Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[Stone holm]

While I agree that the world in general has become more accepting, there is still plenty of hostility. When a 19 year old LDS young man comes out to his family and is told that he needs to be celibate the rest of his life and that his future spouse will not be welcome at family functions -- that comes across as hostile to the individual (this is a real example, not hypothetical). It has the effect of pushing them out of the church and into a community where multiple sexual partners are common.

So I guess the concern that I am getting at is how to stigmatize the bad behaviors but also cultivate a space where the desire to live a chaste life can be grown. As I see it, in previous decades we did a good job of stigmatizing but now I see a desire by, at least some, in the homosexual community to live lives of monogamy, commitment, and family.

I know that Wenglund has tried to hitch increase in STD's and other issues to gay marriage. I think there has been an increase in homosexuality as stigma has declined in part that is people coming out of the closet and being recognized as gay, in part it may be high school and college kids wanting to be hip, or who knows what. It makes no sense whatever to link gay marriage, however, to increased STD's -- increased STD's only come from increased promiscuity -- so unless one is willing to drink the social conservative kool-aid that the majority of gays are entering "open marriages", I believe that his opinions in that regard appear to be totally bogus -- although I am sure that i will be denounced as "twisting" facts and reasons for saying so. Whether we as a society would be better off if the gays stayed in the closet is an issue I am not certain about at this point -- although the more arguments that I hear like those made by Wenglund suggest to me that it would be morally wrong to support the idea of trying to force people back in the closet with social stigma.

Insults and politics... tsk tsk! - Ares

Edited May 10, 2013 by Ares

[KevinG]

Less urban. Less crowded.

Soilent Green for all!

[Stone holm]

Less urban. Less crowded.

Am not sure that urban areas create gays, I think that gays fled to urban areas in America initially because of increased annonymity -- Vermont is very rural, in fact according to some measures it is considered the most rural State in America. Nevertheless, we have a very high percentage of gays in our population.

[pmccombs1]

So many problems. So little time to address them. And in so short an assertion.

1. CFR that there is no choice involved in practicing homosexual lifestyle. The identical twin studies, as Elder Oaks so wisely pointed out, show that the homosexuality of both, raised apart, turns on the toss of a coin. Yes, the incidence is larger than the general population by a fair bit. No, it is not inevitable: environment and one's response to that environment make one a practicing homosexual.

Right, I'm hoping we can look at environmental factors and work on those.

2. One can do just so much in adjusting people's behaviors, especially when those behaviors serve survival and/or evolutionary ends. The chickens in the barnyard will peck that speckled pullet to death because it's speckled, probably because (sez science) speckled looks a whole lot like disease and chickens are at least smart enough to run away from or ameliorate a threat of disease wiping out the flock. It's, moreover, not a new notion that one must stick up to bullies, and that bullies deserve getting pulled down a peg or two by somebody brave enough to risk injury to do so. If adults always intervene, how is the craven to learn finally to be brave? It's bad policy, infantilizes the young, and, ultimately, doesn't do much good: if I always must rely on somebody else to solve my problems, I cannot be of any use to anybody else. Whatever the configuration of the person being bullied, either that person or a peer must be the one to stand up. The playground should be a little bit dangerous, though not life-threatening. Hysterical dogoodniki do a whole lot of mischief.

I think you're saying something important here, but I'm not making the connection with the argument I'm trying to make. Are you saying that today's world is a playground that is "just dangerous enough"?

3. Not all "progress" is good -- indeed, most of what passes for "social progress" is horrible. Does anybody, for example, really think we're better off today with 1/2 of kids living in broken homes? Really?

So let's "progress" to a place where most kids live in whole homes, like they used to. That's what I'm saying. Do you think it would help, or hurt the cause?

[KevinG]

I don't quite buy that having cultural norms and standards is equal to stigmatization to the point of bullying.

Intent counts and if I teach my children chastity for their own eternal and temporal benefit that may include:

- not approving of every behavior they want to try.

- not permitting every outfit no matter how revealing or suggestive.

- encouraging group dating.

