Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[teddyaware]

I personally think your statements is a principle reason why the civil rights of gays have come so far so quickly.  So many like you want to point to "the gays" as the ones redefining the family.  In fact, if you mean "the family" as a father, mother and children, that definition has been redefined largely by the straight community.  According to the censes, only about 25% of the population live in that kind of family.  So what about the rest of the population?  Are their relationships not families?  Is a single mom with a child not a family?  Are a couple without children not a family?  Are two grandparents no longer a family?  There are indeed, may kinds of relationships that make up a family.

 

So many want to point to gay marriage as redefining the family.  The truth is, gays only account for about 5% of the population.  Those that are married are even a smaller percentage, maybe only .5% of the population.  Yet so many like you want to focus your laser beam on the gays as the convenient scape goat for this shift in the definition of a family. Can yo honestly state that .5% of the population has redefined the family when 74.5% of the population which is largely straight has also redefined what a family is.

 

There are many reasons why the family as you want to define it has shifted so much.  Probably the major shift is when society moved from living on a farm where children were an integral part of the success of that farm to a more urban life.  Grandparents and stray single aunts and uncles lived with them.  That used to be how the majority of America lived.  Sorry but gays had nothing to do with that changing.  Your statement that "the gays" did not and have not redefined the family is completely wrong. 

 

The other half of the answer Stone brings up concerning the speed in which this country has decided to stand behind gay marriage is because it is the right thing to do.  Either we believe in equality in America or we do not.  Either this is a secular government or it is not.  Most people believe that America stands for equality and is secular.  There has been no rational reason put forth to the public as a reason why just because a person is gay he shouldn't have the legal right to marry.  When you have no argument against that idea, things will change quickly.  The media, Hollywood, and all the other players you want to blame for this shift are just stating the obvious.  America believes in equality.  Churches can believe what they want within their own congregations, but they don't determine  peoples civil rights in America.

 

The one personal question I would like to ask you and others that assert this notion is, Why do you feel the need to blame "the gays" for redefining the family?  What is it about gay Americans that you feel the need to use them as your own personal scape goat?  Are they just an easy target because they are not so much like you as the other 74.5% of the population?  

 

I agree. Militant progressive gays are just a part of a much larger movement away from the traditional family. There are millions of shipwrecked families out there who ended up that way because the lustful desires of one or both of the heterosexual parents took precedence over promised fidelity and the love of their children. There are also millions of heterosexual single mothers out there who were not married when they conceived their children. Meanwhile, millions of the heterosexual men, who sired said children, are rarely if ever around to provide materially and serve as positive role models. In my opinion, this ongoing wickedness has had a much more detrimental affect on the viability of the traditional family than the relatively small number of gay activists who want to redefine the traditional nuclear family to suit their purposes.

 

So you see, we are somewhat in agreement. One of the problems with message boards like this one is that there's a lot of jumping to conclusions about what a poster actually thinks and believes, based upon a smidgen of printed words.   

Edited November 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[jkwilliams]

Yeah,I didn't find the idea that the proponents of Prop 8 were somehow victims of gay bullying very convincing, and I just suspect that a lot of Americans didn't either.

 

My parents live in California, and we've had various discussions about this subject over the years since prop 8. They've made the "bullying" claim before, but when we talk about specifics, they end up sputtering about how the gays were mean and criticized prop 8 supporters for bigotry. I find it difficult to accept that a tiny minority that has long faced serious discrimination and social disapproval suddenly has the power to "bully" an organized and well-funded group of people in the majority.

[teddyaware]

Possibly. But there were a lot of people who , like myself, opposed gay rights, or were indifferent to them who later became mildly supportive after witnessing the battles. That was true for a lot of Vermonters. When the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the States then existing approach to marriage violated the Common Benefits clause in the State's Constitution it delayed a final ruling to allow the legislature to decide whether to go with Civil Unions or SSM. Then Governor Dean indicated he was staying out of the fight but indicated he would prefer to be presented with a Civil Unions bill to sign than a SSM bill. After a huge debate before the legislature led predominantly by spokespersons for our Church and the Roman Catholic Church against either civil unions or SSM, a Civil Unions bill was passed and adopted. The gays who had brought the litigation pronounced themselves satisfied and dropped their case. However so much damage had been done by the religious groups going political on the issue, that progressives in the State who for the most part had agreed with the moderate views of Gov. Dean, later supported without much fanfare SSM. It was , in part, a strong distaste for the commingling of religion and politics that was involved and a sense that despite claims to the contrary religious groups were in fact trying to bully a minority in the legislature. If there was a gay agenda at play, it was clearly not as evident and overt as the religious agenda of its opponents.

