Are Our Values Under Attack?

[Walden]

So yes, the OP has his answer.

 

You have as much say about that in the public square as anyone... or do you have/want more than others?

 

LDS "values" have been under attack for over a century, whether it be in regard to polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, teachings on Adam-God, etc.

 

Interestingly, there seems to be an uncanny correlation between public pressure and the LDS church's abandonment of previously held "values."

 

Will it be so with SSM?

 

My original point was that the church is no more under attack for their "values" at this time in history than they have been in the past, yet to hear the LDS leaders speak in conference or over the pulpit, these must be the last days because of the world's wickedness and the public outcry against church "morality." They make it sound as if the entire world is conspiring against the LDS faith and that the wolves are at the door, so to speak.

 

LDS leadership rachets up the stakes and stirs the pot of religious fervor in an attempt to promote this sense of persecution among it's adherents, to ultimately strengthen loyalties, promote increased reliance on the faith, and marginalize voices on the fringe.

 

The church's actively political role in the Prop 8 issue is a perfect example of this mentality, and if you do not think that it was a carefully calculated move in which the benefits and deficits of the actions were precisely measured and discussed with reagrd to public opinion and benefits to the church itself, than you truly have your head in the sand when it comes to the modern LDS church. 

[CV75]

The church's actively political role in the Prop 8 issue is a perfect example of this mentality, and if you do not think that it was a carefully calculated move in which the benefits and deficits of the actions were precisely measured and discussed with reagrd to public opinion and benefits to the church itself, than you truly have your head in the sand when it comes to the modern LDS church.

This is great example of a form of attack that adds no value to the discussion, and only reveals your prejudicial leanings. If you do not think so, "then you truly have your head in the sand when it comes to the modern LDS Church" since you can only apply such a mentality and your own opinion to assess it.

My original point was that the church is no more under attack for their "values" at this time in history than they have been in the past, yet to hear the LDS leaders speak in conference or over the pulpit, these must be the last days because of the world's wickedness and the public outcry against church "morality." They make it sound as if the entire world is conspiring against the LDS faith and that the wolves are at the door, so to speak.

The foci of attack change as time and perceptions roll on. Church leaders speak to the prominent issues of the day and according to the perceptions of their hearers/listeners (including you). No big revelation there. So the Church is (and it could be said in many cases that members are) presently under greater attack on certain issues today/yesterday than others, and we've already established that there is a place for each and every value to be attacked in one way, shape or form anyway.

The "last days" is part of what we call ourselves, so of course everything somehow ties back to the last days, as well as Jesus Christ, being saints, and being part of His Church. What else would you expect?

LDS leadership rachets up the stakes and stirs the pot of religious fervor in an attempt to promote this sense of persecution among it's adherents, to ultimately strengthen loyalties, promote increased reliance on the faith, and marginalize voices on the fringe.

But the Church leaders are not doing what you propose they are doing for the motives you attribute them having. That’s just "talk", as I said, arising from your prejudicial leanings.

[Stone holm]

LDS "values" have been under attack for over a century, whether it be in regard to polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, teachings on Adam-God, etc.

 

Interestingly, there seems to be an uncanny correlation between public pressure and the LDS church's abandonment of previously held "values."

 

Will it be so with SSM?

 

My original point was that the church is no more under attack for their "values" at this time in history than they have been in the past, yet to hear the LDS leaders speak in conference or over the pulpit, these must be the last days because of the world's wickedness and the public outcry against church "morality." They make it sound as if the entire world is conspiring against the LDS faith and that the wolves are at the door, so to speak.

 

LDS leadership rachets up the stakes and stirs the pot of religious fervor in an attempt to promote this sense of persecution among it's adherents, to ultimately strengthen loyalties, promote increased reliance on the faith, and marginalize voices on the fringe.

 

The church's actively political role in the Prop 8 issue is a perfect example of this mentality, and if you do not think that it was a carefully calculated move in which the benefits and deficits of the actions were precisely measured and discussed with reagrd to public opinion and benefits to the church itself, than you truly have your head in the sand when it comes to the modern LDS church.

