New Article Marking 25 Years Since Family Proclamation

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You cannot understand the derision with which Mormons are held here unless you live here.  Yes we have one or two baptisms a year, but then they talk to their friends and they are out by the anniversary of their baptism.  Even the "Christians", few as they are scorn us as a "cult".   This ain't Utah!

But we are very close to becoming "political" here so I will refrain ....

 

[mfbukowski]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

If a heterosexual marriage is "unable to reproduce," then it's an exception to the rule.  Categorically, heterosexual marriages contemplate and facilitate procreation.  Categorically, same-sex marriages do not.

I don't think we can or ought to argue from the margins.

Yes, really.

Special pleading.  And argument from the margins.  Anecdotal exceptions to the rule do not overcome the rule.

The sociological data are overwhelming in terms of the benefits of a child being raised in a home with a mother and a father.

I try to go by data as much as possible.  I've previously laid out some thoughts about SSM, and how it substantively differs from heterosexual marriage, here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Bravo, sir!

And this is now even a controversial opinion within the church itself.   Just watch the comments.  You have touched the key point here- Yin and Yang the way I see it as an eternal principle- opposition in all things.  Unity from opposites.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I personally like sperm donor.  Rapists don't deserve any title of fatherhood.

I agree, but donor makes it sound like the woman requested it because of how originally used. Maybe Sperm source will catch on.  

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You cannot understand the derision with which Mormons are held here unless you live here.  Yes we have one or two baptisms a year, but then they talk to their friends and they are out by the anniversary of their baptism.  Even the "Christians", few as they are scorn us as a "cult".   This ain't Utah!

No presidential candidate of Romney's party could ever carry the state for similar reasons- and to be a member of his party AND a Mormon?  Fergitaboutit.

That's the double whammy!

Seattle Times comment section on UW President Michael Young (LDS). Typical of the attitude in much of this area. If you are conservative in Seattle and Olympia,  you keep your opinions close to the vest. If you are conservative and LDS, you shut the heck up. If you know what's good for you. This is true for many people I know here in Washington, including family members who work in education, marketing, and media, etc. Just keep your head down. 

Quote

“All Mormons support bigotry. Michael Young is a Mormon. So, Michael Young supports bigotry,” one commenter said.

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

deleted

Edited September 26, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Bravo, sir!

And this is now even a controversial opinion within the church itself.   Just watch the comments.  You have touched the key point here- Yin and Yang the way I see it as an eternal principle- opposition in all things.  Unity from opposites.

Neal Maxwell (1974!!).

This whole talk is worth the time. 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/family-perspectives/

Quote

President Spencer W. Kimball focused on the family as he offered this advice: “I like to compare the home evening, family prayer, and other associated activities of the Church for the saving of the family, when they are conscientiously carried out, with an umbrella. If the umbrella is not opened up, it is little more than a cane and can give little protection from the storms of nature. . . . The umbrella spread out makes the silken material taut. When the rain falls, it runs off; when the snow falls, it slides off; when the hail comes, it bounces off; when the wind blows, it is diverted around the umbrella” (Conference Report, October 1969, p. 23). We are at a point in human history when, unfortunately, it is no longer merely sprinkling; the rains have begun to fall, and at this very point in history, ironically, many umbrellas are being folded up and put away....

How much more research does the world need before we can accept parents as pivotal and before we focus on the family without apology and half-heartedness? Of course, there are rogue parents just as there are rogue policemen. Of course, there are some people, through no fault of their own, who do not marry. Of course, there are some, who, through no fault of their own, experience defective and broken homes, but these exceptions are not reasons for abandoning this remarkable resource, the family. The family is the tilt point for a vast number of souls who can go either way—to alienation and anger or to sweetness and service. 

Alas, it may be true that those who do not believe in God, who is a loving parent and who is the Father of the human family, will also never be able to accept the eternal importance of the institution of the family, except as something that is socially useful—little wonder we arrive at different conclusions or that we have different priorities. How important, therefore, it is that we remain at our posts as sentries over doctrines and teachings like that concerning the family, even if the world in its mistaken, but sincere way, seems to be headed in entirely different directions. The Latter-day Saints ought to understand, for instance, that the wars of tomorrow are this day being forged in the overheated families of today. How many dictators or assassins do we need to study in order to understand the consequences of distortion in the home? How many more examples do we need, including the energy crisis, where a few control the resources needed by many, before realizing that food and fiber are not the real challenge? Rather, it is selfishness and our human delivery systems. And where, indeed, can one learn, first-hand, selflessness and sharing? In the home, where such skills and attitudes tend to be learned, if they are learned at all.

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Neal Maxwell (1974!!).