 

If there had been no religious opposition, and civil unions had been passed into law, it would have only been a matter of a short interval before the next push, this time for gay marriage, would begin. The gay activist community would have never been satisfied with just civil unions, as civil unions were simply a way station on the way to gay marriage and the redefinition of marriage and family. Because the ultimate goal of gay marriage was established, there would have only been a short period or respite before the push for gay marriage would have begun. Therefore, little, if anything, would have been accomplished if the supporters of traditional marriage had stayed out of the fray. Sometimes it's important to speak and declare the truth, even when there's little chance of success. Those who go astray need to be informed they are doing wrong that a righteous judgment might come upon them. No man can be saved in ignorance. This is why Elder Oaks dared to speak the truth.

[Stone holm]

If there had been no religious opposition, and civil unions had been passed into law, it would have only been a matter of a short interval before the next push, this time for gay marriage, would begin. The gay activist community would have never been satisfied with just civil unions, as civil unions were simply a way station on the way to gay marriage and the redefinition of marriage and family. Because the ultimate goal of gay marriage was established, there would have only been a short period or respite before the push for gay marriage would have begun. Therefore, little, if anything, would have been accomplished if the supporters of traditional marriage had stayed out of the fray. Sometimes it's important to speak and declare the truth, even when there's little chance of success. Those who go astray need to be informed they are doing wrong that a righteous judgment might come upon them. No man can be saved in ignorance. This is why Elder Oaks dared to speak the truth.

 

I am not sure that is true.  Civil Unions was passed into law, as Gov. Dean requested rather than a gay marriage bill.  There was a "Take Back Vermont" movement which saw some single issue candidates get elected from some of the more rural areas (when you say rural in Vermont, I mean truly rural).  They were mostly all one termers because they got into the legislature on an issue that they had lost on and then found out they didn't know anything about anything else, and got bounced at the next election.  Fortunately, both our Church and the RC Church asked the Westboro Baptists and some of their Christian Right fellow travellers to please stay away when they started referring to Vermont as the Devil's Republic.  But it still went fairly badly because people really didn't appreciate their long term neighbors being likened to the mentally ill, or suffering from sex addiction, etc.  I think the things went to really lowtide when the Church's spokesperson rolled out the 12 Step Program for curing gayness.  I think possibly some moderate and sensible arguments could have been made, but they weren't and it became pretty much a religious debate and once that happened it was pretty much doomed.  Vermont gets painted as a very liberal State.  It wasn't always that way and it still isn't on a lot of issues -- its a very communitarian State which used to be dominated by moderate Republicans who were fairly economically conservative and socially liberal.  That was true of most of Northern New England, but with the rise of importance of social conservatism the Republican Party pretty much became a minority party.  Vermont has a strong third-party in the Progressive Party, just like New Hampshire has a strong third party in the Libertarian Party.  Both States have the Common Benefit Clause in their Constitutions and both now have SSM having arrived at the same conclusion via differing political perspectives.  Neither State's citizens react well to mixing religion and politics, if you want to succeed you on a social cause, you have to articulate a strong secular argument if you simply resort to assertions of Faith then you are pretty much done politically.

