Jump to content

CV75

Contributor
  • Posts

    16,720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CV75

  1. While verses with variations of the terms referring to Jesus as the “only begotten Son of the Father/God in the flesh” are found in both books (see John 3:16, 18, John 1:14, 18, 1 John 4:9, Alma 12:33-34, Jacob 4:5-11, Alma 13:5-9, Alma 5:48, Alma 9:26 and 2 Nephi 25:12), the Book of Mormon uniquely introduces the first person (“mine Only Begotten Son”) in Alma 12:33-34. Because this is a more direct and explicit reference to the material origin of Jesus than the Bible, it explains the conept in question – whoever is using the phrase, or how, or why -- differently and more accurately than the Bible. Or, perhaps your question is based on a complex question fallacy since I cannot acknowledge that the Bible or Book of Mormon use this phrase. “Literal” is only used in a couple of the books in our canon to refer to genealogy (as in the right to priesthood office and order in D&C 68 and 107), the seed of the body (Abraham 2:11), and physical phenomena (Articles of Faith 10), but not in the Book of Mormon or the Bible.
  2. Would you provide a fuller quote or reference for context? 3 Nephi 11 is what I think of when this idea is brought up. After drawing the people to Him and their witnessing Him, Jesus teaches this principle (beginning with verse 28) and then for the rest of the chapter explains what doctrine we are to be united upon. It seems the kinds of disputations He refers to are both general and doctrinal, and while many negative attitudes can accompany disputation (e.g., confusion, frustration, fear, etc.), the spirit of contention stirs up anger to the level of outright devilishness. He does not want us to dispute on any basis, but emphasizes contention with anger, and so sets forth the common, uniting doctrine and the formula or principle for success in remaining united in general. 28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no adisputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. 29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of acontention is not of me, but is of the bdevil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. 30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things ashould be done away. 31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my adoctrine.
  3. Hi Navidad. I think the bulk of your remarks are best directed to @smac97 so I'm bringing this to his attention. I take responsibility for the tithing remark, just a non-sequitur in an attempt at humor.
  4. I think we pay a different kind of tithe, though.
  5. I think this pretty much captures the spirit of what I was getting at, and as included in Reasons 2 and 3 in my summary above.
  6. Reasons 2 and 3 in my last summary address this idea of giving balanced weight or consideration to ourselves, Posterity and government interests. I think a similar principle of balance applies to the checks and balances between the three branches of government.
  7. OK, my initial post from last Friday: Posted May 13 What did it mean to you at that time? I’m seeing from the most recent posts on this page that my suggestion suffers the same problem as when posters challenge each other’s’ sense of what makes a person, or a human being, only on steroids for some reason: what/who/when/where makes Posterity; why is it mentioned in the Preamble “alongside ourselves” and what does that mean; how is this concept to be addressed in whatever proposal one is making? It is as much philosophical as biological. I tried to point to that with an example here: Posted yesterday at 12:36 PM I’m fine with people ignoring the question if I’m not articulating it well enough or if it is a trigger, which seems to be consistent with the negative reactions I got from the get-go. But it is also possible that people do understand it and would rather push it aside. I do not know; I just try to answer the questions the best I can. But to your point, though I disdain posters putting conditions on how serious others are (it does go two ways), here is a distillation of my ideas from the various ways I tried to explain what I am asking for, from page 32 onward (excluding the links above): “The Value of Including a Conceptual, Critical Analysis of ‘Posterity’ As Used in the Constitution to Justify Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Positions” by CV75 [clears throat] Let’s try using a point other than "viability" or “prevention” to justify one's position on the thread topic by applying the meaning of "Posterity" as used in the Preamble to the US Constitution; its distinction from "ourselves" in the same phrase; and what these mean for pro-choice or pro-life positions -- granted, loaded terms that do not capture the pro-"xyz" that most people cobble together from both movements... Reason 1: It offers a more directly constitutional basis for discussion as opposed to the more derivative rights of viability and prevention. Reason 2: The Preamble to the United States Constitution seems to equally acknowledge ourselves and our Posterity, presumably as an added measure of justification for the highest law of the land. [This is where I began to get an incredible amount of flack of all kinds: brittle, passive-aggressive, and militant!]. Reason 3: SCOTUS must (as in very presumably) interpret and consider this in its deliberations and decisions on the thread topic. Reason 4: It might be helpful to bring it up when trying to win support for one position or another. P.S. Forgive me if I did not take the subtopic of vasectomies very seriously.