What values have been abandoned?

[JLHPROF]

What values have been abandoned?

 

I think it would be more accurate to say that values have changed as doctrines were "abandoned".

 

Culturally our values were certainly different in the days of polygamy and the priesthood ban.

[why me]

Your post contains some very valid points, and deserved more than the sarcastic response it got.

I wasn't being sarcastic. But mormonnewb's posts have been a little off the mark. It takes two sides to tango. If one side is pushing their agenda as the gay rights activists are doing and as the OW movement is doing, I see no reason why mormons cannot respond in kind. Values can be contentious especially in the free for all climate that has been promoted by the value makers. How can one give certain activists a free pass to impose their will and give the mormons flak for attempting to get their points across? Or to fight against future laws that they perceive will harm the family?

[pogi]

Yes, I think that this idea that it is wrong to enforce our values and ideals on others through legislation misguided.  That is what a democratic vote is all about.  Until this nation is of one mind and one voice, any piece of legislation will enforce ones values and ideals on a minority.  That is the whole purpose of the vote.  The values of the majority rules, until stupid judges disregard the values of the majority and try to force their personal ideals on the majority who disagree with them.  The liberal side of the equation (which I presume you are from) is just as guilty of enforcing their values on others.  They want to enforce their values and ideals through legislating for higher taxes for example.  They want to MAKE the rich give to the poor.   How is that any different?  

 

I just wonder what society will look like if we make it a free for all.  I really don't want my city to look like Vegas on steroids with solicitation for prostitutes on every corner, casinos, strip-clubs, why not add orgy and bestiality clubs to the list?  No harm there!  That is where this country is headed if we legitimize all of this through legislation.  Pornography is a values based issue as well.  How soon before pornography is broadcast in television commercials like in Europe?  All of this is already alive and well in cyber-space.  As soon as you make it all legal, all of this filth will make its way out of cyber-space and into my city.  

Edited April 10, 2014 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, I think that this idea that it is wrong to enforce our values and ideals on others through legislation misguided.  That is what a democratic vote is all about.  Until this nation is of one mind and one voice, any piece of legislation will enforce ones values and ideals on a minority.  That is the whole purpose of the vote.  The values of the majority rules, until stupid judges disregard the values of the majority and try to force their personal ideals on the majority who disagree with them.  The liberal side of the equation (which I presume you are from) is just as guilty of enforcing their values on others.  They want to enforce their values and ideals through legislating for higher taxes for example.  They want to MAKE the rich give to the poor.   How is that any different?  

 

I just wonder what society will look like if we make it a free for all.  I really don't want my city to look like Vegas on steroids with solicitation for prostitutes on every corner, casinos, strip-clubs, why not add orgy and bestiality clubs to the list?  No harm there!  That is where this country is headed if we legitimize all of this through legislation.  Pornography is a values based issue as well.  How soon before pornography is broadcast in television commercials like in Europe?  All of this is already alive and well in cyber-space.  As soon as you make it all legal, all of this filth will make its way out of cyber-space and into my city.  

 

We are not a democracy in the formal sense of the word. We are a republic limiting our laws to what is constitutional. So we have freedom religion and the free exercise thereof, and can only violate that law for overwhelmingly secular reasons. IE; If you want to play with poisonous snakes be my guest. But don't try to force me to do it.

 

There is no law forcing you to give to the poor. You are required to pay taxes. Congress is required to determine on what those tax dollars are spent on. Now your job is to just convince Congress not to pay for things it has already purchased. I'm all for having an orgy. An orgy between two people, or a chocolate bar.  If you want to have sex with other animals or a tree. It is fine with me. But if you want to legally marry that animal or tree we'll have a nice long talk about consent, and splinters.

