Are Our Values Under Attack?

[Walden]

This is the impression that I get when Iisten to the other side. All is well, all is well. Usually this means that all is not well.

 

Funny, the impression that I get from the "other side", i.e. believers, is one reminiscent of the Chicken Little scenario....."the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

 

Despite the dire warnings from various religious groups regarding the world going to hell in a handbasket, all you have to do is perform a quick review of world history to understand that we are living on the most peaceful, most just, most democratic and most enlightened era of recorded human history. 

[JLHPROF]

 

Despite the dire warnings from various religious groups regarding the world going to hell in a handbasket, all you have to do is perform a quick review of world history to understand that we are living on the most peaceful, most just, most democratic and most enlightened era of recorded human history. 

 

It's easy to be at peace when nobody will stand for anything right.

It's easy to have democracy when the choice is between the devil you know and the devil you don't and there isn't an angel to be seen.

It's easy to claim enlightenment when you can't tell the dark from the light.

[Calm]

I have no problem with you defining attack in different ways. He gave, I understand (still can't manage to watch it), examples of what he saw as attacks so one can understand what he viewed as attacks. What he described were things that actually happened and which in his view required a concious attempt to in some way stand up for different values.

That some don't view the occurrences as attacks does not address the core essence of his claim, IMO.

[pogi]

The only way for this idea to work is to say that it is better for society that gays live together rather than get married.  Just tell me how is that a better moral example to teach.  

 

Hi California boy.  I am saying that I think it is better for society to uphold virtue rather than condone vice.  It there are those who do not subscribe to the upheld values, it is not society that is responsible.  It is not society which is offering the poor moral example, but those individuals.  

 

Since the beginning of the church, values of the church that are different than society has been "attacked".  Why is this particular issue one that you are so fearful of?  Is it because underneath the church policy, members also see the unfairness of denying others the right to marry?  I am beginning to think that this is the reason why countless threads are started by members on this board about SSM.  There seems to be a need by some to try and reinforce in their own minds why gay marriage must be a threat to the church and to them.

 

Read my last response to mormonnewb.  It might help you understand my concern better.  I am not fearful of gay marriage.  It is not a threat to the church or to me individually.  I think it is a small part of the threat which faces future generations.  Why should I budge an inch for immorality?  

 

Being taught that smoking cigarettes is bad in school is solely because they are scientifically proven to be harmful to one's health.  It has nothing to do with Mormon belief.  There has been no scientific proof that it is worse for society for gay couples to marry rather than shacking up together.  Quite honestly, the position makes no sense.  That is why gay marriage is gaining acceptance with our culture.  It is also why gay marriage is winning again and again and again in the courts.  No one has been able to show harm to society or individuals by allowing gay marriage.

 

You are right, it is not worse for society for gay couples to marry rather than shacking up together.  But it is worse for society to vote contrary to their values in favor of immorality simply because they are going to be immoral anyway.  That is like making prostitution or any other personal vice legal because people are going to do it anyway.  What is the harm?  Prostitution could be a potential economic stimulus.  What is the harm in a little sexual promiscuity between two consenting adults?  It's in our nature!  It relieves stress and makes you feel good.  It doesn't hurt any individual or society.  All of these arguments are just as good as any gay marriage argument that I have ever heard, but I will not waver despite all of your logical appeals to immorality.   We wouldn't want that to become a habit of society to vote against their values would we?  Therein lies the potential harm to society. 

Edited April 8, 2014 by pogi

[pogi]

Aside from all of my hyperbole in the post to Why Me, do you REALLY think that our society is less moral than that of our parents and grandparents? On the scales of morality, I just don't see how our past acceptance of the most brutal forms of oppression is better than our acceptance of, say, out-of-wedlock child birth.

 

Improvement in one area does not justify weakness in another.  Overall, yes, I do think that the family unit is eroding and has been weakened from past generations, and the forecast does not look good to me, considering the trends in divorce rates, out-of-wedlock child birth, drug use, pornography, promiscuity, adultery, etc.  This is all acceptable anymore.  That is what concerns me. 