- praching that sexuality is a precious and private thing between spouses.

- Being an example of loving my spouse and children.

- Wearing symbols of my commitments like a wedding ring.

- Presenting my family as something precious to me by putting their picture on my office wall or social media site.

- Telling those they date that our Mormon values are important to us and please respect my children accordingly.

If someone chooses to interpret those actions as stigmatizing homosexuality or promoting heterosexuality then that says more about their level of security with their own identity than any stigma I am attempting to promote.

[KevinG]

Am not sure that urban areas create gays, I think that gays fled to urban areas in America initially because of increased annonymity -- Vermont is very rural, in fact according to some measures it is considered the most rural State in America. Nevertheless, we have a very high percentage of gays in our population.

Urban areas are notoriously more progressive when it comes to syles and cultural norms. I agree that they don't cause these changes as much as create a place where they are more accepted or celebrated.

[KevinG]

So let's "progress" to a place where most kids live in whole homes, like they used to. That's what I'm saying. Do you think it would help, or hurt the cause?

If the cause is the breakdown of the traditional family it would help. Neither side does itself any favors by using children to advocate for or against the relative merits of homosexual vs. heterosexual unions. The evidence on the grand experiment just isn't in for the long view. On the other hand other similar experiments with the family structure (the state as family, single parenting, etc.) have ended in miserable failure for the chidlren.

[pmccombs1]

Am not sure that urban areas create gays, I think that gays fled to urban areas in America initially because of increased annonymity -- Vermont is very rural, in fact according to some measures it is considered the most rural State in America. Nevertheless, we have a very high percentage of gays in our population.

Well, who is sure? In any case, I bet I could dig up some study or other that finds increasing incidence of homosexuality in brutes that are way overcrowded. I know I've stumbled on those claims before. No doubt there are other factors in other places, like Vermont, if what you say is true.

At any rate, I think it's a matter of complexity; I'm still coming from a standpoint that this is a disorder that isn't typically voluntary. There's something at work in the environment, the culture, so forth. People are getting into places and lifestyles that tend toward that behavior (and it isn't conscious; these people aren't aware of consequences or anything of that nature, so agency isn't much of a factor at least in developmental stages), and once they get it, you know, it gets into the flesh. No point in stigmatizing then! There seems to be a point of no return once the tendency has become fully expressed. So let's simplify. How would God live, were He among us? How would he treat the environment? Would any of that matter to other things, like homosexuality?

[pmccombs1]

Soilent Green for all!

That's the spirit!

Wait... Soylent Green... is people...

[Calm]

In any case, I bet I could dig up some study or other that finds increasing incidence of homosexuality in brutes that are way overcrowded. I know I've stumbled on those claims before.

There are animal studies that show increase of homosexual behaviours in crowed conditions. Perhaps that is what you are thinking of?

[mfbukowski]

Ok, ok, I'm thinking about that argument. I think there is something to it--I'm trying to figure how it fits with what I'm observing.

Is God the sort of fellow who holds our heads under water and commands, "now, be like me and breathe!," or is it something else?

I mean, I see two ways to overcome the natural man. One is futile. It's learning to breath underwater. Although, sometimes it's not that way. Sometimes it's like climbing a mountain and pushing against things and getting stronger. I'm throwing out metaphors and being all confusing, I know.

I'm trying to mean this: occasionally resisting the natural man is right, and it makes you stronger. But, occasionally resisting the natural man is wrong, and it kills you. You have to be careful about what kind of "overcoming" you want to employ. Yes, there is another kind of "overcoming" that isn't futile in cases where repression can be fatal. It's about shaping culture and getting into an environment where it's actually possible to become godlike. I really hope that God isn't going to hold it over these poor people who didn't choose homosexuality for themselves, and heaven knows they couldn't beat it. Rather than stigmatizing them, let's help overcome this "natural man" by creating an environment where they aren't in over their heads. I'm sure God doesn't appreciate that we've made a place where becoming like Him is more impossible every day, and I'm sorry, I just don't see room for stigma anywhere.