[teddyaware]

I am not sure that is true.  Civil Unions was passed into law, as Gov. Dean requested rather than a gay marriage bill.  There was a "Take Back Vermont" movement which saw some single issue candidates get elected from some of the more rural areas (when you say rural in Vermont, I mean truly rural).  They were mostly all one termers because they got into the legislature on an issue that they had lost on and then found out they didn't know anything about anything else, and got bounced at the next election.  Fortunately, both our Church and the RC Church asked the Westboro Baptists and some of their Christian Right fellow travellers to please stay away when they started referring to Vermont as the Devil's Republic.  But it still went fairly badly because people really didn't appreciate their long term neighbors being likened to the mentally ill, or suffering from sex addiction, etc.  I think the things went to really lowtide when the Church's spokesperson rolled out the 12 Step Program for curing gayness.  I think possibly some moderate and sensible arguments could have been made, but they weren't and it became pretty much a religious debate and once that happened it was pretty much doomed.  Vermont gets painted as a very liberal State.  It wasn't always that way and it still isn't on a lot of issues -- its a very communitarian State which used to be dominated by moderate Republicans who were fairly economically conservative and socially liberal.  That was true of most of Northern New England, but with the rise of importance of social conservatism the Republican Party pretty much became a minority party.  Vermont has a strong third-party in the Progressive Party, just like New Hampshire has a strong third party in the Libertarian Party.  Both States have the Common Benefit Clause in their Constitutions and both now have SSM having arrived at the same conclusion via differing political perspectives.  Neither State's citizens react well to mixing religion and politics, if you want to succeed you on a social cause, you have to articulate a strong secular argument if you simply resort to assertions of Faith then you are pretty much done politically.

 

 

Interesting background info. Yet, ultimately, it all seems like so much irrelevant minutia. At least to me, it's clear the adversary is exerting great effort in his plan to carefully drag the whole world down into the abyss. Unfortunately, he seems to be succeeding in a big way. Like it or not, when this nation begins to reach the point of being fully ripened in iniquity there will be so much ugliness and persecution against the 'holdouts' -- those who cling to the 'past' and refuse to come around to the thinking of the wicked -- that it will make this present flap over Elder Oaks' recent conference address seem hardly noteworthy by comparison. 

 

For those who fret over and lament today's prophetic pot stirring, they haven't seen anything yet. When those troubling days arrive, those who worry much about supposedly confrontational and "unnecessarily provocative" comments from Church leaders are going to have to quit their jobs, because it will be a fulltime job just to be able to keep up with all the blogging and posting needed in order to steady the ark. Even so, there's nothing the leaders will say in those difficult days of trial and tribulation that will in reality be confrontational or unnecessarily provocative, for they will simply speak the truth of the gospel in love. The problem is that in those coming days the simple act of speaking the truth will be the considered the greatest of all crimes; for merely speaking the truth will cause the greatest offence. This principle is set forth with great clarity by Nephi:

 

1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us. (1 Nephi 16)

Edited November 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

Interesting background info. Yet, ultimately, it all seems like so much irrelevant minutia. At least to me, it's clear the adversary is exerting great effort in his plan to carefully drag the whole world down into the abyss. Unfortunately, he seems to be succeeding in a big way. Like it or not, when this nation begins to reach the point of being fully ripened in iniquity there will be so much ugliness and persecution against the 'holdouts' -- those who cling to the 'past' and refuse to come around to the thinking of the wicked -- that it will make this present flap over Elder Oaks' recent conference address seem hardly noteworthy by comparison. 

 

For those who fret over and lament today's prophetic pot stirring, they haven't seen anything yet. When those troubling days arrive, those who worry much about supposedly confrontational and "unnecessarily provocative" comments from Church leaders are going to have to quit their jobs, because it will be a fulltime job just to be able to keep up with all the blogging and posting needed in order to steady the ark. Even so, there's nothing the leaders will say in those difficult days of trial and tribulation that will in reality be confrontational or unnecessarily provocative, for they will simply speak the truth of the gospel in love. The problem is that in those coming days the simple act of speaking the truth will be the considered the greatest of all crimes; for merely speaking the truth will cause the greatest offence. This principle is set forth with great clarity by Nephi:

 

1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of speaking to my brethren, behold they said unto me: Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear.