 

It is already illegal in must jurisdictions to pay for sex. There is no law against giving it away. Is it a Vegas style casino when my local Catholic congregation holds BINGO night? The question of what is pornography has stumped some of the best legal minds for a long time now. No one has been able to come up with a legally consistent answer yet. The best is if you don't want to see it don't purchase it. If you, and enough others, refuse to buy the products the advertisers hawk. Pretty quickly they will either stop making those ads or go out of business. 

[Stone holm]

I think it would be more accurate to say that values have changed as doctrines were "abandoned".

 

Culturally our values were certainly different in the days of polygamy and the priesthood ban.

 

Not sure our values were that different in the days of polygamy.  With respect to the priesthood ban -- I never saw anything particularly "value" laden in the portion of that era that I experienced.  The Priesthood ban didn't project any value laden admonition -- it was just a part of the cultural bigotry of the times.  It differs from the homosexual issues because I certainly didn't run into anyone at the time that thought Africans weren't going to get into heaven for being black.  Homosexual behavior, on the other hand does involve behavior which is contrary to the way we structure our vision of the hereafter and the way we structure our families.  So it is a value laden sort of thing.  I don't think we have abandoned any values, at least none that readily come to mind.

[pogi]

We are not a democracy in the formal sense of the word. We are a republic limiting our laws to what is constitutional.

 

 

The values and ideals of the majority are still enforced within the limits of the constitution.  Currently, there is no federal ruling on the matter of gay marriage.  With the exception of a couple interfering judges, the people currently decided this issue. 

 

My point is simply that every vote is a vote against somebody else's values and ideals.  Until we are all of one mind, you can't escape it.  To say that we shouldn't try to enforce our values and ideals is like saying that we shouldn't vote at all.  Let the judges take over!

 

There is no law forcing you to give to the poor. You are required to pay taxes. Congress is required to determine on what those tax dollars are spent on. Now your job is to just convince Congress not to pay for things it has already purchased. 

 

You mean that I don't have to pay to welfare?  I didn't realize there was an opt-out option.  Are you suggesting that it is unconstitutional for Congress to force me to pay money to welfare if I don't want to?  Isn't forcing me to redistribute my wealth kind of like forcing me to hold the poisonous snake in the example you gave?  Is welfare not a values based requirement based upon the values of the majority?  If you are in favor of mandated welfare, then you are in favor of forcing your values on others.  There is no way around it.   

 

It is already illegal in must jurisdictions to pay for sex. 

 

Yes, but should it be illegal? I say yes, what do you say?  Why are people not fighting to legalize prostitution like they are gay marriage?  Perhaps that is next on the agenda? And down we go further and further down the slope. 

 

The question of what is pornography has stumped some of the best legal minds for a long time now. No one has been able to come up with a legally consistent answer yet. 

 

This is where the values of the majority should step in, isn't it?  How can you legally define what constitutes pornography without some sort of moral guide?  The constitution doesn't give all the answers does it?  Sometimes our values come into play.   

 

The best is if you don't want to see it don't purchase it. If you, and enough others, refuse to buy the products the advertisers hawk. Pretty quickly they will either stop making those ads or go out of business. 

 

The best I can do is promote legislation to keep filth out of advertising and local programming.  It is values based.  

[Stone holm]

The values and ideals of the majority are still enforced within the limits of the constitution.  Currently, there is no federal ruling on the matter of gay marriage.  With the exception of a couple interfering judges, the people currently decided this issue. 

 

My point is simply that every vote is a vote against somebody else's values and ideals.  Until we are all of one mind, you can't escape it.  To say that we shouldn't try to enforce our values and ideals is like saying that we shouldn't vote at all.  Let the judges take over!

 

 

You mean that I don't have to pay to welfare?  I didn't realize there was an opt-out option.  Are you suggesting that it is unconstitutional for Congress to force me to pay money to welfare if I don't want to?  Isn't forcing me to redistribute my wealth kind of like forcing me to hold the poisonous snake in the example you gave?  Is welfare not a values based requirement based upon the values of the majority?  If you are in favor of mandated welfare, then you are in favor of forcing your values on others.  There is no way around it.   

