a TEST is coming


The Folk Prophet
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Leftist values IS talking politics.

I know what I mean and what I am talking about. If you think it's something different then that's a miscommunication. But I am telling you, I am not talking about politics. I'm not talking about laws, voting, leadership in the country, or anything of the sort. I am talking about he leftist ideologies of relative morality, equality of outcome, and acceptance of sin in the name of "love". None of these require politics, though they are applied thereto in the political arena.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the test began (formally) in the 1960s. Until then, even though the world rejected some of our more "peculiar" beliefs, much of our core principles were in line with society's. Beginning in the 60s that all began to change and has been becoming more pronounced over time. Like Pres HInckley alluded, it will be our ability to hold to our old-fashioned principles in a world where it is all the fashion to embrace the cutting edge of moral evolution that will decide where we fall in the day of judgment. I think Pres Monson has it right when he quotes the poem:

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

- Alexander Pope

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't believe anger is the opposite of charity. There is such a thing as righteous anger, after all. I'd say the opposite of charity is probably apathy.

Well, yeah. The single source of the problem would have to be pretty broad -- as in Satan.

Once more, I'm not talking about or meaning leftist politics. I said leftist "values", and I meant it.

I disagree. Love is not about finding common ground. It is about salvation of souls. And there is no common ground with evil in this matter. There is only one way, one path, one means. Contention is irrelevant to separation of good and evil. They are, eternally, separate and divided. Whether we contend over the matter or not will not change this.

 

Anger that comes from hate is the opposit of charity.  I do not believe anger comes from compassion.  In scripture when it is spoken of as the anger of G-d - I am not sure that translates well into the anger we mortals experience that inspires war.  As I understand the salvation of souls - it is about love and forgiveness which is always the common ground.  But that common ground must be found first in our hearts.

And in hopes of understanding - my comments have all been about people.  Ideas can be attached to people - but in the end the struggle is about people.  I am thinking the test you speak of is a test of people.  Perhaps I should ask - do you think you and I have common ground?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I know what I mean and what I am talking about. If you think it's something different then that's a miscommunication. But I am telling you, I am not talking about politics. I'm not talking about laws, voting, leadership in the country, or anything of the sort. I am talking about he leftist ideologies of relative morality, equality of outcome, and acceptance of sin in the name of "love". None of these require politics, though they are applied thereto in the political arena.

When one says leftist values they are talking the political left's values.  What you are stating there is a typical Far right republican talking point, which overall, is confusing your own political ideology and trying to teach it as a religion.

There are many Republicans that would laugh in your face at you trying to state that their "values" were leftist values.  There are many republicans today that also feel religion should be destroyed or shut out, and that are atheist in thought and belief.  There are Republicans that feel that marriage is an outdated notion and that relations outside of marriage are not just moral, but normal and justified.  There are many other morals they have...that if you tried telling them that these were "leftist values" would have them LAUGH you out of the park...why...because when you say leftist values, you are defining a POLITICAL term.

I would ask you to stop directing political attacks on people, such as myself.  It is offensive, and derogatory.  Instead, we should be brothers in the Lord, and in the church, because we have a common ground in LDS values and a common goal of the salvation of our brothers and sister through the gospel.  This is NOT the sieve that we are going through, but it CAN act as something that tries to separate the saints instead of them recognizing that members come in all types and forms, and the Lord is no respecter of persons.

We should LOVE all of our brethren and sisters, even if we do not and cannot condone their actions.  There is a great sifting (which is what the topic is about) taking place, and sadly, it isn't really over something as little and trifle as politics usually, but normally more over a lack of testimony and withstanding against the temptations and trials of the world.

In fact, may I suggest you use the term...worldly values instead, as that probably is more in context with what is truly sifting us...in it is the values of the world or the values of men vs. that values of the Lord and what we have a testimony of.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, skippy740 said:

Yes, there are leftist values seeking to twist traditional meanings behind things... but if it doesn't occur, where is the choice?  Where is the test?  None of these outcomes, if and when passed, affects an individual from choosing the right path.  Changing secular laws, as long as they don't interfere with the freedom of religion and religious practices... won't interfere with anyone else living the life they choose to live.

