Prophecied Condemnation Comning To Pass?

[CV75]

I am in the "no" camp, meaning that by any objective measure, I believe we are living in the best period of human history. Advances in medicine and other positive areas (including diplomacy, justice and democracy) far, far outweigh any possible negatives from modern weapons or immorality.

And I am not so sure there was ever a universal "golden era" for nuclear families and values. I suspect a lot of what we look at as "the way things used to be" are a fictional version of the white, American middle class crystallized by old TV shows and a lot of selective reporting.

And for heaven's sake, listen to Steve Pinker's TED Talk!

http://www.ted.com/t...f_violence.html

When speaking spiritually, nothing is objective; and speaking nostalgically is not necessarily spiritual either.

I think modern-day prophets were not speaking objectively or nostalgically when warning the world that “the calamities …will come as the world violates chastity and neglect the family.” I think people may try to see them acting in that light, but they are not. They are teaching a truth or a true principle.

The connection between family neglect, sexual sin etc. in their various manifestations and disguises and an inability to prevent calamity or promote good fortune with God’s assistance has been explained (in spiritual terms, at least) in a couple of posts in this thread (and as with everything else, I’m sure there are objective measures of that as well—not that they really mean much, spiritually).

I’ve heard our modern-day prophets acknowledge the great advantages we enjoy in this period of human history. That does not counter their warnings, and things could or would certainly be better if there were less family neglect, sexual sin etc. going on. But whatever positive spin we put on world conditions (objectively or not), the warnings and the underlying connections are valid.

[CV75]

Return economy to the home, and we fix families. Then morality can fall into its proper place.

I do not see how any meaningful morality is dependent on the economy if the economy is not dependent on God. I do think that both the best economies and moralities depend on God, which makes them both dependent on people working together with Him individually; and then to make transactions, exchanges and wealth (temporal, spiritual, material, etc.) they need to do so first as couples, then as families, then as communities, etc. It was not good for Adam to be alone for both his (and Eve's) moral and economic development in the Garden and onward. The morality and the economy are really all about and dependent on eternal families.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CV75

[ERayR]

I am afraid many here are conflating economic prosperity and material comforts with everything being OK. That is not necessarily the case.

[Bikeemikey]

When speaking spiritually, nothing is objective; and speaking nostalgically is not necessarily spiritual either.

I think modern-day prophets were not speaking objectively or nostalgically when warning the world that “the calamities …will come as the world violates chastity and neglect the family.” I think people may try to see them acting in that light, but they are not. They are teaching a truth or a true principle.

The connection between family neglect, sexual sin etc. in their various manifestations and disguises and an inability to prevent calamity or promote good fortune with God’s assistance has been explained (in spiritual terms, at least) in a couple of posts in this thread (and as with everything else, I’m sure there are objective measures of that as well—not that they really mean much, spiritually).

I’ve heard our modern-day prophets acknowledge the great advantages we enjoy in this period of human history. That does not counter their warnings, and things could or would certainly be better if there were less family neglect, sexual sin etc. going on. But whatever positive spin we put on world conditions (objectively or not), the warnings and the underlying connections are valid.

If we are comparing the gap between how the current world could be compared to how it is due to wickedness sin and immorality etc I fully support that.

This thread is about how much worse we are now, posited in terms of wars and violence, thus fulfilling prophecy signaling the end of days, and also trying to wrap the falling away of family as some kind of instrumental cause of this precipitous decline. Many of us on this thread are contesting this assertion.

I fully believe the world could be better. I also accept the huge potential for catastrophic violence that sometimes to be held back only by a hair. That does not mean I should ignore historical trends and evidence and proclaim the world is more violent now that it ever has been.

In fact, many of the examples of global wickedness that will likely undermine humanity's long term security would likely be rejected by those who started this thread, they would not accept my data sets that suggest the world is going the world is at risk. Let me try a few:

1. global climate change

2. massive fiscal inequality

3. huge global debt to be inherited by future generations

4. massive skewing of spending on military not humanitarian aid

[blackstrap]

Our economy and that of most of the rest of the world is more and more an 'on demand' type that is finely tuned and very vulnerable to electronic glitches. With sizable majorities of the populations in large cities , the chances of internal chaos erupting within days of any food/fuel shutdown is exponential to what it would have been 100 years ago. Even small towns now are so tied in to the global web that the food/fuel/medicine chain disruptions will also effect them. Truly , if a butterfly flaps its wings in China, the repercussions are felt all over.

