The Neurology of Belief....

[_rcrocket]

Your slip is showing again, Loran. Marriage as we know it is a recent phenomena, a product of the Industrial Revolution. Prior to then, marriage was only utilized by royalty and the aristocracy, to ensure inheritances and property passed from generation to generation. The general population made do with simply living together or jumping over a stick type of ceremonies. Marriage's main purpose never was to nurture children. Marriage was a legal action regarding property.

Coggins: The above is as devoid of serious intelletcual [sic] content as was your pityfully uneducated posing over the DDT issue. Marriage "as we know it" is a product of the last century and a half? Bluster on Harmony, your leftwing intellectual retardation is becoming a real drag.

Well, I am a left-winger. I can't believe how ill-read you are, Harmony. Marriage ceremonies (monogomous, I might add) were in ancient Greece, Rome, Babylon, Persia, Syria and the Celts. In the more advanced civilizations, homosexuality was generally considered a vice although often tolerated with a wink and a nod. I suggest you read Durant for an overview of world history before making statements like this. He's one place to start.

The Church co-opted marriage in the Fifth Century, and basically everybody had to be married or were considered committing a mortal sin and not able to take communion. It was not a "property" consideration alone.

P

[Dr. Sunstoned]

What a hypocrite you are. Posting anonymous statements like this, while carefully claiming elsewhere to be a recommend holding active member of the Church. You are either lying about your church status, or a complete coward. Either way, your position does not look attractive.

I don't know to what extent you've followed the knock down, drag outs I've had with Harmony in this forum, but she's laid this trip on me on more than one occasion. She has, according to her own account of the matter, a substantial list of Mormon "credentials, including the Temple recommend, callings, continuous church activity, etc, and all of this is apparantly to demonstrate that people like her who, for all intents and purposes, are utterly and implacibly hostile to the vast majority of church teachings and doctrine, its culture, the normative politics and social attitudes of most of its people, and a visceral despisal of most or all of its general authorities, post past and present (at least if they ar male).

I've met another such individual, a signiture books type self styled intellectual and critic of the church known as Mel Tungate (on a couple of email lists some years ago) and his approach was the same: I've got a Temple recommend, I go to church regularly, I've held callings, I've been in the Bishopric, etc., so how can you say the things I believe and teach aren't compatible with the church (this particular individual believed that Joseph Smith was not only a fraud, a lecher, and murderer, but had no substantive belief in the accounts of the origin of the Book of Mormon and church at all. My positon was that this made him, de facto, a non-member, at least intellectually. He drops his wallet and shows me all his Mormon credentials. Case closed).

Interestingly, Scratch just mentioned last night that he didn't hate the church at all; that all he wanted to do was save, or redeem it from its lower self.

It seems that the "all I'm trying to do is help" and "I'm a faithful active member just like you" school of anti-Momonism is fast becoming a popular bait and switch polemical tactic.

[_rcrocket]

Indeed.

When I first started corresponding with Harmony, she used an interesting phrase. I can't recall it but I can paraphrase it: "I hold a recommend just like you do. Who knows, I can be sitting across the temple aisle from you some day and you wouldn't even know it."

The first time she used it, I thought it was an effective rejoinder and did make her hit pieces against living people and the Church more effective.

The second time she used it, I rolled on the floor with laughter.

The third time she used it, I assumed that she has a computer clipboard somewhere and just calls it up whenever she needs it.

And, good observation. She plainly hates men, or at least males in authority.

Another one of her tactics is to pose "questions." I remember a very long list of questions directed to temple content which, if answered, would have caused those even marginally affiliated with the Church discomfort. I recall that nobody was willing to tackle them. But, she argues often by "questions," reasoning that "questions" aren't really taking much of a position. But, her recent post about the foolishness of believing in a person who looked in a hat (gee, why is this a surprise; David Whitmer described this method of translation from the get-go; oh, that's right, she has never heard of "An Address to All Believers in Christ").

But, enough about her.

P

[_Coggins7]

This is precisely what made me, as well as some others from the old ZLMB forum, suspect that she was actually LSD, a particularly virulent individual with whome many (including Wade and I, some months ago), engaged in the verbal equivalent of all out thermonuclear war with issue after issue. We were all put in our places about that (I think), but the overall style is still present and suggestive. LSD had a particularly radical Feminist, what could only be described as animus against males per se and LDS males with a proverbial vengeance.

I've still got to give Vegas credit for the Mormon wives as "sexual meat dolls" line. If I were Roger Corman I'd be working on the screenplay for that as we speak.

