Pragmatic Stigmatizing Or Bullying

[Stone holm]

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.

Not sure i follow this comment. You think moving to one of the most desolate areas of America, then promoting community manufacture and attempting to create your own internal economy, and even going so far as trying to create your own alphabet wasn't an attempt to culturally "seal" yourself off. What exactly else could they have done except maybe make separate alliances with the Native Americans...oh wait, they did that, though it didn't play out very nicely at Mountain Meadows...

[Calm]

I am somewhat confused as well....it would seem he stated LDS did not embrace the culture in the past, that LDS moved to the west to escape it.

But now the stance is they didn't embrace the culture completely, but only some...and now more than in the past.

Which is your actual position...in debates it is wisdom to make sure we are actually debating.

[Stone holm]

I am somewhat confused as well....it would seem he stated LDS did not embrace the culture in the past, that LDS moved to the west to escape it.

But now the stance is they didn't embrace the culture completely, but only some...and now more than in the past.

Which is your actual position...in debates it is wisdom to make sure we are actually debating.

My position is that the Church did not embrace the culture in the past but has now. Or wasn't this directed at me ... I am getting myself confused.

[mfbukowski]

Not sure i follow this comment. You think moving to one of the most desolate areas of America, then promoting community manufacture and attempting to create your own internal economy, and even going so far as trying to create your own alphabet wasn't an attempt to culturally "seal" yourself off. What exactly else could they have done except maybe make separate alliances with the Native Americans...oh wait, they did that, though it didn't play out very nicely at Mountain Meadows...

Yes, that moving west is called "Manifest Destiny"- it was TOTALLY AMERICAN CULTURE. Remember the Pilgrims? LEFT EUROPE for religious reasons and made that the KEYSTONE OF AMERICAN CULTURE???

The entire pioneer ethos is TOTALLY AMERICAN CULTURE! Rugged Individualism- Manifest Destiny- self reliance- nothing is impossible- create worlds from "matter unorganized"- THAT is American culture!

The very act of moving into the wilderness to create something new IS American culture! THEY COULD NOT ESCAPE THAT! It was their "being in the world"!!- They were part of American culture precisely because they moved west and believed they could start over on their own!

The biggest thing that bugs me when traveling in Europe is when a clerk at a desk says "That's not possible!" when one is trying to change a ticket, or do any kind of simple task whatsoever!

Have you ever heard an American say "That's not possible" when dealing with, say, an airline reservation? They always say "Well maybe we could... (route you through another city, change the flight time, - whatever) Americans try to come up with a way to make something happen- to create something out of "matter unorganized". That IS our culture!

Sorry Europeans, but that is true! Why were there waves of immigration to America- because of "freedom"- meaning you could make of your life what you wanted instead of being stuck by your class or language, lack of education etc! Because they believed that "In America all things are possible" (right or wrong is irrelevant- but THAT is the major theme of why people come here)

Mormons believe that even God does this! "Yonder is matter unorganized"- let's go DO something with that matter! That IS Mormonism! Mormonism IS American culture manifesting itself as a religion!

We cannot help, as Mormons, but be part of that "culture" and think that way!

Now re-read the above quote from you.

What you describe is EXACTLY doing what the Mormons did from the very beginning- because it is part of our people's culture.

In a sense "being in the American culture" and going off somewhere and take America with you to re-establish that culture is precisely what Americans do. We are "imperialists" in a cultural sense- ask all our critics if you don't believe it. That is why Islam hates us- because our culture is becoming the world's culture.

We cannot escape it as a culture.

We are always IN that American culture even when we move somewhere else and are not OF the culture where we are.

The assertion that it is otherwise is just not seeing the forest for the trees.

[mfbukowski]

I am somewhat confused as well....it would seem he stated LDS did not embrace the culture in the past, that LDS moved to the west to escape it.

But now the stance is they didn't embrace the culture completely, but only some...and now more than in the past.

Which is your actual position...in debates it is wisdom to make sure we are actually debating.

Which says it a hundred times more efficiently and kindly than I could say it.

Oh well. That's why you are "calm" and I am not!

[Calm]

Americans try to come up with a way to make something happen- to create something out of "matter unorganized".

I have to admit that I was very surprised at the difference we experienced in customer service between Canada and the US, at least when we first moved up there. When the economy went off, the stores at least seemed to figure out good service would contribute to good sales.