[Shadrak]

And yet, when we see what is coming from the televsion reality shows it  is a lack of honesty, integrity, virtue, and charity. How to explain it? And it the teleivsion is encouraging such values, then I can say that mormons values are under attack.

Let me explain. TV shows are not reality.  The lack of these values does not necessarily imply they are endorsement, but rather to provide conflict, humor, titalation and entertainment.  Even the BoM knows this, the 200 years all was well covers a total of 1 chapter-it wasn't interesting.

[Shadrak]

LOL… That’s just an excuse; hardly an objective response. Polemics!

It’s the nature of politics to conflict, and then to debate, and then to attack a particular position on chastity as it plays out in legislation. That's just the nature of the beast. But it is the nature of the adversary to attack the value of chastity itself, or the people who hold to it. It is also the nature of the adversary to confound politics with values, or to put politics over values.

So you are saying it is justified to attack our values. (Slow clap)

I suggest you go back and read a few of the talks from last weekend's General Conference.

See above.

Thanks for pointing out politics can result in disagreement and even be adversarial. If we put our values in the political arena then they will be attacked and ridiculed like any other issue.  Just because you hold them sacred doesn't mean everyone else must have the same standard. 

 

Which talks were you referring to?  I'll ask you to read AoF 11.

[Mystery Meat]

Marriage rates in the U.S. have dropped from 92.3 unmarried females in 1920 to 31.1 in 2012. 51 percent of the country is married now. It was 72 % in 1960. This is not due to fewer and fewer people having sex. 

 

The birthrate has dropped steadily. In 2009 it was 13.8. In 1910 it was over 30.

 

Kids in single parent homes has doubled in the past 50 years.

 

Teen sex rates have quadrupled in the last 50 years.

 

87% of university students have virtual sex. In 2005, there were 63.4 million unique visits every month to porn sites (roughly 42% of the internet audience at that time).

 

All of these statistics are evidence of a deteriorating family. This is evidence of an increasingly wicked society.  

[Shadrak]

However, the world is not the US. Or is it? Many christians are against ssm. Again, I find it interesting that westerner think that god supports postomodernism and western relativism.

Got me there, the western world is my experience. The SSM debate is generally in westernized, liberal democracies (even Utah), in which many do allow SSM or unions.  The countries that don't are generally not considered liberal, free speech, free religion governments and debate is closed, even illegal.  Many christians also teach against extra-marital sex, but that is hardly outlawed.  

[Walden]

It's easy to be at peace when nobody will stand for anything right.

It's easy to have democracy when the choice is between the devil you know and the devil you don't and there isn't an angel to be seen.

It's easy to claim enlightenment when you can't tell the dark from the light.

 

It's easy to mock the accomplishments of humanity when one has never lived under the constant cycle of war or the constant violent threat of rival clans/tribes.

It's easy to mock the advancement of civilization when one has never lived in an age when the idea of democracy was just a dream and absolute tyranny was the norm.

It's easy to mock the progress of humankind when one has never known a reality in which speaking out against the ruling class in favor of truth meant a literal death sentence.

 

Of course, there are parts of the world that still struggle with these concepts (such as the Middle East), but today these societies are condemned and often punished for their failures to promote these ideals, and fortunately, they are not the norm. In fact, I would argue that the current Middle East is much like a sneak peek into world history, and is essentially much like society was several hundred years ago.....in a state of constant war, under constant threat from rival clans, and chained to the anchor of ignorance when it comes to the ideals of enlightenment.

[mormonnewb]

It's easy to mock the accomplishments of humanity when one has never lived under the constant cycle of war or the constant violent threat of rival clans/tribes.

It's easy to mock the advancement of civilization when one has never lived in an age when the idea of democracy was just a dream and absolute tyranny was the norm.