There was this brilliant article in the Other Journal some time ago, and I wish I could find it now. It talked about making culture vs. making subculture. So many churches are into the subculture thing these days; let's be in the world but not "of it". And it's nonsense. We're all looking to work out some sort of "personal" salvation, thinking that we can do it in the midst of this hellscape. I say that's insanity. We need to start making a culture where people can actually grow and develop, rather than stigmatizing the culture at the same time we're immersed in it.

Revelation 3- excerpts- Do these say "go with the culture or do they say otherwise? Underlining added

King James Version (KJV)

And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

² Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

³ Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

⁴ Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

⁵ He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

⁶ He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

⁷ And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

⁸ I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

⁹ Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

¹⁰ Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

¹¹ Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

¹² Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

¹³ He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

¹⁴ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

¹⁵ I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

¹⁶ So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

¹⁷ Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

¹⁸ I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

¹⁹ As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

²⁰ Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

²¹ To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

²² He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Golly gee, I sure hope he didn't stigmatize anyone!

I have a little different view of the atonement than perhaps some others- I view it from the positive side. We are so accustomed to seeing it as a reprieve from punishment we receive- a debt paid on our behalf, a salvation from sin and death - that we don't look at it from the positive side.

We are here to overcome the world- to be different from the society around us.

Christ overcame death and sin by his resurrection and showed us all that it could be done if we but overcome our natural man and do all we can to be like him. And he is the jude of whether or not we overcame enough.

If that includes stepping on a few toes, perhaps it will encourage them to change. Or more likely, it will not. Whichever it is, we can silently (if necessary) live our lives overcoming the world. And as far as I am concerned, it is that , as it says in verse 21 above, which will put us in what we call the "Celestial Kingdom".

Regardless, seeking perfection is about the most challenging and rewarding thing we can do in this life anyway.

[pmccombs1]

Revelation 3- excerpts- Do these say "go with the culture or do they say otherwise? Underlining added

King James Version (KJV)

Um... I'm not advocating anything like "go with the culture." I'm advocating making entirely new culture; you know, like maybe Zion or something. Wacky, I know.

The false idea of "In the world, but not of the world," is not making culture. It's not making Zion. It's a cop-out. An excuse for not doing greater things. It's holding one's breath until blue in the face-- the utter nonsense that you can adopt the world's corruption (its economy, its idea of family, etc.) and still remain pure. Put on the clothes, just don't eat or breathe... very much. So all these people who think that "the world" is like some math problem believe they can take "the world, minus its symptoms, plus the gospel" and end up with Zion. Actually, that's the formula for creating Pharisees: Corruption - Symptoms + Gospel = Pharisee.

No wonder such people "step on a few toes" in their pursuit of perfection. They're tottering around, holding their breath all the time, looking down their pinched noses at everyone else. Why won't they just go to Zion and leave all the happy, wicked people alone, for crying out loud? Why not get out of this world they despise so much? Stop stigmatizing everything in the wicked world and go make a new one. Shoo!

First heal yourself. Then heal your family. Maybe someone else nearby has healed theirs too; you ought to seek them out. All worthwhile religion is overwhelmingly local. That's what our leaders are hopefully telling us. Don't worry about stigmatizing things (except in your own local sphere), or stepping on people's toes, or living in their world while you pursue personal perfection. If enough people would do this, soon enough there won't be anything left for the Pharisees--who never learn that righteousness can't be "done" to people--to stigmatize.

Golly gee, I sure hope he didn't stigmatize anyone!

Quaint.

Jesus, whose right it was to judge (so it is said), decried the morally defective who ought to have known better. He chastened the strong who thought they were worthy, but he didn't stigmatize blind people, or lepers, or the weak, or anyone else who didn't choose their defect. Some aspects of the "natural man" can't be overcome except by death, and I think many homosexuals fall into that category. Some of them will be healed, like Jesus sometimes healed the infirm. Many will not.

But, wouldn't you know it, human beings actually have a little bit of say over how the "natural man" develops. We can input some things into that system and possibly produce a mankind that is naturally a little more like God. We can build a healthier world where perhaps there isn't so much of mental illness, of blindness, of homosexuality, and of other human problems that are difficult or impossible to overcome once they are present. That's what I'm suggesting in the place of stigma.

