The (Inter)National Book, Or, "We Are Doomed!"

[volgadon]

Well, yes they did, but you had mentioned them within the context of the "national book," which Lihi had identified as the Bible.

Of course I did! All three were influence by that book.

That was my point.

[Ariarates]

Hi Lehi,

Interesting topic!

I would like to contribute by questioning the premise of the Bible as some sort of moral compass. There are things in the Bible that we, as a nation or a people or a culture, consider moral and praiseworthy. There are also things, even divinely inspired things, in the Bible that we now consider to be immoral and reprehensible, like the targeted killing of civilians in war. Apparently, the Bible is not an absolute standard of morality but is itself judged by a different standard. There is an increasing amount of research that points toward morality being a biological quality.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

First Amendment to US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Treaty of Tripoli Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

I do not believe that ANY religious book should be a "National Book" of morals, and mores for the US. I do prefer that law should meets the needs of a pluralistic society, respecting the rights of the people to believe or not believe as they choose. That law should punish crime, but never compel conscience.

[thesometimesaint]

Loran Blood:

My preference of reading material is "The Rights of Man" by Thomas Paine.

[LeSellers]

I do not believe that ANY religious book should be a "National Book" of morals, and mores for the US. I do prefer that law should meets the needs of a pluralistic society, respecting the rights of the people to believe or not believe as they choose. That law should punish crime, but never compel conscience.

This statement demonstrates that you do not yet grasp the significance of the phrase "a National Book". The National Book has nothing (directly) to do with laws. it is not "imposed", it is "accepted"—a huge difference.

Lehi

Edited October 7, 2011 by LeSellers

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I hesitate to say this, but I was completely unaware that there was such a thing as a "National Book," let alone what it was.

I wonder whether I am alone in my ignorance of this book, and if not, and if I tend to be the rule rather than the exception, then I am not sure what difference having a "National BooK" makes to our culture one way or the other. To my mind, we tend to be more affected by what we know about rather than what we don't--not that I necessarily disagree with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Never heard of this...maybe Lehi could give a CFR. It would be interesting debate.

[LeSellers]

Never heard of this...maybe Lehi could give a CFR. It would be interesting debate.

See here and here.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

More is to pity that some "need" to accept a "higher" authoritys' word over their own freedoms. Where the actual rubber meets the road, it is all about the imposition of some one elses conscience over your own.

LDS history is replete with laws enacted to punish the Church for its beliefs.

Edited October 7, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[LeSellers]

yes [Guthrie, Seeger, and Dylan were all three influenced by the 'national book' (presumably, the Bible)], but you had mentioned them within the context of the "national book," which Lihi [sic] had identified as the Bible.

As the man of two rivers suggested, it is not wholly "cut'n'dried", but the issue is, as Bloom and Demille discuss, the general influence of the National Book across society that we can use to determine if the National Book is a good source of morals and justice rather than a bad one.

Guthrie, Seeger and Dylan, among others, not least of whom Presley and Nelson, abused (in my mind, at least) the principles of the Bible (which Jesus synopsized as "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, might, mind and strength", and "thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself") and attended the birth of (a long-gestated) moral depravity.

That their work has effectively supplanted the Bible as the USmerican National Book is worrisome. That this new canon has enveloped the western world is even more troubling.

Lehi

Edited October 7, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

I'm saddened to see that no one has produced his personal list of answers to Demille's three questions. (See message #9.)

1. What books are your companions through life?

2. If you were evacuated to another planet and could only take one book, upon which to base the whole teaching of your family and establishing right and wrong for your community, what would it be?

3. What is good? What is evil?

Lehi

Edited October 7, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Yep, getting rid of Jim Crow sure did directly lead to the downfall of America.

[LeSellers]

getting rid of Jim Crow sure did directly lead to the downfall of America.

One, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything in this topic.

Two, please stop making it political. It is not about politics, it's about the source(s) of personal morality (on a large scale).

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

1. Not in any order of preference, US Constitution and the attending Federalist Papers. Lord of the Rings, One Flew Over the Coocoo's Nest, The LDS Quad, The Encyclopedia Americana, DSM.