 

 

Yes, but should it be illegal? I say yes, what do you say?  Why are people not fighting to legalize prostitution like they are gay marriage?  Perhaps that is next on the agenda? And down we go further and further down the slope. 

 

 

This is where the values of the majority should step in, isn't it?  How can you legally define what constitutes pornography without some sort of moral guide?  The constitution doesn't give all the answers does it?  Sometimes our values come into play.   

 

 

The best I can do is promote legislation to keep filth out of advertising and local programming.  It is values based.  

 

Justice Potter Stewart once basically defined pornography by the statement, "I know it when I see it."  What constitutes pornography is depiction of activity which is likely to cause physical or psychological harm to someone.  In Vermont which has hardly any X Rated Bookstores or Exotic Dancer establishments, we have no general pornography legislation -- only legislation for the protection of minors.  I don't know the reason why people are not fighting prostitution -- I suspect it is because nobody really cares unless it involves minors, or unless it is spreading disease.  The values of the majority can and do step in, but they are subject to the protections of individual liberty.  You are right that there has been no Supreme Court  decision as yet on SSM, although saying that the rulings are just a handful of judges is now pretty much an understatement.  And if a non-religious reason to ban SSM can be mustered, then, I say go for it.  Unfortunately, there haven't been any sound non-religious reasons mustered as yet.  The State of Utah just had to pull its center-piece argument on parenting because the only study they could put up was at best misleading and some say fraudulent.  http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/04/10/3425146/utah-regnerus/ I am not sure that with the withdrawal of the parenting argument, they actually have anything left to support their case.  This has happened over and over again in cases all across the country, some before so-called "liberal" judges and some before so-called "conservative" judges.  The other much more unfortunate thing which has happened, is that because of the way the religious right has reacted with bans, etc. people like myself who were initially opposed to the SSM, or were on the fence, are now sympathetic to the cause.  Those who have led the fight in the name of religion, have basically given religion a very black eye -- that was completely unnecessary had they stuck to simply preaching to their congregations and the world at large, don't do this it is sinful -- instead they went on a crusade to make it illegal.  That is where the religious voice went wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

The values and ideals of the majority are still enforced within the limits of the constitution.  Currently, there is no federal ruling on the matter of gay marriage.  With the exception of a couple interfering judges, the people currently decided this issue. 

 

My point is simply that every vote is a vote against somebody else's values and ideals.  Until we are all of one mind, you can't escape it.  To say that we shouldn't try to enforce our values and ideals is like saying that we shouldn't vote at all.  Let the judges take over!

 

 

You mean that I don't have to pay to welfare?  I didn't realize there was an opt-out option.  Are you suggesting that it is unconstitutional for Congress to force me to pay money to welfare if I don't want to?  Isn't forcing me to redistribute my wealth kind of like forcing me to hold the poisonous snake in the example you gave?  Is welfare not a values based requirement based upon the values of the majority?  If you are in favor of mandated welfare, then you are in favor of forcing your values on others.  There is no way around it.   

 

 

Yes, but should it be illegal? I say yes, what do you say?  Why are people not fighting to legalize prostitution like they are gay marriage?  Perhaps that is next on the agenda? And down we go further and further down the slope. 

 

 

This is where the values of the majority should step in, isn't it?  How can you legally define what constitutes pornography without some sort of moral guide?  The constitution doesn't give all the answers does it?  Sometimes our values come into play.   

 

 

The best I can do is promote legislation to keep filth out of advertising and local programming.  It is values based.  

 

That is what Federal judges are supposed to do. To see if a particular law violates the Constitution. With respect to SSM Federal judges  have a right and formal responsibility to declare if such laws violate the constitution they are sworn to uphold.

 

More accurately every vote is for or against some perceived value. The South voted to seceded on the perceived value of holding slaves. In Loving v Virginia the Virginia courts had affirmed the perceived value of prohibiting interracial marriages. The US Supreme Court overruled that popular voted upon law.