Or, like the Pharisee, we can leave the world as it is and pretend we aren't part of it, and then call everything we find ugly about it a disgrace.

Jesus came to overcome death and sin, but also to smack down the Pharisee and his silly stigmas. The way we stigmatize people for any wickedness they couldn't help themselves from will be how God stigmatizes us for the work of spreading stigma in His name.

Edited May 10, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Tacenda]

Um... I'm not advocating anything like "go with the culture." I'm advocating making entirely new culture; you know, like maybe Zion or something. Wacky, I know.

The false idea of "In the world, but not of the world," is not making culture. It's not making Zion. It's a cop-out. An excuse for not doing greater things. It's holding one's breath until blue in the face-- the utter nonsense that you can adopt the world's corruption (its economy, its idea of family, etc.) and still remain pure. Put on the clothes, just don't eat or breathe... very much. So all these people who think that "the world" is like some math problem believe they can take "the world, minus its symptoms, plus the gospel" and end up with Zion. Actually, that's the formula for creating Pharisees: Corruption - Symptoms + Gospel = Pharisee.

No wonder such people "step on a few toes" in their pursuit of perfection. They're tottering around, holding their breath all the time, looking down their pinched noses at everyone else. Why won't they just go to Zion and leave all the happy, wicked people alone, for crying out loud? Why not get out of this world they despise so much? Stop stigmatizing everything in the wicked world and go make a new one. Shoo!

First heal yourself. Then heal your family. Maybe someone else nearby has healed theirs too; you ought to seek them out. All worthwhile religion is overwhelmingly local. That's what our leaders are hopefully telling us. Don't worry about stigmatizing things (except in your own local sphere), or stepping on people's toes, or living in their world while you pursue personal perfection. If enough people would do this, soon enough there won't be anything left for the Pharisees--who never learn that righteousness can't be "done" to people--to stigmatize.

Quaint.

Jesus, whose right it was to judge (so it is said), decried the morally defective who ought to have known better. He chastened the strong who thought they were worthy, but he didn't stigmatize blind people, or lepers, or the weak, or anyone else who didn't choose their defect. Some aspects of the "natural man" can't be overcome in this life, and I think many homosexuals fall into that category. Some of them will be healed, like Jesus sometimes healed the infirm. Many will not.

But, wouldn't you know it, human beings actually have a little bit of say over how the "natural man" develops. We can input some things into that system and possibly produce a mankind that is naturally a little more like God. We can build a healthier world where perhaps there isn't so much of mental illness, of blindness, of homosexuality, and of other human problems that are difficult or impossible to overcome once they are present. That's what I'm suggesting in the place of stigma.

Or, like the Pharisee, we can leave the world as it is and pretend we aren't part of it, and then call everything we find ugly about it a disgrace.

Jesus came to overcome death and sin, but also to smack down the Pharisee and his silly stigmas. The way we stigmatize people for any wickedness they couldn't help themselves from will be how God stigmatizes us for the work of spreading stigma in His name.

Um... I'm not advocating anything like "go with the culture." I'm advocating making entirely new culture; you know, like maybe Zion or something. Wacky, I know.

The false idea of "In the world, but not of the world," is not making culture. It's not making Zion. It's a cop-out. An excuse for not doing greater things. It's holding one's breath until blue in the face-- the utter nonsense that you can adopt the world's corruption (its economy, its idea of family, etc.) and still remain pure. Put on the clothes, just don't eat or breathe... very much. So all these people who think that "the world" is like some math problem believe they can take "the world, minus its symptoms, plus the gospel" and end up with Zion. Actually, that's the formula for creating Pharisees: Corruption - Symptoms + Gospel = Pharisee.

No wonder such people "step on a few toes" in their pursuit of perfection. They're tottering around, holding their breath all the time, looking down their pinched noses at everyone else. Why won't they just go to Zion and leave all the happy, wicked people alone, for crying out loud? Why not get out of this world they despise so much? Stop stigmatizing everything in the wicked world and go make a new one. Shoo!