 

 

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

 Laws themselves are based upon moral principles. There is nothing wrong with strict moral law.

I don't agree with both of these.  I'm even going to say further that both of these are the incorrect way to look at and apply law.  But before I write more, I first want to put this out here that we ought not conflate what is Cesar's and what is God's.

The law of the land, as envisioned and enshrined in the United States of America, is not about encoding morality nor interference with freedom.  Rather, the law of the land is about PROTECTIONS.  Let's take for example... codifying Marriage into law.  Marriage in secular law is not about morality or religious practice or choices... it is about protection.  Codifying marriage is, first and foremost, protection of children.  The resistance to gay marriage is not about interfering with anyone's personal lifestyle nor infringement of religious liberties - it is about protection of children.

Eternal law, on the other hand, is a completely different ball of wax.  It sits OVER secular law even as it respects it.  Eternal law goes beyond protections into a way of life.  The life of Godliness that is desired of everyone - religious, spiritual, agnostics, and atheists all.  Codifying eternal law into secular law is, of course, futile.  Hence, give to Cesar what is Cesar's and give to God what is God's.  The TEST is in God's realm.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't agree with both of these.  I'm even going to say further that both of these are the incorrect way to look at and apply law.  But before I write more, I first want to put this out here that we ought not conflate what is Cesar's and what is God's.

The law of the land, as envisioned and enshrined in the United States of America, is not about encoding morality nor interference with freedom.  Rather, the law of the land is about PROTECTIONS.  Let's take for example... codifying Marriage into law.  Marriage in secular law is not about morality or religious practice or choices... it is about protection.  Codifying marriage is, first and foremost, protection of children.  The resistance to gay marriage is not about interfering with anyone's personal lifestyle nor infringement of religious liberties - it is about protection of children.

Eternal law, on the other hand, is a completely different ball of wax.  It sits OVER secular law even as it respects it.  Eternal law goes beyond protections into a way of life.  The life of Godliness that is desired of everyone - religious, spiritual, agnostics, and atheists all.  Codifying eternal law into secular law is, of course, futile.  Hence, give to Cesar what is Cesar's and give to God what is God's.  The TEST is in God's realm.

It used to be.  It used to be that if you were caught committing adultery, it was a crime.  Now, nobody cares.  Police have far more to worry about than if a man cheats on his wife (and vice versa).

I don't understand how preventing gay marriage is about protection of children.  Either someone is a pedophile, or they are not.  Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with that.  Statistically and demographically speaking, I'm sure there are far more pedophiles that are 'straight' than with same-sex attraction... but pedophilia is also a perversion and a crime, so using the term 'straight' may be quite a stretch.  Gay marriage MAY have more to do with religious liberties - making someone perform a ceremony against their beliefs, etc.  Meaning it could be interpreted as a power-grab to force people to serve their needs.  But to say that it's about protection of children... I don't see it.  Not anymore.  While there are stories of abuse designed to twist and manipulate people to think that the other side is truly evil, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

When one says leftist values they are talking the political left's values. 

Yes. But that being true doesn't mean that a discussion of those values is a political discussion. Nor is my discussion of leftist values meant to include ALL leftist values. In point of fact I have specified which values I mean.  I happen to consider those ideologies leftist.

35 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

What you are stating there is a typical Far right republican talking point

Even if that is true, which it may be -- I don't know and I don't care -- it has no bearing on the accuracy of it. That being said...what is it am I stating that is a far right talking point? You know what...nevermind. I really don't care. An idea is either right or wrong - it doesn't matter who is espousing the idea.

36 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

which overall, is confusing your own political ideology and trying to teach it as a religion.

I'm not confusing my political ideology with my religious. My political ideology is influenced by my religious one. You seem to assume it's the other way around. For me, always, religion comes first, and all things temporal are spiritual.