This whole talk is worth the time. 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/family-perspectives/

 

Quite honestly if he had said that today, the consequences might be violent

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Neal Maxwell (1974!!).

This whole talk is worth the time. 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/family-perspectives/

 

Yes, it is.  I discovered, personally, that it wasn't a bad way to spend those 20 minutes.  Thanks for the recommendation!  

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Quite honestly if he had said that today, the consequences might be violent

We need more people with the courage to face whatever consequences there might be. This reminds me of Brigham Young’s response to someone who said he hated to see the Church recommence work on the Salt Lake Temple, because whenever the Church undertakes to build a temple, the “bells of hell begin to ring.” President Young replied, “I want to hear them ring again.”

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We need more people with the courage to face whatever consequences there might be. This reminds me of Brigham Young’s response to someone who said he hated to see the Church recommence work on the Salt Lake Temple, because whenever the Church undertakes to build a temple, the “bells of hell begin to ring.” President Young replied, “I want to hear them ring again.”

Very scary to contemplate what is coming perhaps sooner than we think. 

 Regardless of the outcome, I feel that the election will be contested and go to the supreme court, missing a judge.

It that happens, ---- who knows what could follow.  

[CV75]

On 9/25/2020 at 1:58 PM, Daniel2 said:

This is the type of rhetoric that alienates many of us from the LDS Faith

I can see rhetoric alienating people from the individuals saying it, but I find it unfortunate that one allows it to alienate them from the actual "LDS Faith."

[stemelbow]

On 9/26/2020 at 1:37 PM, mfbukowski said:

You cannot understand the derision with which Mormons are held here unless you live here.  Yes we have one or two baptisms a year, but then they talk to their friends and they are out by the anniversary of their baptism.  Even the "Christians", few as they are scorn us as a "cult".   This ain't Utah!

THat doesn't evidence derision.  It evidences the Church has a real problem with gaining converts, retaining converts and looking credible.  It's simply not a reasonable belief system.  I recall years back sitting in a stake conference wherein some big wig showed up much to the delight of the masses (can't remember his name).  He told us how it's a miracle these days to get someone to believe in the Church.  The belief system, it seems, simply stopped working for people in the developed world over the past few decades.  Of course tradition is hard to break. Dogma is hard to defeat when it gets so heavily ingrained in the members, so many members still remain.  And surely with the Church's resources and missionary effort people will still show up, get baptized, and then, as you suggest, they'll leave when they realize its not a viable belief system.  Luckily for the Church, though, the base is fairly strong, and the new converts in the third world are coming fast enough their quick departure isn't really bringing many negatives.  

On 9/26/2020 at 1:37 PM, mfbukowski said:

No presidential candidate of Romney's party could ever carry the state for similar reasons- and to be a member of his party AND a Mormon?  Fergitaboutit.

That's the double whammy!

California has a lot of sway in how people think in other parts of the country.  At the very moment of Obama's hey day, there was no chance a political lightweight like Romney was going to win, even with the country's in-born conservative favoritism with the electoral college.  

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

You cannot understand the derision with which Mormons are held here unless you live here.  Yes we have one or two baptisms a year, but then they talk to their friends and they are out by the anniversary of their baptism.  Even the "Christians", few as they are scorn us as a "cult".   This ain't Utah!

THat doesn't evidence derision. 

I think it does.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It evidences the Church has a real problem with gaining converts, retaining converts and looking credible.

Well, that too.  We have a rather active set of opponents, including many who have come out from us.  It's not really surprising that their efforts to tear us down bear fruit.  Of course, we sometimes fail to live up to our ideals as well.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's simply not a reasonable belief system. 

Sure it is.  There are all sorts of perfectly reasonable, intelligent people who find it so.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I recall years back sitting in a stake conference wherein some big wig showed up much to the delight of the masses (can't remember his name).  He told us how it's a miracle these days to get someone to believe in the Church. 

Uh huh.  Somehow I don't think we're getting the whole story.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The belief system, it seems, simply stopped working for people in the developed world over the past few decades.

Except, of course, for the many, many people who whom the belief system works remarkably well.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course tradition is hard to break.

I think there is a lot more than tradition in play.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Dogma is hard to defeat when it gets so heavily ingrained in the members, so many members still remain. 

Occasionally some member of the Church comes along and tries to purvey a facile cheap shot against people who leave the Church.  "They leave because they want to sin" and so on.

Our critics, though, seem to resort to facile cheap shots of their own quite a bit.  As above.

The Church doesn't really do "dogma."  We are not told to unquestioningly accept precepts is incontrovertibly true.  We are, instead, told to study, ponder, pray, and seek confirmation through A) prophetic counsel (past and present), B) our own native reasoning and C) personal revelation.

