Only For Those Who Were 30 Years Old And Up

[wenglund]

Well all that is pretty spiffy- actually I am a realistic libertarian and it's not because I am old. I did the old switcheroo right after college when I bumped headlong into a massive nameless bureaucracy who decided to make my life miserable. Not fun.

I got to ask myself if I really wanted these people in charge of every aspect of my life, and the answer was clear. I wanted them OUT of it completely.

The problem is who is in charge of your "several layers of discernment" and who is doing the discernment. As long as it ain't me, I am not going to trust them. I'm just not gullible enough to believe they have my good at heart, for some silly reason.

When I thought I was theorizing for the masses and planning for the revolution, I was on top and it was fine.

But then again I have never had a job either. I have always been self-employed and never had a boss- except myself.

I guess I really need some re-education to get politically correct. Where was that gulag you were pointing to?

 

It gives me a good chuckle to remember that back in the day the liberal saying was to not trust "the establishment" (i.e. government) or "anyone over 30." and yet nowadays those same liberals are well past 30 (many double that), and expect us to trust "the establishment" which is filled with those well-over-30 liberals.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

That is an Ad Populum argument. The LDS are a tiny fraction of the population of the world. Do you really want the rest of the world determining what you believe?

 

I wasn't arguing for who gets to determine what I believe. Please re-read my comments for comprehension.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

It gives me a good chuckle to remember that back in the day the liberal saying was to not trust "the establishment" (i.e. government) or "anyone over 30." and yet nowadays those same liberals are well past 30 (many double that), and expect us to trust "the establishment" which is filled with those well-over-30 liberals.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The Liberals were right. The Draft boards were composed of those over thirty years old. There was no demonstrated need for them.

[thesometimesaint]

I wasn't arguing for who gets to determine what I believe. Please re-read my comments for comprehension.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

This is what you posted: "And, what percent do the religions you listed represent in terms of the entire religious population of the world"?

 

That is an Ad Populum argument. Period.

 

Next time don't post logical fallacies. Which BTW were used against the Saints in the 19th Century.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htm

 

"The twin relics of Barbarism Polygamy and Slavery".

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.

Edited March 4, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

The Liberals were right. The Draft boards were composed of those over thirty years old. There was no demonstrated need for them.

 

You may have a point were the draft boards not but one of numerous mole hills making up the mount that was "the Establishment."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

This is what you posted: "And, what percent do the religions you listed represent in terms of the entire religious population of the world"?

 

That is an Ad Populum argument. Period.

 

No. It is a QUESTION of fact. Please educate yourself on the critical difference.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

You may have a point were the draft boards not but one of numerous mole hills making up the mount that was "the Establishment."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Legal segregation in the South, voting rights of the minority, voting rights for 18 year old's. Earth Day, Seems to me more than one "mole hill".

[thesometimesaint]

No. It is a QUESTION of fact. Please educate yourself on the critical difference.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

So you are just questioning of the fact that there are other religions that disagree with the LDS. News Flash EVERY OTHER religion disagrees with the LDS in one or more area's. Yours is still an Ad Populum argument. They don't get a vote on our religion, and we don't get a vote on theirs.

Edited March 4, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

Legal segregation in the South, voting rights of the minority, voting rights for 18 year old's. Earth Day, Seems to me more than one "mole hill".

 

Hence, my use of the word "numerous." 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Hence, my use of the word "numerous." 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

On that we agree. The "Establishment" wasn't to be trusted. I'm at the age now where I tell my kids, and Grandkids not to repeat my mistakes, but to make their own.

[mfbukowski]

It gives me a good chuckle to remember that back in the day the liberal saying was to not trust "the establishment" (i.e. government) or "anyone over 30." and yet nowadays those same liberals are well past 30 (many double that), and expect us to trust "the establishment" which is filled with those well-over-30 liberals.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, but they are wise.

They know what's best for all of us. You are a heretic and must be condemned. No soup for you.

[wenglund]

So you are just questioning of the fact that there are other religions that disagree with the LDS.

 

No. Obviously--since the words "disagree" and "LDS" appear nowhere in my question of fact. Again, please read for comprehension.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

That's fine as long as you live on an island by yourself. The minute you interact with others, government becomes the issue. "More perfect union", and all that.

That is an Ad Populum argument.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, but they are wise.