 

You and I have to pay taxes. You and I personally don't get to decide where those tax monies go. IE; I don't particularly like funding drone attacks in foreign countries. It makes more enemies than it can kill.  I still have to pay taxes even if I don't like where its monies go.

 

The fight to legalize prostitution is far far older than the drive to legalize SSM. Outside of issues of morality and informed consent the "ladies of the night" provide a service that some men find desirable. To quote one of our Apostles  "Just because something is legal doesn't mean we should do it". I much rather legalize it and tax the hell out of it. Than to continue to outlaw it, that just forces it underground and makes it harder to protect those women from harm. The movie Pretty Woman really is a fairy tale.

 

The best legal minds have struggled with how to define pornography. The best is "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

 

The Constitution doesn't define our morals, but it does put our personal morals outside the concern of law.

[pogi]

You and I have to pay taxes. You and I personally don't get to decide where those tax monies go. IE; I don't particularly like funding drone attacks in foreign countries. It makes more enemies than it can kill.  I still have to pay taxes even if I don't like where its monies go.

 

Yes, I know that I don't have a choice.  That's my point.  Again, if you are in favor of mandated welfare, then you are in favor of forcing your values on others.  The argument I keep hearing is that we shouldn't force our values on others.  Well, does that mean you are not in favor of mandated welfare?

[Stone holm]

Yes, I know that I don't have a choice.  That's my point.  Again, if you are in favor of mandated welfare, then you are in favor of forcing your values on others.  The argument I keep hearing is that we shouldn't force our values on others.  Well, does that mean you are not in favor of mandated welfare?

There are secular reasons for welfare safety nets which are not religiously based, that is not to say that it isn't the Christian thing to do, just that there are secular reasons. The problem that has developed in the SSM fight is that those seeking a ban have not successfully articulated a secular basis. The question which has not been resolved as yet is the level of scrutiny such bans require. The right to marry has already been determined to be a protected fundamental right. The question remaining for the Court to decide is what level of scrutiny gets applied to discriminating against gays with respect to that right. So far, however, the anti forces have been unable to muster an argument which could meet the lowest level of scrutiny, and their case has actually been damaged by resorting to fraudulent studies. Meanwhile, Utah made a major mistake in hiring an outside attorney who was stupid enough to make a public statement that he considered it his religious duty to take the case...which simply reinforced the idea this was a religious crusade. They would have been better off with a well known atheist who opposed SSM for some secular reason.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, I know that I don't have a choice.  That's my point.  Again, if you are in favor of mandated welfare, then you are in favor of forcing your values on others.  The argument I keep hearing is that we shouldn't force our values on others.  Well, does that mean you are not in favor of mandated welfare?

 

Personally I don't favor welfare, especially corporate welfare, but that's another issue. I would much rather see those that work for a living paid a living wage. That would cut the welfare rolls considerably. I do believe that the poor, children, those with severe mental, and/or physical disabilities need not only our sympathy but our tax dollars if necessary to provide the opportunities for work, education, care, retraining needed to provide for themselves.

 

SEE

start at the 6:00 mark

[USU78]

LDS "values"

 

Really?

 

[USU78]

 I would much rather see those that work for a living paid a living wage.

 

Code for:  make somebody else pay for it?  Especially somebody rich?  Whether the worker provides "living wage" equivalency in labor value or not?

[USU78]

There are secular reasons for welfare safety nets which are not religiously based

 

Yeah, we get it.  You don't like religions or religious people doing anything or saying anything in the public square.

 

Never mind that the "secular reason[]" is subsequent to, derivative of and reliant on the religious/anti-religious reason.

[MiserereNobis]

Code for:  make somebody else pay for it?  Especially somebody rich?  Whether the worker provides "living wage" equivalency in labor value or not?

 

Yup.  And there were neither rich nor poor among them.

 

As a side note, in Catholicism, one of the 4 sins that cry to heaven for vengeance is defrauding laborers of their wages.