First heal yourself. Then heal your family. Maybe someone else nearby has healed theirs too; you ought to seek them out. All worthwhile religion is overwhelmingly local. That's what our leaders are hopefully telling us. Don't worry about stigmatizing things (except in your own local sphere), or stepping on people's toes, or living in their world while you pursue personal perfection. If enough people would do this, soon enough there won't be anything left for the Pharisees--who never learn that righteousness can't be "done" to people--to stigmatize.

Quaint.

Jesus, whose right it was to judge (so it is said), decried the morally defective who ought to have known better. He chastened the strong who thought they were worthy, but he didn't stigmatize blind people, or lepers, or the weak, or anyone else who didn't choose their defect. Some aspects of the "natural man" can't be overcome in this life, and I think many homosexuals fall into that category. Some of them will be healed, like Jesus sometimes healed the infirm. Many will not.

But, wouldn't you know it, human beings actually have a little bit of say over how the "natural man" develops. We can input some things into that system and possibly produce a mankind that is naturally a little more like God. We can build a healthier world where perhaps there isn't so much of mental illness, of blindness, of homosexuality, and of other human problems that are difficult or impossible to overcome once they are present. That's what I'm suggesting in the place of stigma.

Or, like the Pharisee, we can leave the world as it is and pretend we aren't part of it, and then call everything we find ugly about it a disgrace.

Jesus came to overcome death and sin, but also to smack down the Pharisee and his silly stigmas. The way we stigmatize people for any wickedness they couldn't help themselves from will be how God stigmatizes us for the work of spreading stigma in His name.

Oh I wish, I wish I could give rep points! This deserves a thousand points!

[mfbukowski]

Um... I'm not advocating anything like "go with the culture." I'm advocating making entirely new culture; you know, like maybe Zion or something. Wacky, I know.

The false idea of "In the world, but not of the world," is not making culture.

Of course it is. That is exactly what it is.

It's not making Zion. It's a cop-out. An excuse for not doing greater things. It's holding one's breath until blue in the face-- the utter nonsense that you can adopt the world's corruption (its economy, its idea of family, etc.) and still remain pure.

Listen to yourself. You are saying what I am saying- that we must not be part of the world, but our own culture. Highly inconsistent!

Put on the clothes, just don't eat or breathe... very much. So all these people who think that "the world" is like some math problem believe they can take "the world, minus its symptoms, plus the gospel" and end up with Zion. Actually, that's the formula for creating Pharisees: Corruption - Symptoms + Gospel = Pharisee.

No wonder such people "step on a few toes" in their pursuit of perfection. They're tottering around, holding their breath all the time, looking down their pinched noses at everyone else.

Uh, last time I checked these behaviors are condemned by the gospel. I have no clue where you think they are not

Why won't they just go to Zion and leave all the happy, wicked people alone, for crying out loud? Why not get out of this world they despise so much? Stop stigmatizing everything in the wicked world and go make a new one. Shoo!

Uh, yeah, that is called "being in the world but not of it". You think Zion will be on Mars??

First heal yourself. Then heal your family. Maybe someone else nearby has healed theirs too; you ought to seek them out. All worthwhile religion is overwhelmingly local. That's what our leaders are hopefully telling us. Don't worry about stigmatizing things (except in your own local sphere), or stepping on people's toes, or living in their world while you pursue personal perfection. If enough people would do this, soon enough there won't be anything left for the Pharisees--who never learn that righteousness can't be "done" to people--to stigmatize.

Quaint.

Jesus, whose right it was to judge (so it is said), decried the morally defective who ought to have known better. He chastened the strong who thought they were worthy, but he didn't stigmatize blind people, or lepers, or the weak, or anyone else who didn't choose their defect. Some aspects of the "natural man" can't be overcome except by death, and I think many homosexuals fall into that category. Some of them will be healed, like Jesus sometimes healed the infirm. Many will not.