2. The Rights of Man.

3. Good.... That which promotes mankind. Bad...that which demotes mankind.

[LeSellers]

More is to pity that some "need" to accept a "higher" authoritys' word over their own freedoms. Where the actual rubber meets the road, it is all about the imposition of some one elses conscience over your own.

Freedom is an important compoent of personal morality. But one does not develop his morality in a vacuum. That's the reason Demille pushes so hard for "classics" in education: classics are those works that teach (usually implicitly) high moral values. We have left the classics (sneering "dead, white males") and have abandoned the morals those dead, white males taught and put wickedness in their stead.

LDS history is replete with laws enacted to punish the Church for its beliefs.

Yes, but this is not germane to our discussion. If you think it is, please connect the dots.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Again I'm not being political. It is about the treatment of our fellow man. CTR, and WWJD type stuff.

Ps.

Connecting the dots. The "morals" of Missouri were that it was legal and necessary to exterminate or drive from the state all Mormons.

It was the "morals" of the US Congress upheld by the USSC that Mormons had no right to practice their own religion.

PPs. It was the "morals" of the US that gave the two relics of barbarism Slavery, and Polygamy currency.

Edited October 7, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[LeSellers]

Again I'm not being political. It is about the treatment of our fellow man. CTR, and WWJD type stuff.

You're suggesting that the Bible is the source of Jim Crow laws?

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Yes.

[LeSellers]

Connecting the dots. The "morals" of Missouri were that it was legal and necessary to exterminate or drive from the state all Mormons.

It was the "morals" of the US Congress upheld by the USSC that Mormons had no right to practice their own religion.

PPs. It was the "morals" of the US that gave the two relics of barbarism Slavery, and Polygamy currency.

So Plural Marriage was barbarism? Sorry, I'm not buying that at all. It was revealed from the Lord, and He's not a barbarian.

The SCotuS did not apply the Bible in its decision in Reynolds. It was purely political.

Please demonstrate that the Missourians used the Bible as their text/pretext to drive the Saints from the state. The fact that not all who claim to abide by the principles of the National Book actually do so does not mean that the work in question is not the National Book, nor does it mean that the National Book is unworthy of the rubric. Rather much the contrary: when abuses like Edmunds Tucker happen, eventually one of two things will follow: Either the public mind will force compliance (the newspaper accounts of Joseph F. Smith's testimony led directly to the seating of Smoot because of the outcry of former opponents of "Mormonism" who refused to allow Senators to browbeat an old man), or the populace will acknowledge they are no longer bound by the old National Book and will adopt a new one (as happened in Mao's China with the passing of the Little Red Book).

The old National Book in USmerica and the English-speaking world is the origin of ending slavery. William Wilberforce based his opposition to it on the Bible, as did USmerican abolitionists. It seems unlikely that the new National Book (Rock /Pop/Rap Music) would provide a sufficient foundation to accomplish anything great. It teaches nothing uplifting or praiseworthy.

Lehi

Edited October 7, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Yes.

Significantly unresponsive.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I never said that I believe it was/is barbaric. However it was considered barbaric in the US during the mid 1800's. In some quarters in the US it is still considered barbaric.

Mere qubble. The USSC is barred for using the Bible(or any other religious document) in it decisions. However they do read the NEWS Papers.

There was a large group of Missourians that were for Slavery, the Saints were against. The Bible does not argue for or against Slavery directly but the practice is well established in Hebrew and Roman history. The Apostle Paul does give it his vouchesafe for the practice. Those were the arguements by the South for their "Peculiar Institution".

The trouble I have with any religious book becoming a "National Book" as a source code for morality and mores is that the practical implimentation of such a source code almost always leads to unrighteous dominion.

D&C 121: 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the ^anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little ^bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ^cunrighteous dominion.