Though the worst was trying to transfer Canadian funds to a US bank..the US bank people just couldn't figure out how to do what was really a simple thing (just deposit the check), even when we used a US dollar check they wouldn't accept it...they totally missed the fact that there wouldn't need to be any exchange rate. However, that was pure lack of experience/ignorance and at least they were nice about it and didn't just blow us off, lol.

[mfbukowski]

I have to admit that I was very surprised at the difference we experienced in customer service between Canada and the US, at least when we first moved up there. When the economy went off, the stores at least seemed to figure out good service would contribute to good sales.

Though the worst was trying to transfer Canadian funds to a US bank..the US bank people just couldn't figure out how to do what was really a simple thing (just deposit the check), even when we used a US dollar check they wouldn't accept it...they totally missed the fact that there wouldn't need to be any exchange rate. However, that was pure lack of experience/ignorance and at least they were nice about it and didn't just blow us off, lol.

Sounds like our excellent educational system in math and science, at work again!

[omni]

I have to admit that I was very surprised at the difference we experienced in customer service between Canada and the US, at least when we first moved up there. When the economy went off, the stores at least seemed to figure out good service would contribute to good sales.

Though the worst was trying to transfer Canadian funds to a US bank..the US bank people just couldn't figure out how to do what was really a simple thing (just deposit the check), even when we used a US dollar check they wouldn't accept it...they totally missed the fact that there wouldn't need to be any exchange rate. However, that was pure lack of experience/ignorance and at least they were nice about it and didn't just blow us off, lol.

Actually it's more complicated than that. I worked as a bank manager in the past so I delt with this relatively often. If both banks are in the US then the bank receiving the check will usually receive the funds in 1-2 business days. It can sometimes take longer depending on the banks and how far away they are located from each other which is why they will occasionally put a longer hold on a check.

With Canadian checks (even if written in US dollars) the US bank won't generally receive the funds from the Canadian bank for 2-3 months. If the check wasn't large, was a regular deposit, or the account had plenty of money then we wouldn't place a hold. However if this criteria wasn't met then we would place a 2-3 month collections hold to ensure the money didnt get spent in case it bounced. If the hold was reqired then it involved filling out forms and relatively large fees so I would always suggest to the customer to get the funds wired in.

[Calm]

If the check wasn't large, was a regular deposit, or the account had plenty of money then we wouldn't place a hold.

They never placed a hold, they just rejected the check as Canadian money which they refused to exchange (even with a big "US dollars account" stamped on it) and sent it back to us. It was for a monthly student loan payment and our account in the US that we were depositing the funds into had enough in it to cover the check if it had bounced anyway. We called them up and they told us to do it exactly that way...but they didn't get the message to the person actually doing the work apparently. It was a credit union, not a bank...perhaps that made a difference about exchanging Canadian dollars for US...but they didn't have to anyway because it was in US dollars....Ah well, it turned out all right because I was complaining to my dad about the problem one day and he gave us an advance on my inheritance to pay the student loan off completely. Edited May 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Yes, that moving west is called "Manifest Destiny"- it was TOTALLY AMERICAN CULTURE. Remember the Pilgrims? LEFT EUROPE for religious reasons and made that the KEYSTONE OF AMERICAN CULTURE???

The entire pioneer ethos is TOTALLY AMERICAN CULTURE! Rugged Individualism- Manifest Destiny- self reliance- nothing is impossible- create worlds from "matter unorganized"- THAT is American culture!

The very act of moving into the wilderness to create something new IS American culture! THEY COULD NOT ESCAPE THAT! It was their "being in the world"!!- They were part of American culture precisely because they moved west and believed they could start over on their own!

The biggest thing that bugs me when traveling in Europe is when a clerk at a desk says "That's not possible!" when one is trying to change a ticket, or do any kind of simple task whatsoever!

Have you ever heard an American say "That's not possible" when dealing with, say, an airline reservation? They always say "Well maybe we could... (route you through another city, change the flight time, - whatever) Americans try to come up with a way to make something happen- to create something out of "matter unorganized". That IS our culture!

