The Ancients

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

guy sajer wrote:Yes despite it all, I would argue that society today (at least Western Society) is far more "moral" that at any time in history, if one judges morality by respect for human rights, human freedoms, and human dignity.


On paper, you mean. And remind me what 'human rights, human freedoms, and human dignity' are. I guess they must be absolute truths which modern man finally stumbled over like the law of gravity, rather than arbitrary social control constructs which were simply invented 300 years ago (surely that couldn't be true).

Society is far from perfect; there exist many moral outrages big and small, but at the very least, we possess a moral framework in which to understand and judge these acts, and we are open to increasing moral understanding and development.


Again, that moral framework is on paper. It is not reality. The reality is that society conditions us to very different behaviours.

The ancients do have much to teach us about human experience, but little about human morality. Our understanding of the moral universe has increased geometrically since the ancient days making much of what ancient holy books have to tell us about morality quite irrelevant.


On what basis do you make that statement?

Fort, I seem to note in you a bit of nostalgia for the good old days when life was simpler, people lived in small, close knit communities, and society was governed by good old fashioned morals (I’ve perhaps misread you). You are highly critical of modern times, yet appear to have a critical blind spot for the halcyon days of yore.


It's not nostalgia, because I wasn't around back then. I am certainly critical of modern society, and rightly so. Just look at the place. It's a wreck. You honestly think that a society in which kids shoot each other en masse in schools has anything to teach us about morality? Give me a break.

I do not have a 'blind spot for the halcyon days of yore'. I'm fully aware that life was usually shorter, less comfortable, and didn't involve the enjoyable indulgent exploitations of others which we in modern society today believe are so important for our personal well being. I would be prepared to lose some of our mod cons and put up with a less pampered lifestyle in exchange for the benefits of previous societies.

Life in the traditional community had its advantages, but it also had its disadvantages, as does modern society.


Of course it had its disadvantages. I simply believe that the disadvantages of today's society outweigh the advantages, and the advantages of earlier societies outweigh the disadvantages.

I think it perfectly acceptable to criticize the failings of modern society (which are legion), but in doing so, it helps to keep in mind, to quote the song, “the good old days weren’t always so good.”


I agree with you. But then we would disagree on which parts of the 'good old days' were actually 'good'.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

harmony wrote:No one ever asks the people who have actually accomplished these things. If you want to know how to raise children who reach adulthood without ever going to jail, skipping school, doing drugs, getting drunk, engaging in reckless sexual activity, wearing $300 shoes, wrecking the environment, or any other anti-social activity, ask someone who's done it.


Like my parents. And every parent in my congregation back in Australia. But hey, who would want to learn from religious people? What would they know about child rearing? They're just enslaved to the scribblings of a few ancient savages.

We have a similiar situation where I work. We are a very large division of a national non-profit. Utah is one of our states. In Utah, we have a revolving door, actually more like a spinning door that tosses out employees right, left, and center. We have a terrible track record with employees in Utah. Our upper management doesn't understand Utah's dominant culture and keeps trying to approach the good citizens of Utah like they approach the citizens of other states. That won't work in Utah. Until they ask someone who knows the dominant culture in Utah, they are never going to solve their staffing problems. But they don't ask, so we continue to lose staff.


Some people just don't like learning from other people.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Runtu wrote:
The key is the belief that the ancients were in connection with God in a way we are not.


I agree with you, Guy. For me, it's healthier to view the ancients as part of a rich history of interwoven experience, so their perspective is valuable and enlightening. But when we assume that our relationship with the divine is lesser than theirs (or those of certain folks in the Intermountain West), we downplay our own spirituality and begin to believe that we need others to act as intermediaries between us and God.


Believing that they had a connection with God which we do not is not to downplay our spirituality or assume that our relationship with the divine is lesser than theirs. This point is made very strongly in the Bible.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Fortigurn wrote:
Runtu wrote:
The key is the belief that the ancients were in connection with God in a way we are not.


I agree with you, Guy. For me, it's healthier to view the ancients as part of a rich history of interwoven experience, so their perspective is valuable and enlightening. But when we assume that our relationship with the divine is lesser than theirs (or those of certain folks in the Intermountain West), we downplay our own spirituality and begin to believe that we need others to act as intermediaries between us and God.


Believing that they had a connection with God which we do not is not to downplay our spirituality or assume that our relationship with the divine is lesser than theirs. This point is made very strongly in the Bible.


Why do you assume they had a connection with God that you do not?
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

harmony wrote:Why do you assume they had a connection with God that you do not?


It's not an assumption, it's a matter of faith.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Fortigurn wrote:
harmony wrote:Why do you assume they had a connection with God that you do not?


It's not an assumption, it's a matter of faith.


Do you have so little faith in your own connection with God?
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

harmony wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
harmony wrote:Why do you assume they had a connection with God that you do not?


It's not an assumption, it's a matter of faith.


Do you have so little faith in your own connection with God?


No. This has nothing to do with me having 'so little faith in my own connection with God'. But God doesn't appear to me, visit me by the agency of angels, show me visions, speak to me audibly from the heaven's, or supply me with prophecies of the future.

I learned in elementary school that 'different' doesn't necessarily mean 'inferior'. I think people need to remember that.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Fortigurn wrote:
harmony wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
harmony wrote:Why do you assume they had a connection with God that you do not?


It's not an assumption, it's a matter of faith.


Do you have so little faith in your own connection with God?


No. This has nothing to do with me having 'so little faith in my own connection with God'. But God doesn't appear to me, visit me by the agency of angels, show me visions, speak to me audibly from the heaven's, or supply me with prophecies of the future.

I learned in elementary school that 'different' doesn't necessarily mean 'inferior'. I think people need to remember that.


What makes you think he appeared to the ancients? Visited them by the agency of angels (whatever that means)? Showed them visions? Spoke to them audibly from the heavens? Supplied them with prophecies of the future? Just because they said so? Heck, Joseph Smith claimed the same, but you don't believe him, do you? Why do you believe what the ancients said?
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Heck, Joseph Smith claimed the same, but you don't believe him, do you? Why do you believe what the ancients said?


Do you believe that Heavenly Father and Christ appeared to Joseph in the grove? In the past, you have always stated that you felt that Joseph's vision was real, and the Book of Mormon was an inspired translation. Your stance in the past has been that he lost his spirituality during the time he had the affair with Fanny Alger, and that he instituted polygamy to cover his tracks.

Frankly, this is a theory I have also given pause to. I'm still at a crossroads regarding my feelings about the whole polygamy issue and how it fits into truthfulness of doctrine.
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

harmony wrote:What makes you think he appeared to the ancients? Visited them by the agency of angels (whatever that means)? Showed them visions? Spoke to them audibly from the heavens? Supplied them with prophecies of the future?


As I said, it's a matter of faith.

Just because they said so?


No.

Heck, Joseph Smith claimed the same, but you don't believe him, do you? Why do you believe what the ancients said?


There are significant differences between what Smith said and what the 'ancients' I trust said. The major differences involve verification. I can verify enough of what these 'ancients' said in order to provide sufficient basis for rational faith. This cannot be done for Smith.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Post Reply