At one time the Waltz was banned as immoral. The music of the 60's was/is a reflection of the times. It inspired and lead to the ending of a war, the ending of Jim Crow, and more equal rights for women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaWl2lA7968

Edited October 7, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Jesterss]

Even songs warrant multiple interpretations... My wife never knew the understanding of the song "summer of 69"... She didn't act on it... Songs don't determine morals.. They may determine or correct a persons mood based on their usage as their "out/vice" such as the older generations use of "cigarettes".. but the use of cigarettes doesn't make us believe that they influenced the older generations morals... it's a vice (maybe seen as immoral act), but does not set the standard for a majority's moral standards.

edit: music or even a book do not control our logic... logic drives morals..

Edited October 7, 2011 by Jesterss

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

Logic has little to nothing to do with morals. IE; . Logic would indicate that the strong should/will rule over the weak.The one eyed man will rule in a world of the blind. Not exactly my definition of a moral choice.

Ps. Alternatively, Those that have the gold RULE.

Edited October 7, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

You only asked if I believe the Bible is the source for US slavery. The simple answer is yes.

[LeSellers]

The USSC is barred for using the Bible(or any other religious document) in it decisions. However they do read the NEWS Papers.

There is nothing barring it from using the Bible (or anything else) in its processes, nothing except its own choices. It's not in the Constitution.

There was a large group of Missourians that were for Slavery, the Saints were against. The Bible does not argue for or against Slavery directly but the practice is well established in Hebrew and Roman history. The Apostle Paul does give it his vouchesafe for the practice. Those were the arguements by the South for their "Peculiar Institution".

Yes, and I not only recognize it, when I am championing USmerican exceptionalism, I show how the Bible not only condones slavery, but encourages it, but that, for the most part, it is voluntary slavery (even if by debt). Yet the same Bible requires release of slaves after seven years (at most).

Slaveholders in USmerica (and across the world even today) who use(d) the Bible to justify their practice are abusing it.

But that has nothing to do with whether the National Book is, itself, good or bad. How people apply it is quite a different matter.

The trouble I have with any religious book becoming a "National Book" as a source code for morality and mores is that the practical implimentation of such a source code almost always leads to unrighteous dominion.

D&C 121: 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the ^anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little ^bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise ^cunrighteous dominion.

Notice that Joseph did not say "a little religious authority". it doesn't matter whether this authority is religious, political or anything else, it is the nature of almost all men to exercise unrighteous dominion. A religious National Book does not contribute to that nature any more than an irreligious book would.

The music of the 60's was/is a reflection of the times. It inspired and lead to the ending of a war, the ending of Jim Crow, and more equal rights for women.

It also drove the times, rather than merely reflecting it. Were it simply a reflection, it would not have "lead [sic] to the ending of a war, the ending of Jim Crow, and more equal rights for women." Such is the power of the National Book.

The problem is that we cannot "choose" a National Book. It, like language, both adapts to the needs of the people and drives those needs.

In msg #9, I cited Demille (citing Bloom) who made the case that it is the family that has failed. I disagree to this extent: the family has been prohibited from doing its job of passing along mores and norms. While much of the cause for this failure is political, a great deal is the general undermining of family structure and the dissolution of family honor. I can barely imagine a mother telling her daughter, "We Xxxxxes do not do that," (keeping in mind that she is not an Xxxxxx, but only married into the tribe). Nor can I see many fathers demanding their sons do Y because "this is what we Xxxxxxes do." Schools are more important to children than their families for a lot of things. Peers, not parents, define right'n'wrong.

Choosing a National Book is an individual choice of a personal "canon", one made by each individual, and the agglomerated choice becomes the National Book.

Demille and Bloom are convinced that a people without a National Book is doomed to fade away. I contend, along with them, that we have no National Book today, and the primary contenders (Pop Culture—which always makes think of a petri dish) are not worthy of the title. They will lead to destruction.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

You only asked if I believe the Bible is the source for US slavery. The simple answer is yes.

The Bible was not the source for USmerican slavery. It was Africans who sold their fellows to other Africans who sold them to the Dutch who brought them to USmerica and sold them to Englishmen.

The Bible was abused as justification for slavery, but that's not at all the same thing. We ought not confuse the two.

Lehi