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us. (1 Nephi 16)

Yes. It is a hard thing to admonish a sinner to change his ways at times. It is, however, perhaps not quite so righteous to do so in such a manner that it causes people to empathize more with the sinner than with those who are not sinning at least in their own eyes. The methods used did not bring the sinners to repentance, rather they caused an outflow of sympathy. They did not improve the community, at least not in the way they intended. I am not sure what this golden era you are heartening back to. Is it the 1950's when the gays were firmly in their closet and the blacks were in the back of the bus?

[teddyaware]

Yes. It is a hard thing to admonish a sinner to change his ways at times. It is, however, perhaps not quite so righteous to do so in such a manner that it causes people to empathize more with the sinner than with those who are not sinning at least in their own eyes. The methods used did not bring the sinners to repentance, rather they caused an outflow of sympathy. They did not improve the community, at least not in the way they intended. I am not sure what this golden era you are heartening back to. Is it the 1950's when the gays were firmly in their closet and the blacks were in the back of the bus?

 

I think your response is perhaps a wee bit disingenuous. While there were some very lamentable things that went on back in the 50's, you must surely be aware of the fact that during that time there was far less divorce and far more enduring, intact families; far less single parent families and many more men and women waiting until marriage to have children; far less fatherless children and far more dads who were there for their kids; far less teen promiscuity and far more abstinent young men and women who had a healthy fear of the powers of procreation; far less people collecting welfare and food stamps and far more people who would feel ashamed to accept a handout; far less garbage on TV and in the movies, and far more wholesome forms of entertainment; far less abuse of all sorts of mind altering drugs and much more good, clean fun; far less pornography and debauchery parading shamelessly in the public square and far more folks who knew misuse of the powers of procreation and the exploitation of women was a very bad thing; far less mothers to be who destroyed their own children as a form of birth control and far more innocent babies coming to full term; and so on.  No it wasn't ideal in those days, but in many, many ways it was a darn sight better than things are today. I know, I was there.    

Edited November 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

I think your response is perhaps a wee bit disingenuous. While there were some very lamentable things that went on back in the 50's, you must surely be aware of the fact that during that time there was far less divorce and far more enduring, intact families; far less single parent families and many more men and women waiting until marriage to have children; far less fatherless children and far more dads who were there for their kids; far less teen promiscuity and far more abstinent young men and women who had a healthy fear of the powers of procreation; far less people collecting welfare and food stamps and far more people who would feel ashamed to accept a handout; far less garbage on TV and in the movies, and far more wholesome forms of entertainment; far less abuse of all sorts of mind altering drugs and much more good, clean fun; far less pornography and debauchery parading shamelessly in the public square and far more folks who knew misuse of the powers of procreation and the exploitation of women was a very bad thing; far less mothers to be who destroyed their own children as a form of birth control and far more innocent babies coming to full term; and so on.  No it wasn't ideal in those days, but in many, many ways it was a darn sight better than things are today. I know, I was there.

True it was prior to the economic collapse of the middle class, the evaporation of the well paid blue collar jobs with the exportation of American manufacturing facilities and a time of heavy governmental investment in infrastructure via creation of the interstate highway system, and prior to the sexual revolution brought on by the pill. But it was also a time of intense social hypocrisy which triggered the youth revolts of the next decade. And yes, I know I was there as well, it was golden era if you lived in a white middle class family like I did. Not so golden otherwise.

[teddyaware]

True it was prior to the economic collapse of the middle class, the evaporation of the well paid blue collar jobs with the exportation of American manufacturing facilities and a time of heavy governmental investment in infrastructure via creation of the interstate highway system, and prior to the sexual revolution brought on by the pill. But it was also a time of intense social hypocrisy which triggered the youth revolts of the next decade. And yes, I know I was there as well, it was golden era if you lived in a white middle class family like I did. Not so golden otherwise.

 

Must say I grew up in the New York City area, and virtually all the people I knew thought the South's mistreatment of the black population was an absolute outrage and abomination. Must also say that none of us even thought about oppression of gays because the issue was so buried that it didn't even appear as a faint blip on the political and cultural radar screens. Also, in all fairness, it must be said that even though life was much more difficult and challenging for blacks than it was for whites back in the 50's, fact of the matter is that at that time there were far more intact families, far fewer teen pregnancies, far fewer single mothers, far fewer absente fathers, far fewer abortions and far less welfare dependency in the black community than there is today. Were things ideal? No, but in spite of the times things were better in many ways for the black population than they are today. Yes? Let's not succumb to the temptation to throw the factual baby out with the bath water just because we're feeling miffed.

