Jump to content

CV75

Contributor
  • Posts

    15,823
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CV75

  1. A failed attempt at humor, the only kind of comment I could come up with. The gospel topic resources of Denver Snuffer are mixed up. A failed attempt at humor, the only kind of comment I could come up with. Just a plain old ridiculous non-sequitur referencing the ACOA 12-step program.
  2. Gospel Library 👉 Adult 👉 Child 👉 Alcoholics
  3. The quote is about the Restoration of the gospel in fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecies, not its initial promulgation. I see that as the main difference, and so addresses the specifics of time, place and circumstance rather than applying a general principle to all times, places and circumstances. Similarly, the latter-day revelations concerning “America” in the D&C also address the time, place and circumstance of the Restoration. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and very attentive to what is going on with His children’s agency. I feel that the “Former-day” saints did the right thing inasmuch as they followed what the Lord revealed through His servants. Collectively, Article of Faith 12 prevails for the Restoration’s “Latter-day” saints, but individual circumstances may certainly allow exceptions to that – thankfully not my call!
  4. The quote from the OP goes like this: "Without a Bill of Rights, America could not have served as the host nation for the Restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades later." The organization of the Church occurred at least 10 years after the initiation of the Restoration of the gospel. So it depends on what you mean by "established," which gets to the Bill of Rights context. We can consider the movement which preceded the Church to be a religion, and there would be no movement or subsequent Church unless the original government-supported, established churches (absent the Bill of Rights) permitted it. The Bill of Rights removed that obstacle. The Church as we know it today needs to be established globally by anybody anywhere. I understand the desire to minimize the Church as as "American" Church, as well it should be, and not to politicize the spiritual principles of the constitution of the land called USA (as well it shouldn't be), or nationalize the prophecies of the Book of Mormon to appropriate their fulfilment to other locales as a scholarly exercise (which is neither here nor there since it will fill the earth anyway).
  5. Rather, their rights were not honored or protected after the bill of rights ensured the organization of the Church as part of the initiation of the Restoration.
  6. Yes, and by definition (of the bill of rights, that is) if continued unchecked, only certain kinds of non-restored Christianity would retain their footing.
  7. Absent the religious freedom and antiestablishment guarantees, how would the Church have been established in the USA in fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophesy, given the exclusive government power held by the extant churches? Theoretically it could have become established anywhere else, but that wasn’t the prophesy. The word “policy” is excluded from the article of faith for any number of reasons, but that doesn’t preclude opposing policy (or rule, regulation, platform, court decision, executive order, etc.) any more or any less than opposing laws, given that we do it in ways that sustain the government in line with D&C 134. This is how you can be subject to and sustain the laws in general while advocating for their removal, improvement or alteration. That is why the Bill of Rights was so important to the Restoration. Obey the law or policy you disagree with until you can change it in good faith. rather than risking the personal and collective consequences in bad faith.
  8. OK I channeled my best William E. McClellan. Any visceral reactions to adding something like the following just before the last sentence of the First Presidency's recent message? I emphasize visceral because that is what the OP / thread topic intends to address. We understand the fears and mistrust that so many experience concerning these protective measures. We invite and encourage all to walk together with us through these difficult times in what may be personally challenging ways. For better context: Dear Brothers and Sisters: We find ourselves fighting a war against the ravages of COVID-19 and its variants, an unrelenting pandemic. We want to do all we can to limit the spread of these viruses. We know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population. To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective. We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders. We understand the fears and mistrust that so many experience concerning these protective measures. We invite and encourage all to walk together with us through these difficult times in what may be personally challenging ways. Please know of our sincere love and great concern for all of God’s children. @BlueDreams@Bernard Gui@Danzo@katherine the great@Kenngo1969 @MustardSeed @Nofear @pogi @Robert F. Smith@The Nehor Just bumping this last post once before it goes the way of the world! Thank you for your contributions thus far, and have a great weekend!
  9. I think the abortion debate highlights this (using the first graph): Pro-Choice: Care/harm (of the fetus) is balanced by Fairness/cheating (justice, rights, and autonomy of the woman) with relatively weaker pressure from other moral considerations (except for some pressure from Liberty/oppression perhaps, bolstering the effects of the morality of the woman’s autonomy). The net is to focus on the Care/harm and Fairness/cheating of the woman. Pro-Life: Care/Harm (of the fetus) is equally bolstered by every other moral consideration because they all provide relatively equal pressure. The net is that religious considerations (Authority/subversion and Sanctity/degradation) exert more pressure than they do in the Pro-Choice paradigm, so that even though Care/harm and Fairness/cheating are of relatively less significant than the Pro-Choice profile, the net effect a focus on the Care/harm and Fairness/cheating of the fetus.