[Bikeemikey]

I am afraid many here are conflating economic prosperity and material comforts with everything being OK. That is not necessarily the case.

Not true...

Many here are simply pointing out that we have economic prosperity, and live in one of the most peaceful and prosperous times in the history of the earth.

This is in response to the opening posts suggestion that we live in an age of wars and rumors of wars and then some additional statements in support of the opening post that the world is the most violent it has ever been.

To the first point: Compared to other periods in the earth human history we have comparatively less wars and rumors of wars.

To the second point: Compared to other periods in the earth human history we have comparatively less violence.

My response to points one and two is not a value judgement on our current world condition in any other way... no one is saying the world is perfect, sinless, etc etc, we may very well be poised for total destruction. We simply can not use the logic and arguments in the opening post to make such a conclusion.

[Bikeemikey]

Our economy and that of most of the rest of the world is more and more an 'on demand' type that is finely tuned and very vulnerable to electronic glitches. With sizable majorities of the populations in large cities , the chances of internal chaos erupting within days of any food/fuel shutdown is exponential to what it would have been 100 years ago. Even small towns now are so tied in to the global web that the food/fuel/medicine chain disruptions will also effect them. Truly , if a butterfly flaps its wings in China, the repercussions are felt all over.

That is true... that was not however the message of the opening post.

THe question was specifically about actual wars and rumors of wars.

Not potential disaster and rumors of potential disaster.

Our moral capacity must keep pace with our technological advancement... when the two fall into dis-alignment disaster comes quickly.

Read a little Toynbee... not a perfect historian my any stretch but some very provocative ideas... schism in the soul - schism in the body social: also good enough for an apostle to use as the basis for a pretty decent talk.

http://speeches.byu....viewitem&id=128

Edited April 18, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

Not true...

Many here are simply pointing out that we have economic prosperity, and live in one of the most peaceful and prosperous times in the history of the earth.

This is in response to the opening posts suggestion that we live in an age of wars and rumors of wars and then some additional statements in support of the opening post that the world is the most violent it has ever been.

To the first point: Compared to other periods in the earth human history we have comparatively less wars and rumors of wars.

To the second point: Compared to other periods in the earth human history we have comparatively less violence.

My response to points one and two is not a value judgement on our current world condition in any other way... no one is saying the world is perfect, sinless, etc etc, we may very well be poised for total destruction. We simply can not use the logic and arguments in the opening post to make such a conclusion.

There seems to be a connection between disparity in wealth and violence or at least discontent which tends to result in violence. I think mainly that has to do with a breakdown in communities where people feel like they have lost all control of the world around them fewer and fewer are their own bosses, fewer and fewer raise their own food, virtually none make their own clothes, and often times they also have no idea who did. Under such circumstances, men turn to external forms to try and enforce mores that previously were built into the structure of the system. You didn't steal because that was taking from a friend or neighbour. You didn't cheat on your wife because everybody knew both of you. You worked with your kids on a daily basis and you depended on them and they on you. Each knew you had to uphold the family reputation because it was going to affect you, your family, and your descendants

[Bikeemikey]

There seems to be a connection between disparity in wealth and violence or at least discontent which tends to result in violence. I think mainly that has to do with a breakdown in communities where people feel like they have lost all control of the world around them fewer and fewer are their own bosses, fewer and fewer raise their own food, virtually none make their own clothes, and often times they also have no idea who did. Under such circumstances, men turn to external forms to try and enforce mores that previously were built into the structure of the system. You didn't steal because that was taking from a friend or neighbour. You didn't cheat on your wife because everybody knew both of you. You worked with your kids on a daily basis and you depended on them and they on you. Each knew you had to uphold the family reputation because it was going to affect you, your family, and your descendants

Watch this...

It is really good.

Also this article is excellent: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40722463?uid=3739800&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102160370017

Edited April 18, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[CASteinman]

The truth is that the family is already dissolved.

No. That is not the truth.