It's easy to mock the progress of humankind when one has never known a reality in which speaking out against the ruling class in favor of truth meant a literal death sentence.

Of course, there are parts of the world that still struggle with these concepts (such as the Middle East), but today these societies are condemned and often punished for their failures to promote these ideals, and fortunately, they are not the norm. In fact, I would argue that the current Middle East is much like a sneak peek into world history, and is essentially much like society was several hundred years ago.....in a state of constant war, under constant threat from rival clans, and chained to the anchor of ignorance when it comes to the ideals of enlightenment.

That was so good that I have to give you some black church love.

Preach on, my Brother, preach it!

[Kenngo1969]

Not sure what your point is.  

I'm sorry you apparently lack reading comprehension skills.  I think my points throughout this discussion have been pretty clear. You may disagree with them (and of course, if you were honest, you would admit that that's the real problem, wouldn't you?) but pretending I haven't made any points is not an effective argumentation tactic.

 

You immediately resort to fear, which was my point.  

 

If you don't want to deal with the substance of my arguments, just say so: an accusation that I'm simply fear mongering isn't necessary.

 

The Supreme Court is a CONSERVATIVE court.  I think it only takes TWO justices to accept a case.  What does that tell you about the validity of the photographer's case?  

 

 

That's incorrect.  Four justices must vote to grant certiorari.  So it doesn't tell me much of anything about the photographer's case.

 

Similar things are happening in courts throughout this country because these cases HAVE NO LEGAL BASIS and never have.  

 

 

Cases rarely, if ever, reach the state or federal Supreme Court without any legal basis whatsoever. Reasonable minds can (and often do) disagree about the underpinnings of legal argument, but that doesn't mean that the litigants don't have a sound legal basis for them.

 

You act as if this is some recent event.    

 

On the contrary.  As I mentioned earlier, I believe First Amendment religious protections have been eroding for at least twenty years.

 

 

Jews have been ringing up pork at the grocery stores for generations.  Mormons have been serving coffee in restaurants for a century, Catholic pharmacists have been issuing birth control pills for decades.  Why has all of these actions suddenly become sins?

 

 

 

If you want to argue that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are superfluous, that is your right. Conversely, I believe the Founders had a sound basis for putting the principles and provisions found in the First Amendment first. However, as I mentioned earlier, leaving that aside, the prospect of religious people being forced to do things which violate their consciences is simply the tip of the iceberg.  Earlier in the thread, I mentioned some of the consequences I believe are likely to result if the courts continue down their current jurisprudential path will portend deleterious consequences, not only to religion, morality, and civic virtue, but also to churches politically, sociologically, and legally.  You dismissed all of that with a wave of your hand.  Only time will tell which one of us is right.

 

Open your eyes and see the truth.

 

My eyes are wide open, and I call it like I see it: we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[JLHPROF]

It's easy to mock the accomplishments of humanity when one has never lived under the constant cycle of war or the constant violent threat of rival clans/tribes.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/justice/gang-membership-increase/  Not just in the Middle East/Africa/Asia/South America.  Pretty much everywhere and increasing, not decreasing.

 

 

It's easy to mock the advancement of civilization when one has never lived in an age when the idea of democracy was just a dream and absolute tyranny was the norm.

 

Yeah, not a big fan of "democracy".  Give me a nice republic with a touch of socialism to keep us kind...  Or better yet, a theocracy.

It's a myth that gaining "democracy" is better than a monarchy or single leader government.  Both can be wicked.  Both can be righteous.  Democracy is only as good as the 51% person voting.

Frankly, our current "democracy" is more tyrannical than many monarchies.

I also don't see any linear progression, just a lot of ups and downs.

 

 

It's easy to mock the progress of humankind when one has never known a reality in which speaking out against the ruling class in favor of truth meant a literal death sentence.

 

Well, I'll give you this one.  Although I don't think we're as far removed from this as we'd like to think.