  8. Probably a good idea. Start with my initial post to you from last Friday, to which I see you never replied. I think you will see that focusing on the word itself is is too narrow and interpretation of what I was asking for -- that I am more referring to legal/constitutional interpretation, concept and application.
  9. I suggest you direct this militant rhetoric to the poster who asked the question, and whom I merely politely obliged with a response. I use the quotation marks in "Posterity" for brevity in referencing the entire request I made all too often (and even offered a hypothetical example of what I'm looking for), and which you clearly find unnecessary to accommodate. I'll leave it to you to review all those posts, and if you still have questions about what I am asking for, reply to any post in question. Thank you.
  10. I was asking that justifications for new or challenged family planning laws include a critical analysis of "Posterity" to address the inevitable question of constitutionality. I provided an example. Granted, not everyone is up to the task, or as you say, thinks it relevant. Such would not find theoretical potential scenarios of proposed family planning laws that might be challenged helpful, which is why I stick to requesting a critical analysis of "Posterity" in justifying actual proposals instead.
  11. Good point, vasectomy and abstinence can work both ways. But we were talking about his personal experience and reasons for getting a vasectomy, and evaluating how that might impact the nation's posterity (i.e., combined descendants to the furthest generation). So I take his anecdote to refer to a reduction in the potential since he had had enough kids for him to manage; you can clarify with him whether this decision was primarily in consideration of the nation's population. "Timing" of a father's vasectomy as you say, can increase or decrease -- make a vas deferens in -- the continued uninterrupted transmission (emission?) which affects the potential total (adjusted for all other internal an external factors, including the number and gender of sexual partners). In this case, he was potentially able to father more and chose not to through this method, impacting the nation's population numbers of furthest generation.
  12. This is so silly! Of course family planning as defined in our current laws is protected by the Constitution, as far as I understand them. But I am not proposing new laws, or preservation of current laws, that might require constitutional justification.
  13. I've taken our lovely exchange to be one of opinion and attitude, and so haven't the need to appeal to outside sources to prove my point, which is, again, that it would be a good idea to refer to the Preamble's "Posterity" when discussing constitutionally-related matters inspired by the recent SCOUT document leak. I suppose any decision not to have children by any means would contribute to the debit side of the nation's population ledger, but this question seems to bypass a critical analysis of "Posterity."
  14. SCOTUS, I think, is bound to take Posterity into account. You do not, and count it as irrelevant, which seems to be an important feature of your rhetoric. I think it goes without saying that the Church can require whatever she wishes for terms of membership as long as it is protected by the Constitution.
  15. Let's just say it isn't apparent to you, so I will show the link: If I recall correctly, I was responding to a post holding that national legislative measures concerning prevention of unwanted pregnancies is the best way forward from an evident rescinding of Roe v. Wade in connection with the SCOTUS work on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Shifting away from away from abortion and onto prevention and public school / sex education in my mind retains the same ideological hurdles (at both national and state levels), and so perhaps it might be productive to include a deeper, more critical analysis when people argue their positions on these matters. Since both abortion and prevention directly involve “Posterity”, I thought it would be a good idea to attend to their constitutional rights as well as those of “ourselves” when arguing positions on these matters. I have not been arguing any particular position on these matters, just raising the expectation and my advocacy to include the analysis I described when someone does.
  16. Your “analysis” from above shows that you believe the Preamble’s “Posterity” are “those born or who will be born (actualized, rather than theoretical, "Posterity") through free intention and planning.” And nailed the point by saying, “Assisting in family planning only serves to secure the liberties of [those born or who will be born through free intention and planning] in their own liberties of family planning.” Circular. The only position I’ve really stated and reiterated is “that the meaning and scope of “Posterity” is bound to be taken into account in SCOTUS decisions…” The reason I bring this up is that it is very basic to the discussion of national legislative measures concerning prevention of unwanted pregnancies. “Kind of…” doesn’t cut it. But to your point (kind of, regardless), it doesn’t matter to me whether these legislative determinations go to the States or not; and, as an afterthought, if a State’s laws and the Church’s Handbook/Proclamation resonate, that’s a good fit between their interests.