40 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are many Republicans that would laugh in your face at you trying to state that their "values" were leftist values.  There are many republicans today that also feel religion should be destroyed or shut out, and that are atheist in thought and belief.  There are Republicans that feel that marriage is an outdated notion and that relations outside of marriage are not just moral, but normal and justified.  There are many other morals they have...that if you tried telling them that these were "leftist values" would have them LAUGH you out of the park...why...because when you say leftist values, you are defining a POLITICAL term.

Many Republicans are leftists now.

42 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I would ask you to stop directing political attacks on people, such as myself. 

I haven't so I can't. That being said, if and when I do attack someone politically, it will be because I believe it right to do so, and whether it's offensive to said person or not won't change that.

44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is offensive, and derogatory. 

In the eye of the beholder.

44 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Instead, we should be brothers in the Lord, and in the church, because we have a common ground in LDS values and a common goal of the salvation of our brothers and sister through the gospel. 

If my usage of the term "left" has derailed your ability to discuss my views then let's drop it and deal with the specifics. I have presented three ideas that I consider core to "the test". Do we have a so-called common ground in those views or not? If you agree with me that they are issues but simply disagree that they are "leftist values" then fine: My objective isn't to force my view of what leftist means or not. It is to address the specific ideologies that I consider problematic. Reiterated: Relative morality. Equality of outcome. Acceptance of sin in the name of "love".

If finding common ground and being brothers in the Lord is really what you're after here, what are you about in your responses to me?

51 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In fact, may I suggest you use the term...worldly values

Sure. Replace all instances of "leftist" with "worldy" in my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

I don't understand how preventing gay marriage is about protection of children.  But to say that it's about protection of children... I don't see it.  

Totally disagree.  You aren't thinking broadly enough.  I think government should get out of the business of marriage . . .however since it is in the business of marriage my response.

When you enshrine homosexual "marriage" into law what you allow to happen is through the force of law you ensure the ability of homosexual couples to raise children.  This is a gross abuse, how anyone who is a member of the Church can believe that raising a child in a homosexual marriage environment is just simply beyond me.  You are denying that innocent child the opportunity to be raised by both male and female to gain a proper understanding of role models for male and female.

I agree the no family is perfect, however a child has the sacred right to be raised in a home with both a mother and a father not in a home with two fathers or two mothers.  For issues of child adoption and foster homes the State has an obligation (as long as it is involved in it) to promote the best environment that will lead to a happy, healthy rising generation.  The state should place children into homes with both a mother and a father.  To do otherwise is child abuse . .. and I don't use that term lighly-it is child abuse.

Why do you think the Church got out of the adoption business?  Because if they stayed in it they would eventually (through discrimination laws) be forced to place children into homosexual environments-that is just pure evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And every single parent household is also a problem in raising children too?  After all, it's just a father OR a mother... or other relatives/guardians.  Only through the lens of our faith do we see the 'right' of children to be raised by both a mother and a father. 

Life doesn't work that way and HASN'T worked that way.  I'll say this - I'll defend that AS SOON AS every child in orphanages and foster care are adopted by healthy mothers and fathers.  You go first.

What is the "best environment"?  Mothers and fathers who are emotionally stable and financially secure.  Oh, you mean that not every family environment is a healthy, emotionally stable, and financially secure environment??  Oh, so perfection is a worthy goal, but impossible to achieve everywhere at all times.

The Church got out of the adoption business because of the rising threat of LITIGATION to defend their right to place children that fit with the Church's views.  It was a FINANCIALLY motivated decision and not a wise use of tithing funds should litigation be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

I don't agree with both of these.  I'm even going to say further that both of these are the incorrect way to look at and apply law.  But before I write more, I first want to put this out here that we ought not conflate what is Cesar's and what is God's.

The law of the land, as envisioned and enshrined in the United States of America, is not about encoding morality nor interference with freedom.  Rather, the law of the land is about PROTECTIONS.  Let's take for example... codifying Marriage into law.  Marriage in secular law is not about morality or religious practice or choices... it is about protection.  Codifying marriage is, first and foremost, protection of children.  The resistance to gay marriage is not about interfering with anyone's personal lifestyle nor infringement of religious liberties - it is about protection of children.