They know what's best for all of us. You are a heretic and must be condemned. No soup for you.

It's a matter of the less palatable traits of the baby boomers being carried forward into their twilight years. One could call it geriatric brattiness, I suppose.

 

(Yes, that's my own coinage. And yes, I'm among those bringing up the tail end of the baby boom myself.)

[mfbukowski]

The real issue here is whether or not the self is contingent.  That's a high-fallutin way of asking if we are programmed by our culture totally or if there is a kernel somewhere down deep that is NOT programmed.

 

If we are totally programmed by our culture, then government's responsibility is to program people "correctly".  That is precisely what Marxism is- the attempt to program people correctly.  And that is what "political correctness" really is, after the jokes have faded.

 

If there is a part of us which acts independently and is not programmed, or programmable at all, no matter how hard the government tries to program us, it will always be a violation of our "freedom" in one sense.

 

That is the notion of "inalienable rights" which are bundled with us just in being human.

 

Of course law is necessary to create freedom- keeping the commandments make us free- traffic laws make it possible to drive down the street without getting killed.  Obviously a balance is required.

 

But THAT is the ultimate question- nature vs nurture.  Obviously we are not going to solve that here, but maybe that might clarify it for someone.

 

Are we to act, or be acted upon?  That is the way the church puts the question.

Edited March 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It's a matter of the less palatable traits of the baby boomers being carried forward into their twilight years. One could call it geriatric brattiness, I suppose.

 

(Yes, that's my own coinage. And yes, I'm among those bringing up the tail end of the baby boom myself.)

I love it.

 

I resemble that remark.    And I have gotten used to being on the cutting edge of baby boomers, born a mere three years after the war.  My whole life, it has seemed that whatever I am thinking, 5-10 years later, "everyone" (baby boomers) are thinking.  I was a hippie in 65, a leader of the student protests, a yuppie in the 80's  and now I am a Mormon with geriatric brattieness

 

(Here's hoping....)  

Edited March 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

The real issue here is whether or not the self is contingent.  That's a high-fallutin way of asking if we are programmed by our culture totally or if there is a kernel somewhere down deep that is NOT programmed.

 

If we are totally programmed by our culture, then government's responsibility is to program people "correctly".  That is precisely what Marxism is- the attempt to program people correctly.

 

If there is a part of us which acts independently and is not programmed, or programmable at all, no matter how hard the government tries to program us, it will always be a violation of our "freedom" in one sense.

 

That is the notion of "inalienable rights" which are bundled with us just in being human.

 

Of course law is necessary to create freedom- keeping the commandments make us free- traffic laws make it possible to drive down the street without getting killed.  Obviously a balance is required.

 

But THAT is the ultimate question- nature vs nurture.  Obviously we are not going to solve that here, but maybe that might clarify it for someone.

 

Are we to act, or be acted upon?  That is the way the church puts the question.

More precisely, that's the way Lehi puts the question. See 2 Nephi 2:26.

[thesometimesaint]

The real issue here is whether or not the self is contingent.  That's a high-fallutin way of asking if we are programmed by our culture totally or if there is a kernel somewhere down deep that is NOT programmed.

 

If we are totally programmed by our culture, then government's responsibility is to program people "correctly".  That is precisely what Marxism is- the attempt to program people correctly.

 

If there is a part of us which acts independently and is not programmed, or programmable at all, no matter how hard the government tries to program us, it will always be a violation of our "freedom" in one sense.

 

That is the notion of "inalienable rights" which are bundled with us just in being human.

 

Of course law is necessary to create freedom- keeping the commandments make us free- traffic laws make it possible to drive down the street without getting killed.  Obviously a balance is required.

 

But THAT is the ultimate question- nature vs nurture.  Obviously we are not going to solve that here, but maybe that might clarify it for someone.

 

Are we to act, or be acted upon?  That is the way the church puts the question.

 

As we can't have one without the other. It is both.

[mfbukowski]

More precisely, that's the way Lehi puts the question. See 2 Nephi 2:26.

I knew I had heard that somewhere. 

 

And that is why church members tend to be conservative.

 

Yes, I know, I know......  I said TEND

Edited March 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

As we can't have one without the other. It is both.

Yup.  I ain't makin this stuff up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

 

Marxists or Marxians if you prefer (there is a difference for the really politically correct) like positive liberty, Jefferson and the boys stressed negative liberty.

