Stone holm Posted May 24, 2013 Posted May 24, 2013 I think that you are looking at it all from an US perspective. In the UK, members vote for Labour, Tory, or Liberal Democratic etc. In the rest of europe, members vote socialist, liberal, conservative or green etc. However, yes, in the US members do seem to vote conservative. I don't think that the church is procapitalist since there are warnings against debt and spending more than is necessary. That being said, all those who support any form of capitalism may be choosing a system that puts profit before people.Oh no, you are suggesting politics has something to do with the emphasis on sexual morality? But it is our favourite form of political distraction!
thesometimesaint Posted May 25, 2013 Posted May 25, 2013 Just depends on whom is figuratively screwing whom.
Alvino Posted May 26, 2013 Posted May 26, 2013 Is there a moral pendulum? As far as I can see and have studied, I have not detected a rise and fall in morality. Perhaps we were more moral during the early 1600's here in the US?In my own judgement, there has been a significant change in fashion from the 50's till now. However, in some cases, I do not see that I feel like I have more rights than in the 50's. I can still remember my parents insisting that I go in the house at sunset. I certainly was not allowed out with a boy they did not like. There was no girls night out where we'd all go to a bar and get hammered.I don't think I wish to talk about what some think is the most important social issue of our day.I think that the Mormon church is refreshingly retro grade to the late 50's and I like it. It is pleasant and makes me feel more secure.Are you just talking about the last 60 years? Because that's one heck of a short time span given how long humans have been roaming around. You might find Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined informing.
Stone holm Posted May 26, 2013 Posted May 26, 2013 Are you just talking about the last 60 years? Because that's one heck of a short time span given how long humans have been roaming around. You might find Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined informing.That link is to a book sale price, what is his thesis?
Questing Beast Posted May 26, 2013 Posted May 26, 2013 Perhaps, but the only work of C.S. Lewis I know first-hand is his brief pamphlet entitled, "The Abolition of Man." That was a philosophical tract establishing the importance of subjective senses. If his views on malice are similar to mine, then I am happy to be in good company. I am certain ours is not an uncommon view to hold, however.I believe my views on this matter to be more influenced by Adam Smith.Don't know Adam Smith. C. S. Lewis is in agreement with you. And so am I....
Stone holm Posted May 26, 2013 Posted May 26, 2013 Don't know Adam Smith. C. S. Lewis is in agreement with you. And so am I....Might want to read Mere Christianity, not sure how Adam Smith is being applied.
Stone holm Posted May 26, 2013 Posted May 26, 2013 Just depends on whom is figuratively screwing whom.I believe the religiously correct phrase is whose ox is being gored.
Alvino Posted May 26, 2013 Posted May 26, 2013 That link is to a book sale price, what is his thesis?scroll down?
Garden Girl Posted May 26, 2013 Posted May 26, 2013 What The Pill did was disassociate pregnancy from sex. It for the first time allowed women to easily, effectively, control the number and spacing of their children. Overall I see that as a good thing, and have no desire to go back to the times when the Mormon Church leaders declared that unless you had at least 12-14 children you were damned to Hell.TSS...You're overstating of course... I know the Church used to encourage larger families than they do today... but at no time in all myyears growing up in the Church did I ever hear it declared by the Mormon leaders that I would be damned to Hell if I didn't have at least 12 to 14 children. Really now... GG 1
Stone holm Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 TSS...You're overstating of course... I know the Church used to encourage larger families than they do today... but at no time in all myyears growing up in the Church did I ever hear it declared by the Mormon leaders that I would be damned to Hell if I didn't have at least 12 to 14 children. Really now... GGI think it was an overstatement, but there used to be a lot more talk about impairing your .... the word escapes me, if you put off or limited the number of your kids for any reason other than health...you don't hear that so much anymore, it has gone kind of the way of home production and gardening...
Tacenda Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) I think it was an overstatement, but there used to be a lot more talk about impairing your .... the word escapes me, if you put off or limited the number of your kids for any reason other than health...you don't hear that so much anymore, it has gone kind of the way of home production and gardening...I had a friend/VT partner, encourage me to have more children because a spirit was waiting to join my family, this after telling her I was finished at 4 kids, the youngest was 5. Needless to say I listened and my 5th came 5 yrs.later, he doesn't always get along well with the brother above him and he's always telling us, my husband and I, we're old. I don't regret having him, but he's always sayin' he was born in the wrong family. I know it's a stage, and he's just acting his 15 yr. old self, but I know my friend was probably going by church teachings and repeating what she'd been told. Edited May 27, 2013 by Tacenda
Stone holm Posted May 27, 2013 Posted May 27, 2013 I had a friend/VT partner, encourage me to have more children because a spirit was waiting to join my family, this after telling her I was finished at 4 kids, the youngest was 5. Needless to say I listened and my 5th came 5 yrs.later, he doesn't always get along well with the brother above him and he's always telling us, my husband and I, we're old. I don't regret having him, but he's always sayin' he was born in the wrong family. I know it's a stage, and he's just acting his 15 yr. old self, but I know my friend was probably going by church teachings and repeating what she'd been told.I had a friend/VT partner, encourage me to have more children because a spirit was waiting to join my family, this after telling her I was finished at 4 kids, the youngest was 5. Needless to say I listened and my 5th came 5 yrs.later, he doesn't always get along well with the brother above him and he's always telling us, my husband and I, we're old. I don't regret having him, but he's always sayin' he was born in the wrong family. I know it's a stage, and he's just acting his 15 yr. old self, but I know my friend was probably going by church teachings and repeating what she'd been told.It happens.
thesometimesaint Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 TSS...You're overstating of course... I know the Church used to encourage larger families than they do today... but at no time in all myyears growing up in the Church did I ever hear it declared by the Mormon leaders that I would be damned to Hell if I didn't have at least 12 to 14 children. Really now... GGNot in the slightest. You're a little young for that statement. It comes from much earlier in Church history. You'll find in the Special Collections Section under "Birth Control" at the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU in Provo.
Calm Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Not in the slightest. You're a little young for that statement. It comes from much earlier in Church history. You'll find in the Special Collections Section under "Birth Control" at the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU in Provo.Do you have something more specific?
pmccombs1 Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Might want to read Mere Christianity, not sure how Adam Smith is being applied.Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is based on sympathetic responses or fellow feeling. "Who does not abhor excessive malice, excessive selfishness, or excessive resentment?" Where benevolence is met with a "double sympathy," malice is doubly condemned. We neither feel for the hater, nor condone his hatred. But we can feel for the weak (relate to him) while condemning his weakness. That's the theory.
thesometimesaint Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Do you have something more specific?Sorry. It's been more than 30 years, and my data retrieval system isn't what it used to be.
Recommended Posts