Sorry Europeans, but that is true! Why were there waves of immigration to America- because of "freedom"- meaning you could make of your life what you wanted instead of being stuck by your class or language, lack of education etc! Because they believed that "In America all things are possible" (right or wrong is irrelevant- but THAT is the major theme of why people come here)

Mormons believe that even God does this! "Yonder is matter unorganized"- let's go DO something with that matter! That IS Mormonism! Mormonism IS American culture manifesting itself as a religion!

We cannot help, as Mormons, but be part of that "culture" and think that way!

Now re-read the above quote from you.

What you describe is EXACTLY doing what the Mormons did from the very beginning- because it is part of our people's culture.

In a sense "being in the American culture" and going off somewhere and take America with you to re-establish that culture is precisely what Americans do. We are "imperialists" in a cultural sense- ask all our critics if you don't believe it. That is why Islam hates us- because our culture is becoming the world's culture.

We cannot escape it as a culture.

We are always IN that American culture even when we move somewhere else and are not OF the culture where we are.

The assertion that it is otherwise is just not seeing the forest for the trees.

I don't think moving to the Great Basin had much at all to do with Manifest Destiny which was a nationalistic doctrine that we were to control the land from the East Coast to the West and steam roll the Native Americans and the British out of the way. The Great Basin settlement had more to do with the doctrine or concept of a city on a hill which the Puritans put forth in New England when they sought to establish a new culture. This in turn was related to creating another Zion. Different concepts only having the direction of travel in common.

[omni]

They never placed a hold, they just rejected the check as Canadian money which they refused to exchange (even with a big "US dollars account" stamped on it) and sent it back to us. It was for a monthly student loan payment and our account in the US that we were depositing the funds into had enough in it to cover the check if it had bounced anyway. We called them up and they told us to do it exactly that way...but they didn't get the message to the person actually doing the work apparently. It was a credit union, not a bank...perhaps that made a difference about exchanging Canadian dollars for US...but they didn't have to anyway because it was in US dollars....Ah well, it turned out all right because I was complaining to my dad about the problem one day and he gave us an advance on my inheritance to pay the student loan off completely.

Yeah, in that case it sounds like they just didn't know what they were doing.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, in that case it sounds like they just didn't know what they were doing.

Never underestimate the power of human frailty.

[wenglund]

CFR?

Not that it will do any good to post the statistics because many people don't want to see a different picture of homosexuality than what has been carefully cultivated in pop culture. In fact, I think you and I have already covered this ground in another thread months ago. Anyway, please find the linked documentation for each point below:

The world outside the closet has become increasingly welcoming to homosexuals, to the point that it would be absurd to these days consider it, on balances, as hostile. ( see HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE)

Gay suicides are on the rise, particularly among the youth. (See HERE and HERE and HERE)

There is a disproportional rate of suicides among homosexuals. "Lesbians are two times more likely to attempt suicide than straight women. Attempts by gay and lesbian youth account for up to 30% of all completed suicides. Gay teens are 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. Gay youth are 4 times more likely to make a suicide attempt requiring medical attention. Gay men are six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers." (From The Trevor Project, cited at . See also HERE. See also HERE)

Granted, a number of the studies and articles these days try and shift the blame to "homophobia" for the disproportionately high suicide rate among homosexuals, and they selectively focus on certain cultural issues in non-comparative ways to make their slanted case. However, the fact that homosexuality has become more approved in the U.S. over the years, and yet homosexual suicides have increased, argues against this. One can also look for confirming support of this in countries where homosexuality has long been more accepted than in the United States, and where there continues to be a disproportionately high rate of suicides among homosexuals. (See What is Behind These Suicides, and Skewed Study)

AIDS and HIV is on the rise, particularly after SSM was legalized in Mass. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

STD's are increasing among homosexuals, particularly after SSM was legalized in Mass. (See HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)

STD's are disproportionately high among homosexuals. "Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States They make up only 1-2% of the population….78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs " (See HERE; see also HERE)

There are other disparate health problems among homosexuals that could be listed, but it is interesting to note that: "The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75…The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 70." (See HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 12, 2013 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

I don't think moving to the Great Basin had much at all to do with Manifest Destiny which was a nationalistic doctrine that we were to control the land from the East Coast to the West and steam roll the Native Americans and the British out of the way. The Great Basin settlement had more to do with the doctrine or concept of a city on a hill which the Puritans put forth in New England when they sought to establish a new culture. This in turn was related to creating another Zion. Different concepts only having the direction of travel in common.