 

Opposition in all things is another term for "dialectic".  Mormons are dialectical materialists but just stress negative liberty above positive.

 

But don't tell anyone-ok?

 

Oh to make that politically correct for a Mormon board I could insert the Mormon translation of the terms.  Socialism is a counterfeit form of the Law of Consecration.  There.  Now I'm not a heretic anymore. 

Edited March 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

Joseph Smith ordained blacks.

 

David O. McKay removed the ban of non African blacks in the 1950's

 

Sure it happened in 1978. We didn't wait until the return of Christ in glory and power.

So are you using the fact that Joseph Smith ordained blacks as proof that the church abandoned the second half of Brigham Youngs statement that the blacks would not hold the priesthood until after the millennium?  Something that happened before Brigham Youngs revelation?  Can you explain how that works?

 

Are you suggesting that David O. McKay lifted the band on blacks holding the priesthood in the 1950's?  And was part of that lifting a denial of Brigham Youngs statement?  How does that work?

 

The question I asked is for any proof that the church denounced the second half of Brigham Young's revelation prior to 1978.  You said that the church did.  What you provided does not in any way denounce the second half of Brigham Young's revelation.  Unless you are claiming that David O. McKay received a revelation that countered what Brigham Young said.  If David O McKay did denounce Brigham Young's statement I would love to read such revelation.  And in so doing, just what was the big deal about what Spencer W. Kimball proclaimed in 1978?

[california boy]

And, what percent do the religions you listed represent in terms of the entire religious population of the world? When you figure out that number, then you may just see that your list doesn't negate what I said, but instead confirms it--i.e. the exceptions proving the rule.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is the claim you made.

 

Granted, gay activist have been very active since the mid 60's attempting to normalize homosexuality, and while they have been increasingly successful within pop culture over the last half century (particularly the last 10 years), they haven't been as successful among religionists--in large part because religionists grasp the critical difference between skin color and sexual perversion.

 

 

 

This is what I gave you as proof that your statement was false

 

I would strongly disagree with this statement.  There have been quite a few large Christian religions that have significantly changed their position on SSA and ordaining gay clergy.  Anglican church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Evangelic Lutheran Church of Canada, Unitarian church, some Baptist churches, Swiss Reform Church, Moravian Church, some Quakers, The United Church of Canada, (Canada's largest protestant denomination) The United Church of Christ, some Pentecostal, United Church of Australia, New Apostolic Church, Protestant churches in Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, Danish National Church, Community of Christ, some Jewish sects, have started to perform gay marriages and/or ordaining gay clergy to name a few. 

 

 

That list includes some of the largest protestant religions in the world, some much larger than the Mormon church, all combined dwarfing the population of the Mormon church, yet you call it insignificant.  By doing so, you are also calling the Mormon church insignificant.  The gay movement has been going on since the 1960's.  The Mormon church has been going on since 1830.  Just what group is more successful???  What is undeniable is that since 1960's were virtually none of these religions allowed for gay marriage and/or ordained gay clergy, we now have some of the largest protestant religions places like Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands etc.  All are larger than the Mormon church in those countries.  

 

Not significant in roads?  Yeah right.  The population of the Mormon church which as been going on since 1830 is puny in comparison to the number of churches supporting gay marriage/clergy.  As you like to end your posts, I suggest you take some remedial math classes and then get back to us.

[rpn]

David O McKay determined that the ban only prohibited blacks with African origins from the priesthood and he authorized blacks around the world who didn't have african origins to receive the priesthood.  It was mostly polynesians who were affected (it wasn't as though it was really possible to tell in most cases what the origin of the racial makeup was, of course).

[california boy]

Do you have any idea why David O McKay decided this without apparent revelation?  What was so special about African blacks since many of the other blacks originally came from Africa.  Blacks in Brazil for example.  Didn't their ancesters originate from Africa?  And why not blacks in America included but blacks in Brazil were?  This is pretty facinating.  I haven't heard much about the David O McKay doctrine change.  It makes this thing that much more muddy in my opinion.

[Calm]

And why not blacks in America included but blacks in Brazil were?

Are you saying here that the Brazilian Saints were given the Priesthood even with black African ancestry before the lifting?

Or are you wondering why the ban was so troubling for Brazil but apparently not for the US?

Edited March 5, 2014 by calmoriah