But, wouldn't you know it, human beings actually have a little bit of say over how the "natural man" develops. We can input some things into that system and possibly produce a mankind that is naturally a little more like God. We can build a healthier world where perhaps there isn't so much of mental illness, of blindness, of homosexuality, and of other human problems that are difficult or impossible to overcome once they are present. That's what I'm suggesting in the place of stigma.

Or, like the Pharisee, we can leave the world as it is and pretend we aren't part of it, and then call everything we find ugly about it a disgrace.

Jesus came to overcome death and sin, but also to smack down the Pharisee and his silly stigmas. The way we stigmatize people for any wickedness they couldn't help themselves from will be how God stigmatizes us for the work of spreading stigma in His name.

Bolding added.

Yes we should all repent and become a Zion people and not look down our noses at anyone and love everyone.

But if we are a Zion people we are already NOT part of the larger culture- by definition, unless you really think we can transform our present culture into Zion.

I don't.

Like others who believe in the scriptures, I think it's a lost cause.

It seems to me that most of the people in the larger culture don't love everyone, but I could be wrong. Since we have no rapes or murders, I suppose you are right.

This whole post seems inconsistent in spirit to me.

You want a Zion culture and yet you want it integrated as part of the larger culture, yet we are supposed to overcome the world.

Won't work.

If your argument was that we should be kind to all out of love for them, I would agree, but that doesn't seem to be your argument. Frankly, I am not sure what your argument is at this time.

Of course we should not bully people as part of the gospel. If that is all you are saying, I agree.

Edited May 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

Of course it is. That is exactly what it is.

Listen to yourself. You are saying what I am saying- that we must not be part of the world, but our own culture. Highly inconsistent!

Uh, last time I checked these behaviors are condemned by the gospel. I have no clue where you think they are not

Uh, yeah, that is called "being in the world but not of it". You think Zion will be on Mars??

Bolding added.

Yes we should all repent and become a Zion people and not look down our noses at anyone and love everyone.

But if we are a Zion people we are already NOT part of the larger culture- by definition, unless you really think we can transform our present culture into Zion.

I don't.

Like others who believe in the scriptures, I think it's a lost cause.

It seems to me that most of the people in the larger culture don't love everyone, but I could be wrong. Since we have no rapes or murders, I suppose you are right.

This whole post seems inconsistent in spirit to me.

You want a Zion culture and yet you want it integrated as part of the larger culture, yet we are supposed to overcome the world.

Won't work.

If your argument was that we should be kind to all out of love for them, I would agree, but that doesn't seem to be your argument. Frankly, I am not sure what your argument is at this time.

Of course we should not bully people as part of the gospel. If that is all you are saying, I agree.

I wouldn't say that the Founders of the Restoration exactly followed the notion of in the world but not of the world, they basically kept moving till they found a place where they could establish their own culture. Not exactly sure what is happening now , but it sure kind of smells like we are adopting the dominant culture, but trying to rid it of sexual immorality while sort of ignoring all other forms of immorality. Maybe that is what we are supposed to be doing, somebody on another thread said that the Church in order to navigate the various global cultures was reducing its message to the lowest common denominator which appears to be testify of Christ, pray, get married and otherwise keep your pants zipped.

[wenglund]

CFR?

I am away from my computer and research for a couple of days. But, in the interim, and if you are willing, you could easily do a Google search.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I wouldn't say that the Founders of the Restoration exactly followed the notion of in the world but not of the world, they basically kept moving till they found a place where they could establish their own culture.

Holy cow- you have the same problem pm has! Read that last sentence. It makes no sense. WHY did they keep moving??? BECAUSE they rejected the dominant culture!! The dominant culture wanted to kill them!!! They had no choice to be in the culture- still Americans- but not OF it!!

Not exactly sure what is happening now , but it sure kind of smells like we are adopting the dominant culture, but trying to rid it of sexual immorality while sort of ignoring all other forms of immorality.

Like what??

Maybe that is what we are supposed to be doing, somebody on another thread said that the Church in order to navigate the various global cultures was reducing its message to the lowest common denominator which appears to be testify of Christ, pray, get married and otherwise keep your pants zipped.