I am my own man.  I accept the principles of the Restored Gospel because I have studied them, applied them, and found them to be good, to be effective, and to be ratified by the Holy Spirit.  It is, in the end, that spiritual witness that keeps me in the Church.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And surely with the Church's resources and missionary effort people will still show up, get baptized, and then, as you suggest, they'll leave when they realize its not a viable belief system. 

Some will leave, some will remain.  That's the way things have been since 1830.  

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is fascinating.  I find it to be an overwhelmingly good, thought often misunderstood and maligned, institution.  I am saddened when I see former members array themselves in opposition to it, particularly when that opposition relies heavily on distortions, caricatures and malice.

Over the weekend, I read this article about the Church working with state and Native American officials to coordinate the delivery of 3 millions pounds of wood - from trees downed in a big recent storm in Utah - to Navajo, Goshutes, and Shoshone tribes.

A few weeks ago a man in our ward died.  He left behind a 12-year-old daughter.  My wife is the YW president, and has spoke often of how the young women in our ward, and also the sisters in the Relief Society and other ward members, have rallied around this girl and her mother, providing friendship, encouragement, love, food, and so on.  Our ward is mostly white, and this girl and her mother are Hispanic (the mother speaks very little English).  That doesn't matter a whit.  The members of our ward are taking care of them.

A few years ago a man in our ward ended up going to prison for some serious crimes.  He left behind a wife and four children.  The ward rallied around them, providing assistance, friendship, activities, food, and so on.  They have moved out of the ward, but remain close with several families in our ward.

My sister and her husband - a pediatrician - moved to Vanuatu last year (my sister served her mission there).  My BIL is providing medical care to expatriates and locals there.  They felt prompted to move there.

My brother was recently called to be the bishop of his ward.  It's a Polynesian ward.  His wife is Samoan, and he lived there for many years.  He will spend the next five years devoting many hours each week to helping members of his ward.  Without pay.  And in addition to his day job and his duties as a husband and father.

My son has struggled with bipolar disorder for some years.  Nevertheless, he served a Church Service Mission in the MTC.  He spent two years manning the "chat with a missionary" function of the Church's website.  He has a very strong testimony, and credits his faith with seeing him through some very dark times.  He is now in college.

Last week I visited with a friend who has returned from the Church after having been excommunicated some years ago.  He still has some things to work out, but he is working at it.

A few weeks ago a good friend was killed in a motorcycle accident.  He left behind his wife and five small children.  She posted this yesterday:

Quote

This month so many things in my life feel drastically different. Eating, sleeping, exercising, playing with my kids, watching sports, going to church and so, so much more. But when I kneel down to pray, it is the only thing that feels exactly the same. The peace, the comfort and the love I feel when I reach out to my maker is unalterable, because God does not change.

Mormon 9:9-11

9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?
10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.
11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.

A few months ago I lost a dear friend to pancreatic cancer.  I visited him many times, and spoke with him by phone many times, during his last months.  As his health deteriorated, as his body wasted away, he became more sanguine, more introspective, more at peace.  He spoke of Jesus Christ, of the Atonement, and of his anticipation of seeing loved ones again after he passed on.

These are but a few of the many experiences I have had with observing how the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ operates.  It provides hope.  And strength.  And moral instruction and guidance.  The more I explore it, the more I seek to live by it, the more I give it a fair hearing, the more I find it validated and worthwhile.

I still have much to learn, and many ways to improve.  I am grateful to have the Restored Gospel, and to be a member of the Church that houses it, as I move forward in life.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it does.

Don't get me wrong, I"m certain there are many people who have some problem with the Church.  But it turns out there are people who have problems with nearly everything.   I'm simply pointing out that the CHurch can't get many believers, and those who they baptized often leave is not evidence of some high level of derision.  Its far more evidence that the Church's beliefs aren't resonating with people and the community isn't proving all that useful or helpful.  

Quote

Well, that too.  We have a rather active set of opponents, including many who have come out from us.  It's not really surprising that their efforts to tear us down bear fruit.  Of course, we sometimes fail to live up to our ideals as well.

I wouldn't resort to the victim status quite yet.  When I, for instance, state my position on the Church it's not some personal attack.  It is meant only to illicit thought and encourage conversation.  I'm hopeful that the Church and religion loses ground only in that I find them harmful to the human experience at this stage of our existence.  I think we're better off without it.  

Quote

Sure it is.  There are all sorts of perfectly reasonable, intelligent people who find it so.

That is true of all religions including scientology and some extremely weird cults.  

Quote

Uh huh.  Somehow I don't think we're getting the whole story.