Eternal law, on the other hand, is a completely different ball of wax.  It sits OVER secular law even as it respects it.  Eternal law goes beyond protections into a way of life.  The life of Godliness that is desired of everyone - religious, spiritual, agnostics, and atheists all.  Codifying eternal law into secular law is, of course, futile.  Hence, give to Cesar what is Cesar's and give to God what is God's.  The TEST is in God's realm.

Well, plain and simply speaking- you are wrong. Laws are and must be based on moral principles. Laws that are based on secularism erode and destroy freedom, family and society as a whole. Try as men might you cannot divorce morality from what is right and true. All things that are right and true are based off of sound moral principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, skippy740 said:

What you need to understand... is the definition of a fundamental right.

"A fundamental right is a right which ALL people can simultaneously claim without forcing someone to serve their needs." - Joel Skousen

In short - do what you want with your own life.  Live the way you want... but don't force me to serve your needs or impede on my liberties.

Murder, theft, rape... all impede on someone else.  I never talked about any of that.  I talked about the freedom to choose moral agency for ones self.  If you want to look at porn, go ahead.  If you want to be in a same-sex relationship with two consenting adults, go ahead.  I won't say there won't be eternal consequences, but you have the freedom to choose - as long as you don't impose your will onto another person.

You want to drink alcohol?  Fine.  Go ahead.  But don't drink and drive, because that becomes a danger to society - both in terms of property and a danger to someone else's life.  Do it in your own home or arrange a ride home.

Or do you propose a distorted interpretation of the Articles of Faith?

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

... unless I don't like how you lead your life.  Then it's my job to force you through the laws of the land to live as I want you to live.

Laws are based off the tolerance of people in their current states of wickedness or righteousness. In some places prostitution is legal, other places its not. In some places drinking or possession of alcohol is illegal, other places it is not. There are myriads of laws throughout the land from state to state, county to county, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A society that chooses a strict moral set of laws is not forcing their will on others. Satans plan wasnt forced obedience at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws have to do with how we treat and respect each other in society.  Laws are for protecting me from you and vice versa (plural 'you' not you specifically).

Children need protection, so there are seat-belt and child seat laws.  There are also laws against smoking in your car or home if you have children.  Why?  To protect children against foolish adults who may not recognize the severity of their actions on others who don't have a voice.

Show me how a same-sex couple in a "marriage" is anyone else's business in society that laws should be enacted for it?  Who are they protecting them from?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Laws are based off the tolerance of people in their current states of wickedness or righteousness. In some places prostitution is legal, other places its not. In some places drinking or possession of alcohol is illegal, other places it is not. There are myriads of laws throughout the land from state to state, county to county, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A society that chooses a strict moral set of laws is not forcing their will on others. Satans plan wasnt forced obedience at all.

Yep - it's "live our way or leave".  Ever go to these places and say "Wow.  That's just insane?"  In Kentucky, you have drive-thru liquor stores.  (How about that Bible belt, huh?)  Yet in Utah, you can't buy beer or liquor on Sunday.  Better prepare in advance!  It's not that you can't drink it - you just can't BUY it.  Why not?  Probably to ease the conscience of store owners who already feel guilty about opening their stores on Sunday, let alone selling alcoholic beverages.  Sounds like that county clerk in Kentucky who wouldn't issue same-sex marriage licenses - it's a personal problem / cognitive dissonance with the issue and a failure to reconcile the values.

California and Colorado made pot legal.  Why?  Tax revenues and to avoid big drug sentences for what people are saying is a 'harmless drug'.  The rest of the nation will follow suit over time.

California also legalized child prostitution.  Well, no.  That's not what happened.  What happened was that California chose not to prosecute children who are in prostitution and not brand them for life as sex-offenders.  This can also help with children who have smartphones who end up sharing nude pictures of themselves.  Remember, that's child pornography and that's a problem.  http://www.snopes.com/child-prostitution-legalized-in-california/

I suggest looking at various laws INDIVIDUALLY and asking "What is the purpose behind this law?  Who does it serve?  Who does it protect?  Why is it this way?"  We need to look at what's going on in society and view society AS IT IS, not "as we wish it to be".