[thesometimesaint]

Code for:  make somebody else pay for it?  Especially somebody rich?  Whether the worker provides "living wage" equivalency in labor value or not?

 

Code for: I got mine so you're too stupid or too lazy to be rich like me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBsfJ5cuJo

[USU78]

Yup.  And there were neither rich nor poor among them.

 

As a side note, in Catholicism, one of the 4 sins that cry to heaven for vengeance is defrauding laborers of their wages.

 

As determined by their market value, their contracted-for value, or their imposed-by-a-religiophobic-bureaucracy value?

[USU78]

Code for: I got mine so you're too stupid or too lazy to be rich like me.

 

 

Maher is such a good role model.

 

I love all of his stuff.

 

Especially when he is as kind and deep-thinking as he is here.

 

/sarcasm

[MiserereNobis]

As determined by their market value, their contracted-for value, or their imposed-by-a-religiophobic-bureaucracy value?

 

As determined by their inherent value and dignity as a human being created by God, wherever you'd like to place that in your categories

[USU78]

As determined by their inherent value and dignity as a human being created by God, wherever you'd like to place that in your categories

 

Which is a completely different question:  we religionists had such things sorted and did a more than creditable job relieving true suffering . . . governments got in the mix and fouled the whole thing up:

 

Are their no prisons?  Are there no workhouses?

 

Scrooge's questions posed to the philanthropists engaged in a bit of fundraising for the poor, and later thrown in his face by the Ghost of Christmas Present, are the crux of the government/private charity question.

 

Paying taxes, whether imposed directly or through minimum wage laws, never saved anybody's soul . . . and never did the poor much long-term good.

 

Come with me to Welfare Square the next time I'm boxing cheese or schlepping pallets, and you'll see what helping the poor in a meaningful way looks like.

 

Our friend sss is of the opinion, and I pray you are not, that only the gov't does such things in an ideal world, apparently.

[thesometimesaint]

Maher is such a good role model.

 

I love all of his stuff.

 

Especially when he is as kind and deep-thinking as he is here.

 

/sarcasm

 

While I disagree with his Atheism. He very much is a good role model of working hard in a job he evidently enjoys and now makes very good money doing it.

SEE http://www.biography.com/people/bill-maher-9542193#national-prominence&awesm=~oB9gVWfKd9C4aX

 

I don't love any of his stuff. I happen to agree with some of his statements.

 

While not born poor Mr. Maher wasn't born with a Gold plated Latinum spoon in his mouth. The Walton family heirs inherited their fortune from Sam Walton. Not the best of employers either.

SEE

Around the time that the young Sam Walton opened his first stores, John Kennedy redeemed a presidential campaign promise by persuading Congress to extend the minimum wage to retail workers, who had until then not been covered by the law. Congress granted an exclusion, however, to small businesses with annual sales beneath $1 million -- a figure that in 1965 it lowered to $250,000.

Walton was furious. The mechanization of agriculture had finally reached the backwaters of the Ozark Plateau, where he was opening one store after another. The men and women who had formerly worked on small farms suddenly found themselves redundant, and he could scoop them up for a song, as little as 50 cents an hour. Now the goddamn federal government was telling him he had to pay his workers the $1.15 hourly minimum. Walton's response was to divide up his stores into individual companies whose revenues did not exceed the $250,000 threshold. Eventually, though, a federal court ruled that this was simply a scheme to avoid paying the minimum wage, and he was ordered to pay his workers the accumulated sums he owed them, plus a double-time penalty thrown in for good measure.

Wal-Mart cut the checks, but Walton also summoned the employees at a major cluster of his stores to a meeting. "I'll fire anyone who cashes the check," he told them.

I'm fine with sarcasm. Especially if there is logical thought behind it.

[pogi]

There are secular reasons for welfare safety nets which are not religiously based, that is not to say that it isn't the Christian thing to do, just that there are secular reasons.

 

Is not secularism based on values too?  Either way you are forcing your values on others.