What whole story do you want?  I'm merely, years later, repeating a thought shared from a talk.  He indicated it was a miracle that anyone would join the Church and believe it. He indicated it is nearly impossible with all the knowledge of our era out there, and he suggested that people who were raised in it, ingrained with it's beliefs have a huge benefit over others because they don't need to find reason in the same sense as others.  The miracle was God inspired individuals, and to crack the hard exterior of our modern cocoons was extremely difficult for Him.    

Granted I could be misremembering.  

Quote

Except, of course, for the many, many people who whom the belief system works remarkably well.

I think there is a lot more than tradition in play.

Occasionally some member of the Church comes along and tries to purvey a facile cheap shot against people who leave the Church.  "They leave because they want to sin" and so on.

Our critics, though, seem to resort to facile cheap shots of their own quite a bit.  As above.

The Church doesn't really do "dogma."  We are not told to unquestioningly accept precepts is incontrovertibly true. 

What do you mean?  I recall, again years back, as a missionary.  Travelling around and people telling me how they once knew a Mormon and then they'd explain how that Mormon was bad or believed such and such.  The easiest response was that's not really what we believe or how we practice.  In other words it's not really Mormon to drink, swear, curse God, or fornicate.  The only true Scotsman, I mean the fallacy as it is intended, got in our way sometimes.  But your comment makes me wonder.  Can a Mormon be in good standing and reject teachings like Jesus is LORD, or the BOM is not scripture, the prophet is a false prophet, or other such things?  

Quote

We are, instead, told to study, ponder, pray, and seek confirmation through A) prophetic counsel (past and present), B) our own native reasoning and C) personal revelation.

On that basis there is no such thing as dogma.  All religion allows people to decide.  In truth though, what you are talking about is not really a factor in whether it's dogma or not.  

Quote

I am my own man.  I accept the principles of the Restored Gospel because I have studied them, applied them, and found them to be good, to be effective, and to be ratified by the Holy Spirit.  It is, in the end, that spiritual witness that keeps me in the Church.

I am all too familiar with such a mindset and practice.  

Quote

Some will leave, some will remain.  That's the way things have been since 1830.  

I do get fascinating in seeing the ebbs and flows, ups and downs (or often ups and stagnations).  

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is fascinating.  I find it to be an overwhelmingly good, thought often misunderstood and maligned, institution.  I am saddened when I see former members array themselves in opposition to it, particularly when that opposition relies heavily on distortions, caricatures and malice.

Over the weekend, I read this article about the Church working with state and Native American officials to coordinate the delivery of 3 millions pounds of wood - from trees downed in a big recent storm in Utah - to Navajo, Goshutes, and Shoshone tribes.

That's awesome, now if we can just get more on board with understanding we don't need religion to do these things.  It happens of course, but it also happens religions have become pretty good organizers.  Mormonism happens to have the added benefit, benefit in terms of adding good PR, because it is a large conglomerate corporation, uniquely with millions of ready volunteers.  

Quote

A few weeks ago a man in our ward died.  He left behind a 12-year-old daughter.  My wife is the YW president, and has spoke often of how the young women in our ward, and also the sisters in the Relief Society and other ward members, have rallied around this girl and her mother, providing friendship, encouragement, love, food, and so on.  Our ward is mostly white, and this girl and her mother are Hispanic (the mother speaks very little English).  That doesn't matter a whit.  The members of our ward are taking care of them.

A few years ago a man in our ward ended up going to prison for some serious crimes.  He left behind a wife and four children.  The ward rallied around them, providing assistance, friendship, activities, food, and so on.  They have moved out of the ward, but remain close with several families in our ward.

My sister and her husband - a pediatrician - moved to Vanuatu last year (my sister served her mission there).  My BIL is providing medical care to expatriates and locals there.  They felt prompted to move there.

My brother was recently called to be the bishop of his ward.  It's a Polynesian ward.  His wife is Samoan, and he lived there for many years.  He will spend the next five years devoting many hours each week to helping members of his ward.  Without pay.  And in addition to his day job and his duties as a husband and father.

My son has struggled with bipolar disorder for some years.  Nevertheless, he served a Church Service Mission in the MTC.  He spent two years manning the "chat with a missionary" function of the Church's website.  He has a very strong testimony, and credits his faith with seeing him through some very dark times.  He is now in college.

Last week I visited with a friend who has returned from the Church after having been excommunicated some years ago.  He still has some things to work out, but he is working at it.

A few weeks ago a good friend was killed in a motorcycle accident.  He left behind his wife and five small children.  She posted this yesterday:

A few months ago I lost a dear friend to pancreatic cancer.  I visited him many times, and spoke with him by phone many times, during his last months.  As his health deteriorated, as his body wasted away, he became more sanguine, more introspective, more at peace.  He spoke of Jesus Christ, of the Atonement, and of his anticipation of seeing loved ones again after he passed on.

