Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
wayfarer wrote:
and rotten fruit is not always bad…some grape rot (specific fungi) makes for the most delicious wines.Agreed!
But you haven’t discussed the difference between lying for the Lord and Pious Fraud. A reason that many of us struggle is when we come to realize all the lying for the Lord to which we have been subjected. When is it just a lie and when is it Pious. A straight forward response would/could be we decide (I like that because I think we need to make our own path). However, if god(s) inspires people to write a portion of “The Mind” and wrap it in a lie, then what is trustworthy? If that is the case I think I (at least for me) prefer to through it all out and rely on my connection with “The Mind” (sort of an ex nihilo inspiratum). That cuts all other people’s lies and delusions and at least replaces them with my own.
wayfarer wrote:Pious Fraud works.
Just for my own edification, how is Pious Fraud better than lying for the Lord? Isn’t the fruit of a rotten tree rotten?
This is one where I much prefer the JST to the KIng James for Matthew 7:1.
Quote:“Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment”
We have to judge, but we also have to be aware of our attitudes and motivations for the judgement. Judge properly, fairly, not with pride or wilfulness – righteously. Mostly I don’t live up to the standard, but I am trying to improve.
Yes. But I believe that I should use the best information available to take care of the temple that is my body. I believe that the revelation in section 89 is to be wise and use the best information and judgement available. Two examples: 1) wheat is not for this man nor are other grains – Celiac is difficult to live with so I can’t follow that part of it as the church interprets it; 2) I believe the best available evidence is that occasional use of wine has many health benefits that are applicable to my genetic health risks – so I would be unwise to not use that to take care of my body/temple. Be wise is the underlying principle – if I do that then I am keeping the word of wisdom. I have no intention of reading the book either – my stomach isn’t that strong. However about the OP, a little historical perspective may be in order. I am actually old enough to remember JFK. (just missed voting for him so that gives you an idea of how ancient). In those days the Utah (and US) members of the church weren’t stereotypical republicans, in fact the majority were probably democrats – in today’s parlance Utah would have been considered purple leaning blue. JFK was adored by the church members and many leaders (had a great and close relationship with DOM). A Utah gov was more likely to be a dem rather than a repub (Cal Rampton for example). Frank Moss was one of the longest serving US senators at the time (before he was defeated by Hatch). Going back further Utah provided the final vote over turning Prohibition (despite the wishes of HJG and most of the other brethren). Utah adored FDR and was strongly in the Democrat camp. I would venture to say that for the majority of the US Mormons, even now, their most revered presidents would be RR, JFK, and FDR (outside the founders and Lincoln). I remember my parents as democratic members who slowly shifted to be diehard republicans late in life. So what happened to the majority of US Mormons? How did we shift from heavily democratic to heavily republican? Part of it was abortion, part was a reaction to the reaction to the Vietnam War (Mormon’s of all political persuasions have traditionally been deeply patriotic), part of it was economics (the church and it’s members became more wealthy in the later half of the 20th century and wealth frequently begets conservatism), and part of it was the overall social change that the members and leaders saw happening. Regardless, in terms of social and economic values, the Democratic party has drifted farther left (practically unrecognizable from the 50’s party, while the Republicans have both drifted a bit left (moderates) and a bit right (tea party). Romney for example would probably have fit right in as a 50’s republican leader but, President Obama (putting race aside) would have been far to the left of the 50’s Democratic Party. Personally as some one who as voted for just one Republican for President in the last 50 years (I’ll let you guess who), I think the move has been a good thing – but then I am an atypical Mormon. So what changed – I think the Dem’s have gone farther left, while the US body of the church has stayed the same or been “correlated” slightly right. To an certain extent, I think Reagan was correct when he said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me.” this is just my view as another old liberal.