You made my case for me.

That proves that the move west was part of what was already in the main culture- the New England Puritans were after all among the originators of that culture.

In fact, if you had actually read my post you would have see that I already mentioned that.

Yes, that moving west is called "Manifest Destiny"- it was TOTALLY AMERICAN CULTURE. Remember the Pilgrims? LEFT EUROPE for religious reasons and made that the KEYSTONE OF AMERICAN CULTURE???

So moving west was their "cultural world", their "being in the world"

Yet moving specifically to Utah to escape the US was being "not of the world"- it was the creation of their own sub-context within the larger "world"

So from the beginning they were "in the world but not of the world". They were seeking to establish their own culture just as the puritans had. The direction of travel is irrelevant.

But I have already showed that a few times before- and now I guess you are agreeing with me, or just not following the argument

Edited May 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited May 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Granted, a number of the studies and articles these days try and shift the blame to "homophobia" for the disproportionately high suicide rate among homosexuals, and they selectively focus on certain cultural issues in non-comparative ways to make their slanted case.

The whole concept of "homophobia" is pretty ridiculous when used in this context.

I have no interest in taking up oil painting, nor do I like brussels sprouts.

I suppose it's because I have "oil painting phobia" and "brussels sprouts phobia"

In fact I suppose I have a virtually infinite list of such phobias! I really should be locked in some kind of institution with the number of "phobias" I have.

[wenglund]

The whole concept of "homophobia" is pretty ridiculous when used in this context.

I have no interest in taking up oil painting, nor do I like brussels sprouts.

I suppose it's because I have "oil painting phobia" and "brussels sprouts phobia"

In fact I suppose I have a virtually infinite list of such phobias! I really should be locked in some kind of institution with the number of "phobias" I have.

That's funny.

Unfortunately, the problem goes beyond the mis-use of the word "phobia," From what I can tell, not a few studies are being carefully constructed and artfully reported in such a way as to protect or advance the homosexual agenda.

As intimated earlier, it appears that certain people are more concerned with winning in politics than they are legitimately concerned with the health and welfare of groups like homosexuals, who have been, and are being, used so as to win in politics, I believe that homosexuals and gay supporters have been fooled into thinking they are getting their way, when in reality they are just being played as pawns to expand government, where the only one's to really "win" are the elites in control. The age of the "Useful Idiots" (as Marx calls them) has dawned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 12, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

You made my case for me.

That proves that the move west was part of what was already in the main culture- the New England Puritans were after all among the originators of that culture.

In fact, if you had actually read my post you would have see that I already mentioned that.

So moving west was their "cultural world", their "being in the world"

Yet moving specifically to Utah to escape the US was being "not of the world"- it was the creation of their own sub-context within the larger "world"

So from the beginning they were "in the world but not of the world". They were seeking to establish their own culture just as the puritans had. The direction of travel is irrelevant.

But I have already showed that a few times before- and now I guess you are agreeing with me, or just not following the argument

Several Native American tribes fled west to avoid the Europeans and some were forced west by the same, so I suppose they were part of the culture as well. No. The movement west was because that was where the frontier and escape lay. There is some truth that the Church was swept along with tidal migration patterns as far as Nauvoo. However, when it set out for the Great Basin it tried to step out of that tidal migration which was flowing on to California and Oregon. Had it continued to follow the migration pattern which was seeking out more fertile lands, it would not have aimed for where it did. It was looking for a place where it's people would not be molested and which it could become the dominant culture. The Lord led them to a place that no one else would want for a considerable period.

[mfbukowski]

Several Native American tribes fled west to avoid the Europeans and some were forced west by the same, so I suppose they were part of the culture as well.

Different concepts only having the direction of travel in common.

You just keep refuting your own points.

The Indians were not English speakers following what the puritans did, and they were not seeking religious freedom.

I'm done.

[pmccombs1]

Sorry I haven't been able to reply to you before now! Let me clear up my meaning...

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

I think we're basing our arguments on different interpretations of, "In the world but not of the world." I believe that "the world" is a metaphor for "culture." The notion of "in the world" means, "in the culture." We're in the midst of the culture but trying not to be "of" it. We don't want the culture in us. I think it's a conundrum.