[CASteinman]

There seems to be a connection between disparity in wealth and violence or at least discontent which tends to result in violence. I think mainly that has to do with a breakdown in communities where people feel like they have lost all control of the world around them fewer and fewer are their own bosses, fewer and fewer raise their own food, virtually none make their own clothes, and often times they also have no idea who did. Under such circumstances, men turn to external forms to try and enforce mores that previously were built into the structure of the system. You didn't steal because that was taking from a friend or neighbour. You didn't cheat on your wife because everybody knew both of you. You worked with your kids on a daily basis and you depended on them and they on you. Each knew you had to uphold the family reputation because it was going to affect you, your family, and your descendants

You should do a study and show that it is mere disparity and not actual deprivation that leads to violence as a rule.

I do not think you could actually show this under conditions of scientific data gathering and statistical testing.

[Stone holm]

You should do a study and show that it is mere disparity and not actual deprivation that leads to violence as a rule.

I do not think you could actually show this under conditions of scientific data gathering and statistical testing.

I believe there are already studies out connecting polarity in wealth as leading to social discontent, but one could probably point to every revolution except the American as sufficient proof. (That is why many have said that the American war for Independence was not actually a revolution)

[blackstrap]

bikeemikey , If the butterfly aka North Korea , flaps its missile wings and happens to hit, oh let's say Hawaii, the disruptions will be immediate.

[Bikeemikey]

No. That is not the truth.

Dissolving is perhaps more accurate.

[CASteinman]

Dissolving is perhaps more accurate.

That was exactly my first impression -- the word that came to mind. My second impression is "under attack -- which is too often successful".

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I believe there are already studies out connecting polarity in wealth as leading to social discontent, but one could probably point to every revolution except the American as sufficient proof.

I don't believe so. But if you know of such studies, I'd be interested in them. Remember though.. these would have to specifically test for whether it was mere disparity or actual deprivation.

Edited April 18, 2013 by CASteinman

[pmccombs1]

No. That is not the truth.

It is, near enough. It has been my experience, however, that those who inhabit a culture of systemic evil are blind to it. There is an elephant in the room, and they will deny it even when it is pointed out.

[CASteinman]

It is, near enough.

Well, the data say this is not correct.

It has been my experience, however, that those who inhabit a culture of systemic evil are blind to it. There is an elephant in the room, and they will deny it even when it is pointed out.

I don't know that it takes evil. There are a variety of cognitive biases that can cause this, even in good people. Some people are especially prone to them and -- here's the "worst" part: Sometimes these are errors in thinking that are positive in result.

[pmccombs1]

Well, the data say this is not correct.

What are these data you speak of? I suspect you and I have a completely different idea of what family means.

[CASteinman]

What are these data you speak of? I suspect you and I have a completely different idea of what family means.

I am referring to the data that show family formation rates and the number of intact families in, say, places like the US.

And we are not the only place in the world where families exist. They are in China, Japan, Brazil, Mexico -- even Germany.

The family is not yet destroyed.

[teddyaware]

What are these data you speak of? I suspect you and I have a completely different idea of what family means.

For crying out loud, pmccombs! This is an LDS oriented discussion board. Why do you seem somewhat surprised someone on here would hold to the traditional definition of family. Would I appear more tolerant if I called my Yorkie, Bobbie, my son?

[CV75]

If we are comparing the gap between how the current world could be compared to how it is due to wickedness sin and immorality etc I fully support that.

This thread is about how much worse we are now, posited in terms of wars and violence, thus fulfilling prophecy signaling the end of days, and also trying to wrap the falling away of family as some kind of instrumental cause of this precipitous decline. Many of us on this thread are contesting this assertion.

I fully believe the world could be better. I also accept the huge potential for catastrophic violence that sometimes to be held back only by a hair. That does not mean I should ignore historical trends and evidence and proclaim the world is more violent now that it ever has been.

In fact, many of the examples of global wickedness that will likely undermine humanity's long term security would likely be rejected by those who started this thread, they would not accept my data sets that suggest the world is going the world is at risk. Let me try a few:

1. global climate change

2. massive fiscal inequality

3. huge global debt to be inherited by future generations

4. massive skewing of spending on military not humanitarian aid

Is the world, on the whole, more violent now than ever (empirically speaking)? From my perspective, there is plenty of empirical evidence on both sides which would disallow any certain “objective” conclusion, 1) because any assessment about the evidence is going to be subjective; and 2) because disallowance for the spiritual component biases the subjective assessment.