Ah yes, good old "somebody"! I hear there is "somebody wrong on the internet"- maybe that's him!

[Stone holm]

Holy cow- you have the same problem pm has! Read that last sentence. It makes no sense. WHY did they keep moving??? BECAUSE they rejected the dominant culture!! The dominant culture wanted to kill them!!! They had no choice to be in the culture- still Americans- but not OF it!!

Like what??

Ah yes, good old "somebody"! I hear there is "somebody wrong on the internet"- maybe that's him!

Isn't that what I indicated? They didn't stay in the culture, they tried to escape it and start their own. Now we have pretty much embraced the culture with all its materialism and corporatism, but want to paint over that culture sexual chastity, and by the way don't drink booze or coffee...

[Calm]

Isn't that what I indicated? They didn't stay in the culture, they tried to escape it and start their own.

But they didn't do this by choice, they were forced to do so. At first they tried to live among others, did they not?

[Tacenda]

I am away from my computer and research for a couple of days. But, in the interim, and if you are willing, you could easily do a Google search.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll wait, no problemo.

[mfbukowski]

Isn't that what I indicated? They didn't stay in the culture, they tried to escape it and start their own. Now we have pretty much embraced the culture with all its materialism and corporatism, but want to paint over that culture sexual chastity, and by the way don't drink booze or coffee...

The line you are trying to draw is impossible to draw.

What IS "culture"?? It's language, it's music, it's in the very air we breathe. The present dominant LDS culture is still American, and English language. (But of course it is changing toward more Spanish) Our very beliefs, American pragmatism, capitalism, the ethic of rugged individualism- these are all in the very fabric of Mormonism. The GA's are mostly American, and like it or not, most members are Republican, and that means "capitalist" (pardon the filthy language)

Of course we should not stigmatize anyone for not participating in these values- that IS what the gospel teaches, but we have always "embraced the culture" and yet the culture has always had problems with us.

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a very visible Broadway Play lampooning our beliefs. THIS is what your dominant culture thinks of us- we are foolish superstitious, ignorant oafs who blindly follow and do what they are told by their wacky cult leader "prophet" How stupid could you be to join such a church? - THAT is the dominant attitude of the NY "worldly" intelligentsia.

THAT is our "dominant culture"- they make fun of us.

So how can we exist without being IN THE WORLD BUT NOT OF IT???

Let them try that with the Jews- with their Anti-Defamation League. The play would never have opened, inn fact, the script would never even have been written, or if it was, the first entertainment professional who read the script would throw it in the trash can and it would never see the light of day, and branded as "hate literature". But making fun of the silly Mormon minority is great sport!

I hate to tell you our doctrine about materialism, but guess what? We believe that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter" and that means that Mormons are "materialists". Even spirit is matter. Sorry to let you know that.

We do what we can to defend ourselves against the incursions of the dominant culture which lampoons our values- and right now, that means perhaps more emphasis for our people on sexual matters, since that is the easiest way Satan has to lead us astray, and our values on these matters are most divergent with the dominant culture on these topics.

You do what you can to defend your own people and when the assault is on the family- which is what sex is about- that is where you aim your defenses.

In a very real sense we WORSHIP the family- the Godhead IS a family. That is central doctrine, it is central to all the church is about.

Any assault on that, must be clearly and precisely, and vigorously, defended. You are minimizing the importance of sexual issues!

Jesus said if you even LOOK on a woman to "lust after her" YOU DENY THE FAITH.

I guess he was just "painting over the culture with chastity"? Sexual sin is very serious.

We cannot escape our dominant American culture. For now, it is what we are. Soon it will change- it is changing as we speak. Zion culture is growing. We are in the world but not OF it. No, it is not part of the gospel to stigmatize anybody, but condemning the tools of Satan IS very much a part of what the gospel is about.

The savior did it, and so should we.

These gripes are just semantic nonsense. Sorry, but the original Book of Mormon translation was into English and Joseph was an American, with American values.

I really don't know what you are griping about. None of it makes sense to me.