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!

Right, I'm suggesting that we need to make culture and claiming at the same time that we don't actually make culture. We make subculture. We have adopted the general economies and attitudes of the world while having a subculture that superficially sets us apart. How do we deal problems that culture has imposed on us? What about the disintegration of the family? Well, there's a program to artificially get families together for a few hours a week. FHE™. This isn't making culture, it's coping. It's a band-aid. And what it does, is it prevent the real, deep healing that new culture would bring. The Word of Wisdom? Reduced to a formula. Etc. We're just quirky Americans, or Brazilians, or Europeans. We're well-integrated in society. Definitely in the world and very compatible with it indeed.

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

Where did I say that I thought they were not? That has about zero to do with my argument. But you know, when you have no argument, just put words in the mouth of the guy you can't argue with. It's easy to make caricatures and straw men, then burn them down.

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

But like I said, the "world" is a metaphor for culture. Zion will be it's own world.

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.

There you have it: Zion, The Lost Cause.

That is why the Lord has been sending His truths elsewhere. We won't listen.

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.

I don't want to be "integrated" as part of the larger culture. That's the whole thing I'm decrying. It's subculture. I think religion is a local thing, as I clearly said. We can create a world of our own in local communities. Sp, yes, we are to overcome the culture of the world and create our own. There is nothing at all inconsistent in what I have said.

Edited May 14, 2013 by pmccombs1

[mfbukowski]

I don't want to be "integrated" as part of the larger culture. That's the whole thing I'm decrying. It's subculture. I think religion is a local thing, as I clearly said. We can create a world of our own in local communities. Sp, yes, we are to overcome the culture of the world and create our own. There is nothing at all inconsistent in what I have said.

Well perhaps we actually agree then- you might want to catch up on the rest of the thread since you left starting with this one:

Yes, that moving west is called "Manifest Destiny"- it was TOTALLY AMERICAN CULTURE. Remember the Pilgrims? LEFT EUROPE for religious reasons and made that the KEYSTONE OF AMERICAN CULTURE???

The entire pioneer ethos is TOTALLY AMERICAN CULTURE! Rugged Individualism- Manifest Destiny- self reliance- nothing is impossible- create worlds from "matter unorganized"- THAT is American culture!

The very act of moving into the wilderness to create something new IS American culture! THEY COULD NOT ESCAPE THAT! It was their "being in the world"!!- They were part of American culture precisely because they moved west and believed they could start over on their own!

The biggest thing that bugs me when traveling in Europe is when a clerk at a desk says "That's not possible!" when one is trying to change a ticket, or do any kind of simple task whatsoever!

Have you ever heard an American say "That's not possible" when dealing with, say, an airline reservation? They always say "Well maybe we could... (route you through another city, change the flight time, - whatever) Americans try to come up with a way to make something happen- to create something out of "matter unorganized". That IS our culture!

Sorry Europeans, but that is true! Why were there waves of immigration to America- because of "freedom"- meaning you could make of your life what you wanted instead of being stuck by your class or language, lack of education etc! Because they believed that "In America all things are possible" (right or wrong is irrelevant- but THAT is the major theme of why people come here)

Mormons believe that even God does this! "Yonder is matter unorganized"- let's go DO something with that matter! That IS Mormonism! Mormonism IS American culture manifesting itself as a religion!

We cannot help, as Mormons, but be part of that "culture" and think that way!

Now re-read the above quote from you.

What you describe is EXACTLY doing what the Mormons did from the very beginning- because it is part of our people's culture.

In a sense "being in the American culture" and going off somewhere and take America with you to re-establish that culture is precisely what Americans do. We are "imperialists" in a cultural sense- ask all our critics if you don't believe it. That is why Islam hates us- because our culture is becoming the world's culture.

We cannot escape it as a culture.

We are always IN that American culture even when we move somewhere else and are not OF the culture where we are.

The assertion that it is otherwise is just not seeing the forest for the trees.

So they were actually IN the main culture which itself is a culture of starting subcultures or at least carving out one's own little world by homesteading, etc.