Edited November 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

Must say I grew up in the New York City area, and virtually all the people I knew thought the South's mistreatment of the black population was an absolute outrage and abomination. Must also say that none of us even thought about oppression of gays because the issue was so buried that it didn't even appear as a faint blip on the political and cultural radar screens. Also, in all fairness, it must be said that even though life was much more difficult and challenging for blacks than it was for whites back in the 50's, fact of the matter is that at that time there were far more intact families, far fewer teen pregnancies, far fewer single mothers, far fewer absente fathers, far fewer abortions and far less welfare dependency in the black community than there is today. Were things ideal? No, but in spite of the times things were better in many ways for the black population than they are today. Yes? Let's not succumb to the temptation to throw the factual baby out with the bath water just because we're feeling miffed.

Am not feeling particularly miffed, and I believe that if we could rethink our free trade agreements and set up a situation which favored the creation and profitability of family owned small businesses, strengthened our labor unions with respect to large corporations, and took health insurance off the backs of employers, we might in fact be able to recreate the economic situation which fostered the widespread conformity to many of the traditional middle class values without the various forms of prejudice and discrimination that were part of the 1950's. But we are not working on the causes of the deterioration of the family, instead we spend our time and energy railing at the symptoms. We lost the war on drugs, but cling to laws which make the most profitable occupation for youth of the poverty stricken to engage in illegal enterprises.

[teddyaware]

Am not feeling particularly miffed, and I believe that if we could rethink our free trade agreements and set up a situation which favored the creation and profitability of family owned small businesses, strengthened our labor unions with respect to large corporations, and took health insurance off the backs of employers, we might in fact be able to recreate the economic situation which fostered the widespread conformity to many of the traditional middle class values without the various forms of prejudice and discrimination that were part of the 1950's. But we are not working on the causes of the deterioration of the family, instead we spend our time and energy railing at the symptoms. We lost the war on drugs, but cling to laws which make the most profitable occupation for youth of the poverty stricken to engage in illegal enterprises.

 

No matter what clever, creative and resourceful men might try to do to circumvent the judgments of God, nations are never going to be healed and quickened until certain divinely mandated conditions are met. The simple fact of the matter is that a nation, especially this nation of promise, will never be able to properly prosper until individuals begin look bravely and resolutely look into their own hearts to find the things lurking and festering there that must be repented of and then, with great sincerity of heart, actually do repent in the sight of God. This nation is ripening in iniquity, and that's the primary reason why we're having so many problems

 

There are too many arrogant men and women out there today who think they're so clever and wise that they've actually discovered ways for nations to prosper in wickedness and evade the judgments of a just God. Does anybody actually believe that moral reprobates -- like all too many of the founders of certain of our modern isms -- had or have the goodness, wisdom and spiritual insight to rid the world of its multifold problems?

 

Before looking outside of ourselves to find things that must be corrected in order to establish a just society, we must first allow the power of the gospel of Christ to heal our own spiritual sicknesses; removing, as it were, the beam of moral perception distorting wickedness from our own eyes before we quixotically go about trying to fix the world's problems without the proper tools. The Saviour said, "Physician, heal thyself." This is why the gospel of Christ is the only true answer to human woe, because it commands us to get to the heart of problems instead of applying palliative solutions that will never heal the underlying sicknesses and wounds.

 

A truly just, merciful and prosperous society will be built one blessed day. And that society is the Zion of God. And Zion will flourish and prosper in righteousness because its inhabitants a pure in heat, having routed out of their bosoms the greatest of all their enemies, even their own fallen natures.    