  10. I do not mean to come across as an expert instructor of this theory, but I do know it is about understanding for the sake of communication and problem-solving, even absent any contention. It does explain why and how contention escalates, but that is a side note. Values are framed in politically divisive ways because they are balanced differently with and by other values in different ways. Care that is balanced by Liberty, for example, is expressed differently than Care that is balanced less, or not at all, by Liberty or another moral foundation.
  11. I do not know whether he can converse or just read. But does the inability to converse render his effort a gimmick, whether in Peru, 2018 or on today's Instagram?
  12. I think the media certainly understands, on a visceral business level, how to keep feeding the innate drivers that keep their audiences tuning in. Ideally they provide the information necessary for a well-informed public to make good decisions personally and collectively. It is always a challenge to effectively deliver even the best of factual reporting due to the biases imposed by our (and the competing agencies') moral foundations.
  13. These various terms, including "conservative" and "liberal" need to be used as defined for use by the theory in order to avoid semantic issues. That is why I only used "conservative" and "liberal" to describe a mindset or orientation and not a political affiliation. Few people are so thoroughly one of the other in terms of the theory, but lean sufficiently in one direction or another to polarize any particular issue when innate intuitions are left unchecked. This is why science and data are so easily ignored and likewise doubled-down upon when other rationale might be more effective. A political application: the issue is the relative scores of each others' political ideology, not whether they are high or low scores. Ignore the "Green You", it's just somebody who took the survey and shared it online and I copied it. Here's another one:
  14. https://mormonlifehacker.com/habla-espanol-yes-president-russel-m-nelson-does-speak-spanish/ Evidently he does speak Spanish, but I'm sure he isn't hunched over his phone generating content himself.
  15. Given your failure to do (or at least share) any research in answering your first question, this post is a gimmick.
  16. I think it would depend on the situation at hand, since, for example, an instinct to favor liberty toward one thing is an instinct to oppress another. For example, how might the First Presidency message be reworded so that it appeals to a conservative sense of Liberty, which seems to be one of the sources of vaccine hesitancy (mistrust of government)? Or Harm (fear of its safety and side effects)? Some may be more worried about themselves (personal autonomy (Liberty) than the economy (Care or Fairness).
  17. And that's the rub: The conservative mindset is typically equally balanced among the six foundations while the liberal mindset is very heavily eared toward Care/Harm followed by Fairness/Cheating. In a highly polarized environment, sensitivities to negative triggers run very high. Amazingly to me, this is why a very conservatively designed message (by moral foundation standards) seems so poorly received by conservatively-oriented people while being well-received by the liberally-oriented who, for an odd change, are not picking up on the usual conservative offenses. I am wondering if generally, political ideology is trumping religious ideology, which is certainly a sign of the times. This is why I'm wondering whether the First Presidency message might be reworded for such a politically-charged / polarized environment to appeal more to the conservative mindset without alienating the liberal mindset.
  18. Yes, we need to tap into the other’s foundations, the less rationally-driven cognitive processes (I’m reminded of another book, Thinking Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman). The links I provide help define the task that needs to be figured out. I agree that the comparison with marriage therapy can be taken only so far, as the application for this theory to COVID-19 messaging is orientated toward the political sensitivities within a much larger social group. I think that attempts to shut down the other side (by either side) is what has been going on without applying this theory, and I don’t think it can be accomplished using the principles this theory. Shutting down is an outcome of “war”. As an alternative, I’m wondering how the moral foundations might be redirected toward a common goal, which can be done fairly quickly (the light coming on). This is my meager attempt with the First Presidency message, and I haven’t yet gotten into the “conservative” and “liberal” dynamics in the responses to their message relative to the moral foundations makeup of the broad audience.