These are but a few of the many experiences I have had with observing how the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ operates.  It provides hope.  And strength.  And moral instruction and guidance.  The more I explore it, the more I seek to live by it, the more I give it a fair hearing, the more I find it validated and worthwhile.

I still have much to learn, and many ways to improve.  I am grateful to have the Restored Gospel, and to be a member of the Church that houses it, as I move forward in life.

Thanks,

-Smac

Great.  Thanks for the updates.  

Edited September 28, 2020 by stemelbow

[california boy]

And then there are stories like mine.  Who when ward members found out I was gay all but two families never contacted me again.  This is after years of teaching seminary, being in the bishopric, working with the young men for over a decade.  I guess being gay ends up being far worse than going to prison.  

The truth is, for some the Church works well in their lives.  The support they get from other members during times of crisis is really one of the best parts of the Church.  It is the part of the Church that i IMO is most Christ-like. But for others?  Not so much.  There are some things that Church members do that are so not like the example Christ wanted from His followers.  Sometimes the teachings and prejudices that come out of the Church actually get in the way of those Christ-like ideals.  And that is a shame.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Don't get me wrong, I"m certain there are many people who have some problem with the Church.  But it turns out there are people who have problems with nearly everything.   I'm simply pointing out that the CHurch can't get many believers, and those who they baptized often leave is not evidence of some high level of derision.

I think it's hard to dispute that there is a "high level of derision" against us, and that it is having an adverse impact on members and prospective members.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Its far more evidence that the Church's beliefs aren't resonating with people

The reasons for that lack of resonance include, I think, a "high level of derision" directed against us.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and the community isn't proving all that useful or helpful.  

Not sure what you mean here.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wouldn't resort to the victim status quite yet. 

Gaslighting stuff like this give me a chuckle.  

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

When I, for instance, state my position on the Church it's not some personal attack.  It is meant only to illicit thought and encourage conversation.  I'm hopeful that the Church and religion loses ground only in that I find them harmful to the human experience at this stage of our existence.  I think we're better off without it.  

I think we're far better off with it.  As David O. McKay put it: “The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”

And I think it does that remarkably well.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Quote

It's simply not a reasonable belief system. 

Sure it is.  There are all sorts of perfectly reasonable, intelligent people who find it so.

That is true of all religions including scientology and some extremely weird cults.

Sigh.  

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Except, of course, for the many, many people who whom the belief system works remarkably well.

I think there is a lot more than tradition in play.

Occasionally some member of the Church comes along and tries to purvey a facile cheap shot against people who leave the Church.  "They leave because they want to sin" and so on.

Our critics, though, seem to resort to facile cheap shots of their own quite a bit.  As above.

The Church doesn't really do "dogma."  We are not told to unquestioningly accept precepts is incontrovertibly true. 

What do you mean?  I recall, again years back, as a missionary.  Travelling around and people telling me how they once knew a Mormon and then they'd explain how that Mormon was bad or believed such and such.  The easiest response was that's not really what we believe or how we practice. 

That response is, nevertheless, often accurate.  

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In other words it's not really Mormon to drink, swear, curse God, or fornicate. 

Yes.  That is true.  A member of the Church who drings, swears, curses God or fornicates is not adhering to the principles taught by the Church.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

I am my own man.  I accept the principles of the Restored Gospel because I have studied them, applied them, and found them to be good, to be effective, and to be ratified by the Holy Spirit.  It is, in the end, that spiritual witness that keeps me in the Church.

I am all too familiar with such a mindset and practice.  

And yet you don't grant it, and instead superimpose your perspective onto me.  You presume to speak on my behalf.  That's problematic.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's awesome, now if we can just get more on board with understanding we don't need religion to do these things.  

I think we do.  We need to know there is a higher power than ourselves.  

Earlier this year Dennis Prager wrote on "meaning" and how it is playing out these days: The Question That Explains Almost Everything

Some excerpts:

Quote

{T}he most important question to ask is "What in life gives you the most meaning?"

The answer does not explain everything, of course, but it explains the human condition better than any other question.

The reason is this: After food, the greatest human need and human desire is meaning. Even more so than the ability to reason or even to speak, this is the great divide between human and animal. We share all other needs with the higher animal species and share many needs with some of the lower animal species. Like them, we need food, shelter and companionship. But, while human beings seek and need meaning more than anything except food (and companionship -- but for human beings, companionship usually provides some meaning, and sometimes enough), no animal needs or seeks meaning. As an aside, this is one of the reasons I believe in God, the Creator. There is no evolutionary explanation for the need for meaning. Meaning is not a biological need.

