic post to thesometimesaint, and which I would think you should  have been able to grasp.

If there is a good-guys/bad-guys dichotomony, I'd say it's the church of the Lamb of God vs. the great and abominable church or church of the devil that is identified in the Book of Mormon. There are professing Christians on both sides of the dichotomy, but the observant and faithful ones belong to the church of the Lamb.

Your comment was indeed a mean sarcastic dismissive snipe at thesometimessaint and unwarranted in my opinion.

And just who is "the great and abominable church or church of the devil?" 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your comment was indeed a mean sarcastic dismissive snipe at thesometimessaint and unwarranted in my opinion.

 

Sarcastic, to be sure, and pointed. But I quite disagree it was mean or unwarranted.

Quote

And just who is "the great and abominable church or church of the devil?" 

I've answered this question many times over the years on boards such as this, but on this occasion, I'll link you to this Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry by Dennis A. Wright.

Quote

The phrase "great and abominable church," which appears in an apocalyptic vision received by the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi 1 in the sixth century B.C. (1 Ne. 13:6), refers to the church of the devil and is understood by Latter-day Saints to be equivalent to the "great whore that sitteth upon many waters" described in Revelation 17:1. This "whore of all the earth" is identified by Nephi's brother Jacob as all those who are against God and who fight against Zion, in all periods of time (2 Ne. 10:16).

Emphasis mine.

 

Further:

Quote

When Nephi speaks typologically rather than historically, he identifies all the enemies of the Saints with the church of the devil (1 Ne. 14:9-10; 2 Ne. 10:16). They are those from all nations and all time periods who desire "to get gain, and…power over the flesh, and…to become popular in the eyes of the world,…who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity" (1 Ne. 22:23).

In short, the great and abominable church, to use your words, is "the bad guys."

The concept is not all that difficult to grasp, really.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That the intentional destruction of the traditional family has belonged to the Left since at least the days of Marx and Engels is not a point of historical debate.

In these parts, we have recently heard from a high-profile academic, speaking at a Marxism conference, that her push for radical gender theory in the schools is a specific attempt to free individuals from the 'bondage' of traditional  family relationships and obligations.

To california boy, I'd say here is someone who has gotten caught up in the dogma of the great and abominable church.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think that the break down of the family is caused by the Left directly; I just they place no value on the traditional family unit.  I would even go so far as to say the Left falls somewhere between being antagonistic or ambivalent toward the traditional family unit.  One of their main focuses is on the individual - if you desire it then it must be good, it must be right and we support.  It parades as freedom, but as a religious individual I think the result is anything but freedom.  

And my point is that the right pays lip service to strengthening families but there is no actual proof that they do anything themselves to actually strengthen the family when they are just as actively participating in divorce, which in my opinion is the very core of the destruction and weakening of the family.  It is all blah blah blah as far as I am concerned.  Divorce is the very core of being focused on the individual.  You really have no statistical support that your belief has any truth in it.

 

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The actions of the Left influence or assist in the breakdown of societal standards that have been around for thousands of years.  Their influence has befuddled a weak Right that is fooled by this rose colored philosophy of the ultimate or primary importance is the wants and desires of the individual and ignored what creates a strong society.  It is the failure of the Right to properly - and I cannot do it - identify why these principles lead to chaos and the destruction of society.  The destruction of the family is a vital part of that, but it is just one part.  

Just because the left believes in fighting for the civil rights of others does in no way mean that they don't support families.   When gay marriage was being vetted in the Supreme Court, chief justice Kennedy asked about the rights of children of gay parents.  Do they not deserve stable committed relationships as well?  Yet the right thinks that all families have to look like theirs.  Mormons should know more than anyone else that not all families are exactly the same.  Few on the right can see the hypocrisy in that even when a substantial part of their population is not living in a one husband, one wife and children family unit.  Here are some interesting census statistics for those that believe right wingers have the monopoly on strong families.

Only 19 percent of homes in 2013 are made up of a father, mother and children.  Are they all right wingers?  

Of children living with only a mother, 48 percent had a mother who had never been married in 2013.  Do you think those families are all right wingers?

One-parent families more common in South: About 41 percent of the country's one-parent unmarried family groups with children are in the South. The Northeast had the smallest percentage of such families. Yet the South is strongly Republican.

The Northeast has the lowest percent of one-parent unmarried family groups with children.  Oddly enough the Northeast is strongly left.  Humm. 

It is easy to wave a flag and claim to be for strong families, but until you can show that Republicans have any stronger families than Democrats, it is all hypocrisy and lip service with no actual proof that the flag waving is actually true.

 

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Cal, this is not about absolving Mormons, conservatives, or anyone else of their participation in those things that destroy or weaken society.  That is a straw man you are building there, but it is not what I am saying.  

You might want to put down that self-righteous indignation for a bit.  My comments are about philosophies and principles; it is not about individuals or persons.  

Yet you, like so many other right wingers make this claim that the right is for strong family values.  I am actually addressing your self-righteous claim you made about the left vs the right.  You have no basis to make such claims when statistics prove quite a different picture.  If you want to state that the right wave the flag more and preach family values that they actually don't live or support in their own personal lives, then fine.  I would agree that the right has hypocrisy going for it in a big way.  In my opinion, it is about time someone called out the right for their BS about being he party of "family values"  Putting empty planks in party slogans does not make the right the party of family values.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sarcastic, to be sure, and pointed. But I quite disagree it was mean or unwarranted.