Edited April 9, 2014 by JLHPROF

[MiserereNobis]

Comparisons are odious, eh?

 

There was a bunch of stats on marriage, family, and sex, given to show the increasing wickedness of our society.

 

What about stats on slavery, discrimination, economic oppression?  What would those show?

 

And why use stats from 1960 to now?  Why not use "stats" from 2000 years ago?

 

Comparisons are odious.

[MiserereNobis]

Yeah, not a big fan of "democracy".  Give me a nice republic with a touch of socialism to keep us kind...  Or better yet, a theocracy.

It's a myth that gaining "democracy" is better than a monarchy or single leader government.  Both can be wicked.  Both can be righteous.  Democracy is only as good as the 51% person voting.

Frankly, our current "democracy" is more tyrannical than many monarchies.

 

You might want to check out the Catholic teaching on the Kingship of Christ and the rights of the Church in the secular world

 

ETA:  Vatican City has got a pretty cool absolute theocratic monarchy.

Edited April 9, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[3DOP]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/justice/gang-membership-increase/  Not just in the Middle East/Africa/Asia/South America.  Pretty much everywhere and increasing, not decreasing.

 

 

Yeah, not a big fan of "democracy".  Give me a nice republic with a touch of socialism to keep us kind...  Or better yet, a theocracy.

It's a myth that gaining "democracy" is better than a monarchy or single leader government.  Both can be wicked.  Both can be righteous.  Democracy is only as good as the 51% person voting.

Frankly, our current "democracy" is more tyrannical than many monarchies.

I also don't see any linear progression, just a lot of ups and downs.

 

 

Well, I'll give you this one.  Although I don't think we're as far removed from this as we'd like to think.

 

 JLHProf...well said. I'm with you as far as you go. Can you imagine only being upset over a tax on the tea or the stamps? Who was freer, colonial America, or us? King George, we're sorry....

[MiserereNobis]

 JLHProf...well said. I'm with you as far as you go. Can you imagine only being upset over a tax on the tea or the stamps? Who was freer, colonial America, or us? King George, we're sorry....

 

Somehow I knew you might weigh in on this   Bring back the Catholic monarchs! 

[3DOP]

Somehow I knew you might weigh in on this   Bring back the Catholic monarchs! 

 Hey, Miserere. Its all good. The powers that be just gave us permission to have a Palm Sunday Procession!

[3DOP]

I guess it balances out the completely nude bikeride that shuts down the interstate for a couple of hours.

[MiserereNobis]

 Hey, Miserere. Its all good. The powers that be just gave us permission to have a Palm Sunday Procession!

 

Awesome!  My parish has a decent relationship with the powers that be so we have all the regular processions with a police escort to close down the streets.  I live in a predominately Catholic area (at least in name), and it's interesting to see the look of bewilderment on some people's faces as we walk by praying the Rosary in Latin -- despite being raised Catholic, they don't know what to make of a traditional procession.  It's also really cool to see people who realize that this is something holy, even if they don't know what or why, and kneel and cross themselves as the Host passes by.

[mormonnewb]

JLHProf...well said. I'm with you as far as you go. Can you imagine only being upset over a tax on the tea or the stamps? Who was freer, colonial America, or us? King George, we're sorry....

By colonial America, I assume you're not including the 22% of the human inhabitants who were kept as livestock. I'd be willing to bet that they'd opt for today's "oppressive government" anyday.

I continue to be amazed how some of you brush of the enslavement and massacre of MILLIONS as being morally insignificant but decry the fact that our kids can now get porn on their smart phones. Do you really think that Christ was okay with these atrocities but is now beside himself because Blaine and Anton want to get married?

[3DOP]

By colonial America, I assume you're not including the 22% of the human inhabitants who were kept as livestock. I'd be willing to bet that they'd opt for today's "oppressive government" anyday.

I continue to be amazed how some of you brush of the enslavement and massacre of MILLIONS as being morally insignificant but decry the fact that our kids can now get porn on their smart phones. Do you really think that Christ was okay with these atrocities but is now beside himself because Blaine and Anton want to get married?