Given its unique importance, that is why what gives us meaning must be deemed the most important question.

This reflects my sentiments.  This is why I find atheism so unattractive.  As I see it, in the end, it denies or trivializes "meaning" in life.  Prager continues:

Quote

The problem, however, is that just as the need for food has no inherent moral quality, the need for meaning has no inherent moral quality. Meaning can be found in evil just as it can be found in good. Nazism provided millions of Germans with as much meaning as helping the dying in Calcutta provided Mother Teresa. Slaughtering infidels gives radical Islamic terrorists as much meaning as feeding the poor gives those who work for the Salvation Army. Killing the "Christ-killer" Jews gave some medieval Christians as much meaning as saving Jews gave some European Christians during the Holocaust.

Yep.  "Meaning" needs to be tethered to morality.  Atheism provides neither.

Quote

For most Americans until the last generation, the need for meaning was filled by family, religion, community and patriotism (i.e., love of America and belief in America as Abraham Lincoln put it: as "the last best hope of earth."

All, or nearly all, of those sources of meaning are being lost. In fact, the present generation of Americans has few or none of those meaning providers.

As regards family, Americans are marrying at a later age than ever before. Fewer Americans are marrying than ever before. And fewer are having children than ever before.

With regard to religion, more than a third of millennials -- by far the largest percentage of any generation in American history -- do not identify with any religion.

As for community, a vast number of Americans -- of every age -- have lost ties to any community. This is a major reason for the epidemic of loneliness that afflicts so many Americans (and so many others) at the present time. For example, The New York Times reported in 2018 that in Britain, "more than nine million people in the country often or always feel lonely, according to a 2017 report published by the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness." Then-Prime Minister Theresa May actually appointed a minister of loneliness.

I don't see things as bleakly as Prager does, but I share his overarching concern for diminishing focus on and strength in family, religion, and community.

At that point Prager goes into secular/political discussion, but concludes with a renewed emphasis on "traditional meaning givers" (family, religion, community and patriotism).

I think he's right.  These "meaning givers" are not valid because they are "traditional."  They are traditional because they are valid. 

Daniel Peterson has provided an excellent presentation on the positive effects religion has on society: What Difference Does It Make

In this piece he marshals considerable evidence of the benefits that accrue from religious faith/observance, and the corollary adverse effects of abandoning faith.

See also here: How religious faith benefits society

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Over the weekend, I read this article about the Church working with state and Native American officials to coordinate the delivery of 3 millions pounds of wood - from trees downed in a big recent storm in Utah - to Navajo, Goshutes, and Shoshone tribes.

It happens of course, but it also happens religions have become pretty good organizers. 

The point, though, is that this story shows how religion can benefit society.

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Mormonism happens to have the added benefit, benefit in terms of adding good PR, because it is a large conglomerate corporation, uniquely with millions of ready volunteers.  

Right.  No chance ever of giving the Church credit for doing something good.  It must always have an ulterior, nefarious purpose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it's hard to dispute that there is a "high level of derision" against us, and that it is having an adverse impact on members and prospective members.

In my experience when there is a high level of derision directed at the Church it is in response to what has been perceived, at least, as mistreatment from the church or it's members.  Playing the victim here seems to miss the complexity of human interaction.  

Quote

The reasons for that lack of resonance include, I think, a "high level of derision" directed against us.

Perhaps to some extent sure.  But, to think the Mormon Church is somehow picked on or teated more poorly than others seems to be missing what is going on.  As i suggested, there are people who have problems with nearly everything, including every Church, every business, or every group.  

Quote

Not sure what you mean here.

Gaslighting stuff like this give me a chuckle.  

What do you mean?  I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to play victim here.  People don't join, perhaps in part, because victim flags tend to go up unsolicited.  

Quote

I think we're far better off with it.  As David O. McKay put it: “The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.”

REminds me of the quote about needing religion to make good men do bad things.  But you know, whatever, quotes can be cute or useful in their own way. 

Quote

And I think it does that remarkably well.

Sigh.  

That response is, nevertheless, often accurate.  

Yes.  That is true.  A member of the Church who drings, swears, curses God or fornicates is not adhering to the principles taught by the Church.

And yet you don't grant it, and instead superimpose your perspective onto me.  You presume to speak on my behalf.  That's problematic.

huh?  I don't speak on your behalf...never have, as far as i know.  Perhaps you are suggesting at times my attempts to rephrase in my responses don't quite do you justice, but that can't really be fairly said to be trying to speak on your behalf.  