That's what Americans, historically, have done: the Pilgrims, William Penn, the Shakers, etc etc

Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct. They enthusiastically supported the efforts of their leaders to create "a city on a hill" or a "holy experiment," whose success would prove that God's plan for his churches could be successfully realized in the American wilderness. Even colonies like Virginia, which were planned as commercial ventures, were led by entrepreneurs who considered themselves "militant Protestants" and who worked diligently to promote the prosperity of the church.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html

[Stone holm]

Well perhaps we actually agree then- you might want to catch up on the rest of the thread since you left starting with this one:

So they were actually IN the main culture which itself is a culture of starting subcultures or at least carving out one's own little world by homesteading, etc.

That's what Americans, historically, have done: the Pilgrims, William Penn, the Shakers, etc etc

http://www.loc.gov/e...gion/rel01.html

"a culture of starting subcultures", well that is an argument that is impossible to counter since by that definition trying to establish your own culture would be part of the culture. The 19th Century also saw a flurry of "utopias" especially amongst people in or flowing out of New England -- some religious, some secular, etc. Non-mormons would tend to look at us as part of that bubbling of utopias. Never heard of Maryland being primarily a religious colony, other than it was originally conceived of as a Catholic colony -- a conception that was relatively quickly overcome by the dominant Protestant population. There is a tendency to merge the Pilgrims with the later arriving Massachusetts Puritan who eventually overwhelmed them. The Pilgrims were avowed separatists, the Puritans were much more aggressive with their religious beliefs and were not here to establish religious freedom, but to establish religious dominance for their own beliefs -- they were the ones who adopted the City on a Hill motif.

[mfbukowski]

Never heard of Maryland being primarily a religious colony, other than it was originally conceived of as a Catholic colony --

I get what you are saying- I just suggest you avoid these kind of contradictions.

[Stone holm]

I get what you are saying- I just suggest you avoid these kind of contradictions.

Lol....I didn't mean that as an aspersion on Catholics....what I meant was that the other colonies were basically Protestant, to my knowledge only Maryland was set up to be under Catholic control and that set up didn't last very long -- but I don't think it was intended to be some kind of Catholic utopia. The Puritans, however, definitely believed in social and cultural control right down to who got to wear what kind of clothes, where you were to be on Sunday, where your fields were to be laid out, what type of medical procedures you could have, what you sang, etc. etc. In our busy myth-making we tend to think all of the colonists were Pilgrims and came here for the welfare of their eternal souls, which I am sure was true at least for awhile in New England and Pennsylvania -- once you get outside those two areas, well I ain't quite sure that was all that true.

[pmccombs1]

Well perhaps we actually agree then- you might want to catch up on the rest of the thread since you left starting with this one:

So they were actually IN the main culture which itself is a culture of starting subcultures or at least carving out one's own little world by homesteading, etc.

That's what Americans, historically, have done: the Pilgrims, William Penn, the Shakers, etc etc

http://www.loc.gov/e...gion/rel01.html

I agree, but I would emphasize historically. These days, the cultural trend has long been toward mass-production, standardization, etc. My idea of subculture is that it is superficially indistinguishable from the mainstream, and that there is a notion of mainstream.

The American Milieu (where "mainstream" was once tenuous at best) has since fallen into the melting pot and marched out in lock-step. Sub-culture is now a coping mechanism that gives an illusion of self-identity. It really is a strategy for survival, because in the mid-19th century, leveling forces were so strong in America that some cultures (like polygamist Mormonism and the rural, slave-owning South) attracted military intervention. That put an end to Mormon culture, maybe for good.

The popular idea, though, is that we can take this "corrupted" culture and turn it into a purity culture if we just sprinkle on some gospel magic. We have the broken ideas of marriage and family that culture has already given us (we are ignorant of the fact that these are fundamentally broken), then we mix some gospel "programs" in to give a sense of wholeness. The subculture brings us assign-a-friend programs like the modern Home Teaching, or the family togetherness program of FHE. And let's not forget to decry the symptoms of the broken culture wherever they don't harmonize with the gospel. Let's tell everybody to just "stop it" as if that would fix the underlying problems. As if it were a pragmatic solution.

Jesus lived among a people that were trying to "purify" their culture too. In a lot of ways, they were much like us. Strangely enough, Jesus seemed to be working against the purity culture and not for it, in spite of the fact that His gospel didn't condone any of the sinning that the purity people sought to stamp out. Perhaps Jesus understood that the gospel is not about what is best for all, but what is best for each.