 

Newb. Not including the 22% (taking your word for it on the stats). Smart phones? Blaine? Anton? Not following. "MILLIONS"? Over my head...Not okay with involuntary slavery is my Christ. Constitutional America...to which I am not attached...retained slavery of your people.

 

PS: I didn't mention pornography...although I am against it too. Anti-slavery and anti-pornography are compatible in my world.

Edited April 9, 2014 by 3DOP

[pogi]

It's easy to mock the accomplishments of humanity when one has never lived under the constant cycle of war or the constant violent threat of rival clans/tribes.

It's easy to mock the advancement of civilization when one has never lived in an age when the idea of democracy was just a dream and absolute tyranny was the norm.

It's easy to mock the progress of humankind when one has never known a reality in which speaking out against the ruling class in favor of truth meant a literal death sentence.

 

Of course, there are parts of the world that still struggle with these concepts (such as the Middle East), but today these societies are condemned and often punished for their failures to promote these ideals, and fortunately, they are not the norm. In fact, I would argue that the current Middle East is much like a sneak peek into world history, and is essentially much like society was several hundred years ago.....in a state of constant war, under constant threat from rival clans, and chained to the anchor of ignorance when it comes to the ideals of enlightenment.

 

I agree that our society (US) has enjoyed more peace, wealth, and comfort than almost any society in history.  We have accomplished a lot and have a lot to be grateful for!  I acknowledge the hand of providence in our blessings.  We have benefitted much from standing against immorality in our society.  I suggest we keep the course.

 

I would also suggest that the lack of war is only one measure for peace.  There is a deep spiritual peace that even war cannot strip from individuals that is desperately lacking in our society.  We have become spiritually anemic and are diluting our values which have made us great.  I think of the peace that Corrie Ten Boom's sister Betsie found in the words of the Bible while in a natzi concentration camp.  It allowed her to find peace in hell.  When we skim the cream of our blessings, then abandon the principles which evoked the hand of providence and afforded the cream, we make ourselves vulnerable to the diseases of affluence and pride.  These diseases can be far more devastating to the spirit of peace than even war!  This is the peace that is rare to find in our society today, even in the midst of abundance and lack of war.  We become obsessed with consumption and instant gratification through carnal desires, filling our selves to the brim in excess. Yet, we are never satiated somehow.  We no longer sup from the endless supply of spiritual resources found in the morality of our values and modesty.  Instead, we rape the natural and physical resources of our land and bodies until both are diseased and empty and on the verge of death.  And we call this peace and progress! 

Edited April 9, 2014 by pogi

[USU78]

I don't think that it's the LDS values regarding SSM that are under attack necessarily....most right-leaning Christian organizations oppose SSM. If the LDS church just simply stated their beliefs, maintained their own rules regarding SSM in relation to church membership, taught their principles regarding SSM to their members, and didn't politicize the issue, then there would be much less backlash to make members feel "attacked."

What's under attack is the fact that the LDS church has actively mobilized it's adherents in an effort to legislate their brand of morality to apply to the masses. Anytime you attempt to legislate morality, there will be opposition.

Of course it's a shock when a religious person or organization would dare to speak in the public square. Horror of horrors!

[USU78]

Supporters of Prop 8 were NOT "targeted" for upholding their values. No one complained that Brother So-and-So was married to Sister So-and-So and therefore, their business should be boycotted.

They were "targeted" for trying to impose that value on others. Since when did living our values require others to do likewise?

For instance, I don't need all porn to be outlawed so that I can live the law of chastity. What other people view on their computers has NOTHING to do with the time I waste on this board. On second thought, perhaps that isn't the best example of righteousness

Huh. the old woman who had the largish crucifix taken from her by force and having it p!$$ed on by the anti Prop 8 activists in California outside her church deserved what she got then, right?