Quote

I think we do.  We need to know there is a higher power than ourselves.  

I don't think so.  

Quote

Earlier this year Dennis Prager wrote on "meaning" and how it is playing out these days: The Question That Explains Almost Everything

Some excerpts:

This reflects my sentiments.  This is why I find atheism so unattractive.  As I see it, in the end, it denies or trivializes "meaning" in life.

No it doesn't.  

Quote

  Prager continues:

Yep.  "Meaning" needs to be tethered to morality.  Atheism provides neither.

"Atheism" is simply a lack in belief in God.  It's not set up to be religion as some try to frame it.  It's not a way of life, or a means to an end.  There are plenty of people who lack a belief in God, for your info, who see reason and need for objective morality.  Odd comment you offer though.  He offers a bunch of meaning to different religious perspectives, including things like radical Islamic terrorists.  I very much agree that meaning needs to be tethered to morality.  We need to find meaning in pursuing well being for humanity.  

Quote

I don't see things as bleakly as Prager does, but I share his overarching concern for diminishing focus on and strength in family, religion, and community.

At that point Prager goes into secular/political discussion, but concludes with a renewed emphasis on "traditional meaning givers" (family, religion, community and patriotism).

I think he's right.  These "meaning givers" are not valid because they are "traditional."  They are traditional because they are valid. 

I don't follow this Prager often.  I see a number of my conservative Mormon family and friends advocating his stuff.  When I do venture, it seems rather hollow really.  Not much different here.  he doesn't say much that is convincing.  

Quote

Daniel Peterson has provided an excellent presentation on the positive effects religion has on society: What Difference Does It Make

In this piece he marshals considerable evidence of the benefits that accrue from religious faith/observance, and the corollary adverse effects of abandoning faith.

Seems like a cherry picked venture to me.  If all you want to do is point out the virtue of religion and the bad of non religion then that is all you'll see, I guess.  

Quote

See also here: How religious faith benefits society

The point, though, is that this story shows how religion can benefit society.

It can.  The point i'd raise is all that positives of religion can be realized without it.  We can move forward without it's negative effects yet taking that which is good.  

Quote

Right.  No chance ever of giving the Church credit for doing something good.  It must always have an ulterior, nefarious purpose.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not true.  But indeed, there is always some more complicated going on when it comes to large conglomerate corporations and those complicated matter.  It's not strictly the Church is just giving and caring, otherwise it wouldn't be housing many billions and seeking for profit ventures which result in nothing but all proceeds going to the poor and needy.  There is far more going on there.  

Edited September 28, 2020 by stemelbow

[Ahab]

On 9/25/2020 at 8:03 PM, california boy said:

WAIT.  You just moved the goal post.  You have been talking about true/real FAMILIES not who the parents are.  It is your comments concerning what a "true/real family" is that is so disrespectful to other families.  If you are changing your position, you should be clear about this.

I also distinguish between who the sperm/egg donor is and who the actually parents are.  A rapist is not a parent.  He only provided the sperm.  He may be the father but he is not the parent.  I takes a LOT more than that to be a parent.  

You are really reckless on how you use language.  Words have meaning.  How you use them has meaning.  If you miss spoke or did not mean what you first posted, I would respect you a LOT more if you would clarify what you meant and not wait until the 6th post to change your language.  Instead, I am quite offended by your remarks, as should everybody that believes a family can be defined way more than just who conceived a child.  When you say stuff like a "true/real family" is only who conceived a child, that is quite incinerate and offensive to millions of families both within the Church and especially outside of the Church.  

I didn't change any goal post.  My position of understanding is that a man and woman are at the head of each nuclear family, whether or not they have any children together, and when a man and woman do create or procreate a child together they are the real/true parents of that child whether or not their sexual union was solemnized as a proper "marriage" by government or God or anyone else.  I think that is as clear as I can make my point about what it takes to have a real/true family.  A real/true man and woman who have the potential (sperm/eggs) to become real/true parents of an extended family by sexually uniting to reproduce themselves, at which point their children become part of their extended family including grand and great parents (however grand and great they are) as well as siblings and cousins and uncles and aunts and every other type of relationship associated with that family line.  In some cases children may be adopted to become part of another family line, in addition to their real/true biological family line, but an adopted family relationship will dissolve unless it has been or will be sealed by the power of God (the priesthood).

I suspect you will still be upset after reading what I have written, and you may still choose to not believe it, but what I have said is the real/true truth of what is and was and will continue to make a real/true family.