I think the four examples you presented are valid indicators of outcomes of wickedness, if through nothing else, the blocking of the light of Christ to allow solutions, preventions, recovery, etc. This is why I use the more generalized term “calamities” rather than the word “war” specifically.

However, I think war (in all its forms and magnitudes) is the most serious problem of all, and is explicitly associated in scripture with lust at its root. Not to reiterate earlier posts too much, lust-as-covetousness for material things is a form of sexual sin in that it undermines marriage and family life (and expands its damage from there), and plain old lust obviously undermines marriage and family life, where love (the opposite of war) is developed.

Spiritually-speaking, there will be a war of wars prior to the Second Coming, the root cause of which would be the same as all other wars that occur in the meantime. It makes sense that any past and current war contributes to the build-up to that future point (it doesn’t magically erupt), since human nature hasn’t changed and the lessons to prevent war and violence have not been applied. Something is leading up to this war, and it has to do with family and its moral basis—where else do the people who cause and fight in them come from?

Wickedness also gains power and influence line upon line, precept upon precept, so this also argues in favor of the world becoming more violent. Righteousness also becomes more powerful and influential, but more so with regards to the kingdom not of this world that with the world we commonly refer to.

[Bikeemikey]

Is the world, on the whole, more violent now than ever (empirically speaking)? From my perspective, there is plenty of empirical evidence on both sides which would disallow any certain “objective” conclusion, 1) because any assessment about the evidence is going to be subjective; and 2) because disallowance for the spiritual component biases the subjective assessment.

To you first point: it is not the case that the assessment of evidence is going to be subjective... unless you think that all assessment of evidence is subjective, though I would disagree with that assessment. Read the book Steve Piniker wrote... that is the book with all the data to back up the video I posted... I would say there are data sets that could be questioned or methodologies that should be examined for process error... I would not say it is impossible to arrive at an objective conclusion because of subjectivity.

Your second point: I am not sure what you mean... was the opening post about spiritual war and spiritual violence? My responses have been about the content and questions in the opening post... as such I have not considered the increase of spiritual war and spiritual violence in my responses. This may have been an error in reading on my part. If we were to have an expansion of the topic to include these spiritual components it would be hard to keep the discussion out of the subjective as we can't measure spirit very well.

[CV75]

To you first point: it is not the case that the assessment of evidence is going to be subjective... unless you think that all assessment of evidence is subjective, though I would disagree with that assessment. Read the book Steve Piniker wrote... that is the book with all the data to back up the video I posted... I would say there are data sets that could be questioned or methodologies that should be examined for process error... I would not say it is impossible to arrive at an objective conclusion because of subjectivity.

Your second point: I am not sure what you mean... was the opening post about spiritual war and spiritual violence? My responses have been about the content and questions in the opening post... as such I have not considered the increase of spiritual war and spiritual violence in my responses. This may have been an error in reading on my part. If we were to have an expansion of the topic to include these spiritual components it would be hard to keep the discussion out of the subjective as we can't measure spirit very well.

Yes, I believe that all empirical evidence is going to be subjectively viewed and assessed. I’ve seen other books and publications that counter the conclusions you are making based on Steve’s book. Evidence supporting both views can pile up indeterminably. I’ve even seen people who read and promote one type of material in favor of the other.

My second point, “disallowance for the spiritual component biases the subjective assessment” means that (if one can admit to being subjective in his view and assessment of data, and by filtering out any spiritual bias in his or others’ assessments) to do so is not objective at all.

The OP is about actual sexual immorality/lust and actual violence/war/calamity. Both of these have spiritual roots and components (why has no one championed using empirical evidence to demonstrate that there is more or less lust in the world today?), and to disregard the spiritual aspect reflects a subjective bias.

The reason I said, “Spiritually-speaking, there will be a war of wars prior to the Second Coming” is because that is a religious or spiritual prophecy of an actual event that hasn’t happened yet, and is not based on empirical evidence, though empirical evidence can be used (subjectively) to support (and not support) the correctness of the prophecy.

[thesometimesaint]

bikeemikey , If the butterfly aka North Korea , flaps its missile wings and happens to hit, oh let's say Hawaii, the disruptions will be immediate.

Maximum range of NK missile is Guam.