I've answered this question many times over the years on boards such as this, but on this occasion, I'll link you to this Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry by Dennis A. Wright.

Emphasis mine.

 

Further:

In short, the great and abominable church, to use your words, is "the bad guys."

The concept is not all that difficult to grasp, really.

 

Can you name any group or organization that has a mission to destroy the Mormon church?  What percentage of the population are we talking about in this great and spacious building? 

While many may disagree with policies of the Mormon church, I don't see any group actively trying to tear down and destroy the Mormon church.  Perhaps you can identify exactly what you are talking about.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Divorce ... is the very core of the destruction and weakening of the family ... Divorce is the very core of being focused on the individual.

So do I understand correctly that you would do anything to avoid such a self-focussed, destructive act yourself?

Link to comment
Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

So do I understand correctly that you would do anything to avoid such a self-focussed, destructive act yourself?

Yes.  And the first thing I would do if I was a leader in the Mormon church would be to apologize to ALL of those gay men and the women they married that they promised IN THE NAME OF GOD that if they marry they would become straight.  That promise they said was from God was probably one of the most destructive acts the church has committed against families of those that trusted them.  

After being lied to by church leaders, I still stayed in my marriage until all of my children were raised and out of the house.  Personally I think I showed a very strong belief in keeping a commitment I made even under the lies told to me by church leaders.    

If every father or mother that married vowed to stay in their marriage until all of their children were raised and out of the house, even when they entered a marriage under false pretext,  we would have a much more stable family based society.  

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To california boy, I'd say here is someone who has gotten caught up in the dogma of the great and abominable church.

Marx and Engels are both dead.  So I guess that problem is solved.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I didn't want to bite. Honestly, I would prefer to leave you to your own ignorance, and happily so, but here's a clue for you: I don't see any of the religiously devout arguing that secularists should be excluded from full participation in the public square.  The reverse, on the other hand ... :unsure::huh::unknw: 

I apologize for being obtuse, but I still have no clue what you are talking about. Can you give a single example of a secularist arguing that the "religiously devout" should be "excluded from full participation in the public square?" Just one example so I can begin to understand  your accusations?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To california boy, I'd say here is someone who has gotten caught up in the dogma of the great and abominable church....[Marx]

Just to put this in perspective, Karl Marx was a contemporary of Joseph Smith. While Karl Marx was studying and trying to end economic systems that brutishly exploited men, women, and children who were wasting their lives away in working in factories, Joseph Smith was secretly "marrying" other women, some of whole were married themselves, usually behind his own wife's back.

And meanwhile the American South was being built by slave labor, which was justified with the Bible by pious plantation owners. I won't make further reference to how the families of slaves were typically respected by their Christian "owners."

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think that the break down of the family is caused by the Left directly; I just they place no value on the traditional family unit..... 

The actions of the Left influence or assist in the breakdown of societal standards that have been around for thousands of years.

Just to be sure what you are saying, Barack Obama "places no value on the family unit" while the champion of the Right--Donald Trump--does?

I'm curious about the socital standards that have been around for thousands of years. What are you talking about? Wives being considered property? Polygamy? Slavery? Genocide?

While it is true these societal standards have been around for thousands of years and are condoned by the Bible, I wouldn't say the Left is anti-family for wanting to break with these traditions.

Link to comment

I think the loss of the family has changed demographically. While originally at risk now middle class and upper class people are having strong families. Arguably stronger than ever in the past since the quality within the family is much better. The main problems are getting married much later and having children much later. But the biggest problems are in the lower classes and lower part of the middle class where the family is nearly non-existent.

From everything I can see Obama had an ideal family - the exact kind of family conservatives champion whereas Trump is exactly everything conservatives condemn.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Just to be sure what you are saying, Barack Obama "places no value on the family unit" while the champion of the Right--Donald Trump--does?

I'm curious about the socital standards that have been around for thousands of years. What are you talking about? Wives being considered property? Polygamy? Slavery? Genocide?

While it is true these societal standards have been around for thousands of years and are condoned by the Bible, I wouldn't say the Left is anti-family for wanting to break with these traditions.

First, you are going to have to convince me that Trump is a conservative.  I don't think it is wise to derail this even further by trying to make this about Obama or Trump. 

When these kinds of topics come up the Left will often wrap itself in the self-righteous cloak of slavery, genocide, polygamy, and the list goes on.  First, it was not the Democrats that ended slavery - that is so often forgotten. It was not the Democrats that ended polygamy regardless of the way it is or was practiced.  However, it is the Democrats that speed to the defense of Muslims.....that practice polygamy in the US today.  Strange how politicians can speak out both sides of the mouths (Please note that I said politicians without identifying any party i.e. they all do it).  However, it is when their followers blindly mouth trite phrases and attack sound bites without any comprehension of history or the effects of their litany of desires and needs for self-satisfaction.

Societies, with all its flaws, runs the gamut of being strong to being weak.  The future offered by Leftist ideologies only leads to the complete destruction of common sense and the traditional family unit.  It leads to unhappiness, failure, and the eventual defeat of the individual.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, california boy said:

Marx and Engels are both dead.  So I guess that problem is solved.

Now look who's being "sarcastic" and "dismissive." Physician, heal thyself.

My response post to Hamba was not about Marx and Engels. It was bout what he identified as a speaker's "radical gender theory in the schools" as "a specific attempt to free individuals from the 'bondage' of traditional  family relationships and obligations."

Did you really not get that, or were you just trying to be dismissive and clever?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...