  17. And I replied Posted 22 hours ago I clarified that I am not saying there is a “constitutionally mandated expectation that women get pregnant and carry babies” (your words). I then clarified my position (if you want to call it a position): “that the meaning and scope of “Posterity” is bound to be taken into account in SCOTUS decisions…” and so on for the rest of the post. My request was that anyone expressing a legislative position on abortion, preventing unwanted pregnancies and births, etc. bring their analysis of that factor into their justification.
  18. Oh; as I said, your willingness may vary. “After you…” is unacceptable some 2 dozen posts into constant push-back on my idea to critically analyze "Posterity." Use the example I provided as a kind of template if you want to, but I hope it doesn't influence your analysis, just give you an idea of what I'm looking for. I don’t think you did what it seems you think you did. Your “analysis” is but a circular justification of family planning since your qualification for “Posterity” means born through family planning, and your examples are supposed to support this on some basis. And more rhetoric to boot! I did not say I have a position, only that I wanted to see a critical analysis of “Posterity” in the proposals offered. No one has provided that, but have indeed loftily stated their positions. Use the example I provided as a kind of template if you want to, upon risk on my doing your thinking for you.
  19. That is a wonderful sentiment, but I hope you go eventually address the entire post in context. You willingness may vary!
  20. I saw these and responded to both posts because I am civil. But I did not see a critical analysis of Posterity in either of these posts. The first post is circular rhetoric – it just asserts that “a nation that ensures each child comes to a home that is ready for it and wants it, is a nation that is ensuring the prosperity of its posterity,” and not how that is done in terms of what Posterity means constitutionally or in relation to constitutional rights; no analysis. The second one just says Posterity is irrelevant, avoiding an analysis altogether. Either of you could have said something like this: I take the term “Posterity” very broadly, to refer to anyone living in this country after our arrival into it (no matter how we got here), to the furthest generation. This includes natural and adopted descendants, whether intentional, accidental, formal, legitimate, informal or illegitimate, of both natives and immigrants. By virtue of its mention in the Preamble, we treat the foreigner and stranger at least as well as we would ourselves, and none are more foreign or strange than those yet to come. For this reason, I’m suggesting our proposals need to consider how they would affect us as if we were the Posterity, taking into account what we are willing to do ourselves [if that is a moral value]. Of course, the rights of extant and yet-to-be people may be realized and protected differently along a timeline, but the rights and protections are still there. Lead out with something like that, and then apply your analysis to justify your more detailed proposals if it comes to that level of discussion/debate.
  21. You are not answering my request that consideration of the meaning of Posterity be included as part of justifying the constitutionality of the proposals that are offered. I'm not interested in making or critiquing specific proposals simply because I'm not vested in any at the moment, but I am interested in how one's concept Posterity, and thus their constitutionality, plays into them.
  22. Inasmuch as the Preamble establishes for whom the highest law of the land applies, the government powers and individual rights that follow must also apply.
  23. And now we have "deliberately obtuse" as a personal epithet. Congratulations, to took it there! If you have presented that critical analysis in prior posts, I missed it since I only looked for it in direct replies to me after I requested it. Please offer a summary and I'll be happy to respond to the analysis, since I haven't much interest at this point in making or critiquing specific proposals.
  24. OK, let’s add “confusing” and “irrelevant” to the charges, but I’m not sure why a critical analysis of the ramifications of Posterity in consideration of the constitutionality of various proposals is so confusing and irrelevant.
  25. Well then, let me add "cagey" to the list of reactions demonstrating resistance to and bias against a critical analysis of the ramifications of "Posterity" as part of the discussion of legislating various aspects and matters of pregnancy prevention. Only those who have considered its constitutional application will be able to engage in my approach. Otherwise, you are just jumping to arguments and rhetoric before analyzing this consideration, while the latter is all I'm asking to discuss. I suppose some may see this as moving the focus from viability to Posterity rather than to prevention, but constitutionally more fundamental to both viability and prevention in my estimation would be Posterity.
×
×
  • Create New...