Edited May 11, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

But they didn't do this by choice, they were forced to do so. At first they tried to live among others, did they not?

Yes and no. They were building, in a very physical and literal sense, their own communities starting in Kirtland, then Nauvoo, and finally the Great Basin. Yes they were forced to move, but they were forced to move in part because they were dominating the culture in their communities. What they did was a great Christian tradition of withdrawing and creating your own community and cultural enclave. Only occasionally is that successful. Normally they get swallowed up by the dominant culture like the New England Puritans were. Examples of success are the various Amish communities.

[Stone holm]

The line you are trying to draw is impossible to draw.

What IS "culture"?? It's language, it's music, it's in the very air we breathe. The present dominant LDS culture is still American, and English language. (But of course it is changing toward more Spanish) Our very beliefs, American pragmatism, capitalism, the ethic of rugged individualism- these are all in the very fabric of Mormonism. The GA's are mostly American, and like it or not, most members are Republican, and that means "capitalist" (pardon the filthy language)

We have always "embraced the culture" and yet the culture has always had problems with us.

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a very visible Broadway Play lampooning our beliefs. THIS is what your dominant culture thinks of us- we are foolish superstitious, ignorant oafs who blindly follow and do what they are told by their wacky cult leader "prophet" How stupid could you be to join such a church? - THAT is the dominant attitude of the NY intelligentsia.

Let them try that with the Jews- with their Anti-Defamation League. The play would never have opened, inn fact, the script would never even have been written, or if it was, the first entertainment professional who read the script would throw it in the trash can and it would never see the light of day, and branded as "hate literature".

I hate to tell you our doctrine about materialism, but guess what? We believe that there is no such thing as "immaterial matter" and that means that Mormons are "materialists". Even spirit is matter. Sorry to let you know that.

We do what we can to defend ourselves against the incursions of the dominant culture which lampoons our values- and right now, that means perhaps more emphasis for our people on sexual matters, since that is the easiest way Satan has to lead us astray, and our values on these matters are most divergent with the dominant culture on these topics.

You do what you can to defend your own people and when the assault is on the family- which is what sex is about- that is where you aim your defenses.

In a very real sense we WORSHIP the family- the Godhead IS a family. That is central doctrine, it is central to all the church is about.

Any assault on that, must be clearly and precisely, and vigorously, defended.

We cannot escape our dominant American culture. For now, it is what we are. Soon it will change- it is changing as we speak. Zion culture is growing. We are in the world but not OF it. No, it is not part of the gospel to stigmatize anybody, but condemning the tools of Satan IS very much a part of what the gospel is about.

The savior did it, and so should we.

These gripes are just semantic nonsense. Sorry, but the original Book of Mormon translation was into English and Joseph was an American, with American values.

I really don't know what you are griping about. None of it makes sense to me.

I disagree we have not always embraced the culture. We have, however, embraced the culture at an accelerating pace since the middle of the last century.

[mfbukowski]

I wouldn't say that the Founders of the Restoration exactly followed the notion of in the world but not of the world, they basically kept moving till they found a place where they could establish their own culture.

Brilliant analysis.

They were NOT following "being in the world but not of it" by completely sealing themselves FROM the culture.

They were staying with the culture by moving from place to place to escape it.

Got it.

[mfbukowski]

I disagree we have not always embraced the culture. We have, however, embraced the culture at an accelerating pace since the middle of the last century.

Let's see if i can figure out with what you are saying.

You DISAGREE with the proposition that (we have NOT always embraced the culture)

Good then we agree.

That means we have always embraced the culture.

But then your next sentence contradicts that. It says:

"We have, however, embraced the culture at an accelerating pace since the middle of the last century"

So you are saying 1- that we have always embraced the culture AND 2- "HOWEVER" we have done it at an accelerated pace in the last 60 years.

That is an odd thing to say, but if you mean it, I would like to see some evidence of

1- the original pace with which we have "always embraced the culture"

And

2- some evidence of the "accelerating pace"

and

3- what this has to do with the discussion at hand.