Satan's plan was either forced obedience, the rejection of any law, or requiring the lack of thinking for ourselves and becoming just as carnal as an animal operating on instinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

 

Yes, that's "why" you say laws exist. I'm asking why we need to protect anyone? Why is protection important? Why is it that we "need" to protect those who don't have a voice -- or even those who do?

Incidentally, @LiterateParakeet, this ^ is what intentional baiting looks like. :D

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

Yep - it's "live our way or leave".  Ever go to these places and say "Wow.  That's just insane?"  In Kentucky, you have drive-thru liquor stores.  (How about that Bible belt, huh?)  Yet in Utah, you can't buy beer or liquor on Sunday.  Better prepare in advance!  It's not that you can't drink it - you just can't BUY it.  Why not?  Probably to ease the conscience of store owners who already feel guilty about opening their stores on Sunday, let alone selling alcoholic beverages.  Sounds like that county clerk in Kentucky who wouldn't issue same-sex marriage licenses - it's a personal problem / cognitive dissonance with the issue and a failure to reconcile the values.

California and Colorado made pot legal.  Why?  Tax revenues and to avoid big drug sentences for what people are saying is a 'harmless drug'.  The rest of the nation will follow suit over time.

California also legalized child prostitution.  Well, no.  That's not what happened.  What happened was that California chose not to prosecute children who are in prostitution and not brand them for life as sex-offenders.  This can also help with children who have smartphones who end up sharing nude pictures of themselves.  Remember, that's child pornography and that's a problem.  http://www.snopes.com/child-prostitution-legalized-in-california/

I suggest looking at various laws INDIVIDUALLY and asking "What is the purpose behind this law?  Who does it serve?  Who does it protect?  Why is it this way?"  We need to look at what's going on in society and view society AS IT IS, not "as we wish it to be".

Satan's plan was either forced obedience, the rejection of any law, or requiring the lack of thinking for ourselves and becoming just as carnal as an animal operating on instinct.

Well, Im for creating Zion and in Zion you cant have wickedness. As we each do our part to eradicate evilness from society we need laws in place to protect the righteous. Thats Gods plan and Im all for Gods plan. Satans plan was to get everyone to sin, remain sinful, then bring them into his own kingdom to rule over them as his captive slaves.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yes, that's "why" you say laws exist. I'm asking why we need to protect anyone? Why is protection important? Why is it that we "need" to protect those who don't have a voice -- or even those who do?

Incidentally, @LiterateParakeet, this ^ is what intentional baiting looks like. :D

 

32 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

Laws have to do with how we treat and respect each other in society.

 

Or, it's about someone trying to gain power, influence, and authority over others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, Im for creating Zion and in Zion you cant have wickedness. As we each do our part to eradicate evilness from society we need laws in place to protect the righteous. Thats Gods plan and Im all for Gods plan. Satans plan was to get everyone to sin, remain sinful, then bring them into his own kingdom to rule over them as his captive slaves.

 

 

 

The City of Enoch had NO DESIRE to do wickedness.  That does not mean that it was against the law.  Two completely different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

I'm answering your question exactly.  Maybe you should ask a different question. 

O.....kay.....

So I'm looking at what you've said and conclude, as best I can, that you are saying that the reason why we need to protect children is " to gain power, influence, and authority over others." Is that assessment accurate? If not so (which I presume because that makes no sense), please clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children are WHOSE responsibility?  Their parents.

Can children DICTATE to their parents?  Successfully?  No, they cannot.

Can children leave their parents if they don't like it and parents abdicate their responsibility as parents?  There may be, but it's not an automatic thing until children are 18 years old.

Now, to protect children, who UNDER THE LAW have no voice, they are a cause by lawmakers to fight for their protection.  Perhaps it may get too strong, or not... but because UNDER THE LAW children have no voice and limited legal rights compared to legal adults, they need protection.

I have answered according to my limited knowledge of the law.  Is there some moral question you are trying to ask or infer from all this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share