Loran

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Loran, thanks for your response--especially its civility, much appreciated! Pasted from your post, into which i'll interject in italics:

I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Possibly. However, in Jesus' words--as we have them--he seems to spend more time presenting what some call, "the social gospel" than speaking about, "fornication, adultery, and homosexuality". In the incident of the adultress brought to him, he did not endorse stoning her. He barely rebuked her. He simply said "...sin no more." He also took occassion to chide the self-righteous Pharasees, "...you think you're so pure...when you lust...you've committed adultery in your heart..."

If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. "...societal messes..." are obvious, and a challenge! However, to ascribe them all to the 'sexual revolution' i think is to ignore other social factors, old and new, that are causal of what is symptomatic as seen in infidelity and its sad, and serious, consequences.

All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools. This social morass, you well describe, unfortunately is not new. It was the focus 2,000 years ago of Jesus as he wept over the conditions of his people. His prescriptions of remedy however, have not been taken regularly; if indeed they have really been glanced at... "Two New Commandments..." have as yet not come into their own, generally speaking. Yet, we do see, and experience, "...spiritually healthy children" and adults, who are about-good-works... Loran, there is no doubt in my mind that "Family Matters". However, IMSCO, the 'family' to this point in time, has not filled its mandate well; with exceptions of course. Otherwise the social dysfunctions laid out above would not exist to the extent they do...

"Morality" is integrity of relationship, and that integrity does not end with only those closest too us (and it cannot so end, as the quality of our relationships with them will determine the quality of our relationships with the greater community and with the nation as a whole, as the effects of those most intimate relationships are manifested in effects through wider and wider concentric circles of societal structure) In total agreement! .

In other words, in a gospel context, acute abuse of others is only one manifestation of "immorality". Our private behavior, as with our private thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and core characterological attributes, have effects outside of those uniquely private spheres. Total agreement--in every social context!

"Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated. A bit garbled here, but i would say, "not necessarily so"???

This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy. In this context, anything we do to one another that hinders, retards, or in severe cases, cripples or destroys our ability to move closer to our Father in Heaven, become more like him, and eventually return to his presence as outlined in LDS theology, is immoral, since it is a relationship of disintegrity in that the consequences of such actions, even when full consent is present, is, being destructive to the happiness and ultimately, spiritual and personal fulfillment of the individual as a child of God, destructive to all involved in that consensual relationship. A very long sentence. To which i generally agree. I will extend it beyond LDS theology, as i think that is too limiting. "Children of God" are not confined to LDSism but are privy to their divine heritage wherever they abide...

In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.

,

The last paragraph demands more serious consideration than i can give it at the moment. However, i do not think anyone can escape the consequence of their actions. That is more than a priciple. It is an unavoidable reality. I'd like to pick this up later... Warm regards, Roger

[_harmony]

Loran, you're arguing for my points.

1. Marriage was (and still is, to a great degree) about property and inheritance. Please show me where anyone but the money'ed was married. All you've shown is that the aristocracy and the landed gentry and the politically powerful were married. Big deal! I already said they were. And why? Marriage was about property. Why do you think the father required a bride price? (because his daughter was his property and he wanted compensation for his loss). Why do you think the ceremony had (and still has) the father "give" the bride away? (because anciently, women were property, exchanged in return for other property). What was the most common way to cement alliances? Answer: through marriage. The rich married each other, made sure there was a male heir in order for the bloodline to continue, and then found the love of their life elsewhere. Our romantic attitude towards marriage is a result of Victorian England, and escalated since then.

Slaves did not marry. The poor did not marry. The vast majority of people did not marry. They loved, they copulated, they had children, but they did not marry. Heck, Adam and Eve were not married. How do we know this? Because marriage didn't exist then! Marriage is a legal action, combining the assets of two families, and it didn't exist until people began to own land. That's when inheritance laws were born. Marriage was for those with money who wanted to pass their wealth to their progeny. It required paying a fee, paying the clergy to perform a ceremony, money to buy food to feed the guests, money to maintain the bloodline.

2. You're conflating love and marriage. Modern marriage looks a lot different than ancient marriage did. You cite ancient gravestones as proof of love and marriage, but they are the aberration, not the norm (which points again to the amount of money the married had at their disposal... engraved gravestones required money). The only thing your gravestones show to me is that their owners had money, so of course they were married. They certainly don't prove that slaves or the poor married. Slaves didn't have gravestones; the poor didn't have gravestones. They died wherever they stood and were lucky if the animals didn't eat them.