Edited November 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Must say I grew up in the New York City area, and virtually all the people I knew thought the South's mistreatment of the black population was an absolute outrage and abomination. Must also say that none of us even thought about oppression of gays because the issue was so buried that it didn't even appear as a faint blip on the political and cultural radar screens. Also, in all fairness, it must be said that even though life was much more difficult and challenging for blacks than it was for whites back in the 50's, fact of the matter is that at that time there were far more intact families, far fewer teen pregnancies, far fewer single mothers, far fewer absente fathers, far fewer abortions and far less welfare dependency in the black community than there is today. Were things ideal? No, but in spite of the times things were better in many ways for the black population than they are today. Yes? Let's not succumb to the temptation to throw the factual baby out with the bath water just because we're feeling miffed.

 

No; Things we're not better for the blacks in the 1950's than today.

[teddyaware]

No; Things we're not better for the blacks in the 1950's than today.

Some things were better and some things were worse. To intimate that today's 72% of out of wedlock birth rate in the black community is better for them as a people than the much lower rate of out of wedlock births experienced in the 50's is absurd. Where I will agree with you is -- as just one example of many -- that the black community has much better opportunities for material success today than they had in the 50's.  

Edited November 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

No matter what clever, creative and resourceful men might try to do to circumvent the judgments of God, nations are never going to be healed and quickened until certain divinely mandated conditions are met. The simple fact of the matter is that a nation, especially this nation of promise, will never be able to properly prosper until individuals begin look bravely and resolutely look into their own hearts to find the things lurking and festering there that must be repented of and then, with great sincerity of heart, actually do repent in the sight of God. This nation is ripening in iniquity, and that's the primary reason why we're having so many problems

 

There are too many arrogant men and women out there today who think they're so clever and wise that they've actually discovered ways for nations to prosper in wickedness and evade the judgments of a just God. Does anybody actually believe that moral reprobates -- like all too many of the founders of certain of our modern isms -- had or have the goodness, wisdom and spiritual insight to rid the world of its multifold problems?

 

Before looking outside of ourselves to find things that must be corrected in order to establish a just society, we must first allow the power of the gospel of Christ to heal our own spiritual sicknesses; removing, as it were, the beam of moral perception distorting wickedness from our own eyes before we quixotically go about trying to fix the world's problems without the proper tools. The Saviour said, "Physician, heal thyself." This is why the gospel of Christ is the only true answer to human woe, because it commands us to get to the heart of problems instead of applying palliative solutions that will never heal the underlying sicknesses and wounds.

 

A truly just, merciful and prosperous society will be built one blessed day. And that society is the Zion of God. And Zion will flourish and prosper in righteousness because its inhabitants a pure in heat, having routed out of their bosoms the greatest of all their enemies, even their own fallen natures.

The idea that Americas problems stem primarily from sexual related issues is highly debatable. In addition, from what I have observed travelling back and forth from Vermont to Indiana, it seems odd that in Vermont where there is no general pornography laws, Planned Parenthood operates primarily un molested, and they have SSM. There are almost no exotic dance or gentlemens clubs, hardly any Adult Video stores, and very little crime. In Indiana which is very socially conservative there is an abundance of exotic dance clubs and gentlemens clubs, adult video and bookstores are ubiquitous, and violent crime is higher. Such leads me to suspect that waging the battle to preserve cohesive communities and small family businesses is the more productive approach.

[teddyaware]

 

 

The idea that Americas problems stem primarily from sexual related issues is highly debatable. In addition, from what I have observed travelling back and forth from Vermont to Indiana, it seems odd that in Vermont where there is no general pornography laws, Planned Parenthood operates primarily un molested, and they have SSM. There are almost no exotic dance or gentlemens clubs, hardly any Adult Video stores, and very little crime. In Indiana which is very socially conservative there is an abundance of exotic dance clubs and gentlemens clubs, adult video and bookstores are ubiquitous, and violent crime is higher. Such leads me to suspect that waging the battle to preserve cohesive communities and small family businesses is the more productive approach.

 

 

 

In the post to which you here respond, I was referring to all sin, not just sexual sin. We're on different wavelengths on this topic, Stone. All the best till we engage again on some other subject.

[Stone holm]

In the post to which you here respond, I was referring to all sin, not just sexual sin. We're on different wavelengths on this topic, Stone. All the best till we engage again on some other subject.