  19. I think what @Nofearis commenting on is the messaging to be developed in concert with that first step. It has to somehow touch each of the six foundations (psychological systems or cognitive modules that operate on a gut or intuitive level) that everyone has but prioritizes and uses differently as demonstrated in the political and religious ideologies to which they gravitate. I will try to do a quick analysis of the First Presidency's recent message to members to see which of these moral foundations they touched upon. My guess is that they touched upon all of them. ETA: analysis: "Dear Brothers and Sisters: "We [Loyalty/Betrayal] find ourselves fighting a war [Liberty/Oppression] against the ravages [Care/Harm, Sanctity/Degradation] of COVID-19 and its variants, an unrelenting [Fairness/Cheating] pandemic. We want to do all we can [Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal] to limit the spread of these viruses [Sanctity/Degradation]. We know [Authority/Subversion] that protection [Care/Harm] from the diseases they cause can only [Authority/Subversion] be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population. [note: the references to “we” convey Authority/Subversion in some instances and Loyalty/Betrayal in others]. "To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge [Loyalty/Betrayal, Fairness/Cheating] the use of face masks in public meetings whenever [Liberty/Oppression] social distancing is not possible. To provide personal [Liberty/Oppression] protection [Care/Harm] from such severe infections, we urge [Loyalty/Betrayal] individuals [Liberty/Oppression] to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective [ Sanctity/Degradation]. "We [Loyalty/Betrayal] can win this war if everyone will follow [Fairness/Cheating] the wise and thoughtful [Sanctity/Degradation] recommendations [Liberty/Oppression] of medical experts and government leaders [Authority/Subversion, Liberty/Oppression]. Please know of our sincere love and great concern for all of God’s children [Care/Harm]." The six foundations being the way we process and express the following “gut” reactions; one person might be drawn and another repulsed by the same thing: - Care/Harm - Fairness/Cheating - Loyalty/Betrayal - Authority/Subversion - Sanctity/Degradation - Liberty/Oppression As a thought experiment, how might this have been worded differently to effectively entice the vaccine hesitant to get vaccinated? Not that this is a measure of their inspiration. Does breaking through another person’s instinct and bias manipulate and therefore undermine their agency, or better inform their choices?
  20. I think some of these suggestions get closer to applying MFT in understanding and appreciating where oneself and others are coming from, both on a one-on-one and systemic basis.
  21. This is the crux of where MFT can be useful. It explains why civility can go only so far; why people on each other side think the others are deceived / stupid / evil (period); why the conversation stops there; the deeply subordinate role science plays in that; and even the subordinate role trust plays in that. It describes the kinds and levels of targeted communication that might cut through all that, but these techniques require understanding the theory. I would say the level of friendly interaction is sufficiently friendly and interactive once those involved find it easier to listen to what each other is saying, and possibly see the controversy in a new light. Understanding the theory supports accomplishing this. Whoever understands it can still message effectively without the audience having to understand it themselves.
  22. I think that is a good point, standing in our place can be considered a symbol of our very persons (all creation for that matter). But I think the ordinance as constructed requires Him to be a literal proxy or substitute for our persons in suffering, rather than a symbolic representation of our suffering if we do not repent. We may symbolically stand in for Him as we do for others what they cannot do for themselves, but not when we suffer the consequences of not doing so. I think that demonstrates the difference between His proxy vs. symbolic role. I think all the ordinances are absolutely required to be carried out exactly as the Lord directs for them to have any real effect (and His grace covers any mistakes that may have been made in their performance). But “man is spirit,” so the realization of the aim of any ordinance rests with our agency, regardless of the perfectly divine power manifest in the ordinances (D&C 93: 31-33). The actions create the covenant only when we submit to both in the right spirit, with the right heart; we cannot use substitute actions to create exalting covenants. We are all as Adam and Eve (a simile), so yes, the garment itself has a history (whether symbolic or actual) that we adopt. I see differences between similes, proxies and symbols, though they often might share sacred space.
  23. It would be great if they could share exactly how they are doing that on a deeper level than civility. He alludes to that by saying "without hating each other" -- how do they go about doing that?
  24. As I mentioned above, the ordinances use symbols (words, actions), but they are also the literal means by which the power of God is manifest in the flesh in that they all have to be administered or enacted in the flesh (even if by proxy), though they are honored in the spirit in any case. The form and symbols are defined by God and He can change them. Typically, He authorizes those with the keys to do this under His direction. I believe the Atonement of Christ (His physical suffering in the garden and on the cross) and the Resurrection are ordinances that must be performed in the flesh and yet have no symbolism in their form. I would argue that the ordinance of baptism is not the literal rebirth of a new being in Christ since our hearts have to be in it for that to happen. Baptism is the Lord's prescribed means by which we can establish that. The garment is a literal covering whether our heart is in it or not. The laying on of hands is the actual conveyance of healing, confirmation, baptism by fire, blessings, setting apart, ordination, etc. but if our heart is not in it none of these things happen. Ultimately, everything has to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise to become fully actualized, and I take this to be a "non-symbolic" ordinance that can be performed in the flesh, but not necessarily always.
×
×
  • Create New...