Edited September 28, 2020 by Ahab

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

I didn't change any goal post.  My position of understanding is that a man and woman are at the head of each nuclear family, whether or not they have any children together, and when a man and woman do create or procreate a child together they are the real/true parents of that child whether or not their sexual union was solemnized as a proper "marriage" by government or God or anyone else.  I think that is as clear as I can make my point about what it takes to have a real/true family.  A real/true man and woman who have the potential (sperm/eggs) to become real/true parents of an extended family by sexually uniting to reproduce themselves, at which point their children become part of their extended family including grand and great parents (however grand and great they are) as well as siblings and cousins and uncles and aunts and every other type of relationship associated with that family line.  In some cases children may be adopted to become part of another family line, in addition to their real/true biological family line, but an adopted family relationship will dissolve unless it has been or will be sealed by the power of God (the priesthood).

I suspect you will still be upset after reading what I have written, and you may still choose to not believe it, but what I have said is the real/true truth of what is and was and will continue to make a real/true family.

So how does a rapist that gets a 14 year old fit into your "true family" scenario?

 

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So how does a rapist that gets a 14 year old fit into your "true family" scenario?

 

Anomalies.

 

[InCognitus]

On 9/26/2020 at 7:40 AM, theplains said:

The article mentioned this passage of scripture:

“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16–17).

Only the children of God are joint-heirs with Christ.

We are all spirit children of God (Heb 12:9, Acts 17:28-29), but not all "become" his children (John 1:12) in the behavioral sense to be his heirs.  Only those who are led by the Spirit of God are his heirs.

[Ahab]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

So how does a rapist that gets a 14 year old fit into your "true family" scenario?

 

A family consists of a male and a female who marry each other (sexual union) and any offspring they may reproduce, if they reproduce any offspring, so you figure it out.  

Putting the word "true" in front of a word just means the real thing is being referred to, rather than a fake or counterfeit version that may look a lot like the real or true thing but really isn't the real or true thing.

And calling a group of people a "family" doesn't necessarily mean the members of that family are acting in a virtuous or noble manner or only doing good things to other members of that family, if it truly is a family.

My point was simply to delineate the constitution of a real family, as opposed to what some people may call a family when it really isn't a family, while mentioning the various titles of family members.

For what it is worth you might also like to know that I am not one of those people who would say an animal is a member of my family, as some people do when they have a pet or farm animal like a cow or a chicken.  When a family has a pet or animal they simply have it, and it is not a member of their family.

Edited September 29, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

We are all spirit children of God (Heb 12:9, Acts 17:28-29), but not all "become" his children (John 1:12) in the behavioral sense to be his heirs.  Only those who are led by the Spirit of God are his heirs.

The covenant we make with God, and the binding power of the priesthood, are necessary too,  Many are led by the Spirit of God to some extent but stop short of accepting God's covenant and priesthood.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

A family consists of a male and a female who marry each other (sexual union) and any offspring they may reproduce, if they reproduce any offspring, so you figure it out.  

Putting the word "true" in front of a word just means the real thing is being referred to, rather than a fake or counterfeit version that may look a lot like the real or true thing but really isn't the real or true thing.

And calling a group of people a "family" doesn't necessarily mean the members of that family are acting in a virtuous or noble manner or only doing good things to other members of that family, if it truly is a family.

My point was simply to delineate the constitution of a real family, as opposed to what some people may call a family when it really isn't a family, while mentioning the various titles of family members.

For what it is worth you might also like to know that I am not one of those people who would say an animal is a member of my family, as some people do when they have a pet or farm animal like a cow or a chicken.  When a family has a pet or animal they simply have it, and it is not a member of their family.

I really find your devaluing other families that don't live up to your "perfect ideal" as not being "real families" disturbing and insulting. 

There is no such thing as one single "true family".  I want every child to receive the best nurturing and caring they can get, which is not always possible just because a farther and mother are present.  There are many cases where the family can only become a real family when some drunkin wife beating  husband is no longer allowed to be near his children is just one such family situation.  I am not ever going degrade them by saying they are not a "real family".

Sometimes families are NOT the one you are born into.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

I really find your devaluing other families that don't live up to your "perfect ideal" as not being "real families" disturbing and insulting. 

There is no such thing as one single "true family".  I want every child to receive the best nurturing and caring they can get, which is not always possible just because a farther and mother are present.  There are many cases where the family can only become a real family when some drunkin wife beating  husband is no longer allowed to be near his children is just one such family situation.  I am not ever going degrade them by saying they are not a "real family".

Sometimes families are NOT the one you are born into.

It's a question of disagreeing on semantics.  You have your paradigm, he has his and there is no way to judge who is "right"

I can understand your view as well as his.

But that is my paradigm and may not be yours.  That makes three of us with three somewhat different paradigms with no one to judge between us.

🤓.   Kind of like life, huh?