Agree we are on different wavelengths. Adieu.

[thesometimesaint]

Some things were better and some things were worse. To intimate that today's 72% of out of wedlock birth rate in the black community is better for them as a people than the much lower rate of out of wedlock births experienced in the 50's is absurd. Where I will agree with you is -- as just one example of many -- that the black community has much better opportunities for material success today than they had in the 50's. 

 

I'm not saying that there was nothing better in the 1950's than today. But those things are so rare that we have to squint real hard to see them.

IE; See "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner".

[teddyaware]

I'm not saying that there was nothing better in the 1950's than today. But those things are so rare that we have to squint real hard to see them.

IE; See "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner".

 

The fact that in the 50's there were far more intact black families, far less out of wedlock births, far less absentee fathers, far less killing of the unborn and far less drug abuse and rampant crime are not little things that one has to squint real hard to see. Yes, these people then suffered under more oppression, but they fared far better as families in spite of that lamentable mistreatment. These are not inconsequential things, and from an LDS point of view they are critically important blessings that too many families of today, of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, no longer enjoy. Paradoxically, hard times can often help motivate families to stay close and strong.   

Edited November 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

The fact that in the 50's there were far more intact black families, far less out of wedlock births, far less absentee fathers, far less killing of the unborn and far less drug abuse and rampant crime are not little things that one has to squint real hard to see. Yes, these people then suffered under more oppression, but they fared far better as families in spite of that lamentable mistreatment. These are not inconsequential things, and from an LDS point of view they are critically important blessings that too many families of today, of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, no longer enjoy. Paradoxically, hard times can often help motivate families to stay close and strong.

Not exactly certain what you are arguing here, that blacks were better off during Jim Crow? There have been massive economic changes since the 1950's are you arguing that the breakdown in traditional family values is the cause of the adverse economics?

[teddyaware]

Not exactly certain what you are arguing here, that blacks were better off during Jim Crow? There have been massive economic changes since the 1950's are you arguing that the breakdown in traditional family values is the cause of the adverse economics?

 

I must say I find this point of view somewhat bewildering. I'm wondering why the line of reasoning found in this post, and many of the previous posts as well, seem to not be informed by the principles apropos to temporal prosperity found so abundantly in the scriptures? We Latter-day Saints have had the these principles to which I refer, and presented in the two scripture quotes below, drummed into our minds thousands of times...

 

22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you. (Mosiah 22)

 

13 And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands. (Helaman 4)

 

Why is it that a knowledgeable Latter-day Saint seems to be so unmindful of these very important eternal principles relative to prospering and receiving blessings from the Lord? It's almost as if these concepts are not a part of your thought processes. Please understand that I say these things with respect and in a spirit of kindness; and also understand I'm not attempting to demean in any way. I'm just genuinely wanting to know why these basic scriptural concepts do not at all seem to inform your thinking relative to what nations need to do in order to prosper? This stuff is Mormonism 101. 

Edited November 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[Hamba Tuhan]

This stuff is Mormonism 101. 

 

Poor Ted, you just don't seem to grasp Marxism 101: There is no god but rational materialism, and Marx and Engels trump the Book of Mormon prophets.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[teddyaware]

Poor Ted, you just don't seem to grasp Marxism 101: There is no god but rational materialism, and Marx and Engels trump the Book of Mormon prophets.

 

Come now Hamba Tuhan, why would devotees of Marx and Engels, who put these two economic and social "philosophers" above the Book of Mormon,  want to remain active members of the LDS Church?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Come now Hamba Tuhan, why would devotees of Marx and Engels, who put these two economic and social "philosophers" above the Book of Mormon,  want to remain active members of the LDS Church?

 

Beats me. You'll have to ask one. Fortunately for you, we seem to have quite a handful who post to this board.

[teddyaware]

Beats me. You'll have to ask one. Fortunately for you, we seem to have quite a handful who post to this board.

LOL!

[thesometimesaint]

Beats me. You'll have to ask one. Fortunately for you, we seem to have quite a handful who post to this board.

 

I'm not in agreement with much of Marx and Engels, but what economic system was described in the BoM?