The Folk Prophet

Why yes. Yes it is. evangelicality

I appreciated your response. But to be clear as to my intent, I specifically mean moral conservatism and liberalism. Sometimes moral conservatism/liberalism crosses into the political. Sometimes it does not. I can't say my political view has changed much at all. But I am definitely less likely to let a movie into my home that expresses questionable standards, for example. Whether laws should control the creation of said movies...????

Blame TFP for his convoluted writing and formatting styles.

I don't know if my thread title is really what I mean it to mean..but.... So, PC posted something in another thread about being "old-fashioned, intolerant, and narrow minded." It got me thinking about conservatism, particularly morally (not necessarily politically) speaking. I was raised in a conservative home. One might even call it ultra-conservative. BYU loving, Utah Valley, green jello mormonism. (I never got the green jello thing. Never made it. Never ate it. Never really even saw it. So maybe that undercuts my claim...but......) In my home we were modest. We did not swear (even if we had thought to my mother's wrath would have prevented it). We did not date until 16 (if then...yeah...I was a bit of a social nerd too). Did not watch R-rated movies (PG-13 wasn't around back then...so I'm not sure what the stand would have been. I have a sister who refuses to watch them even as an adult though.) We had be be home by 5:00 every day for dinner (and could not go back out again). We had family home evening every week. We were not even allowed to listen to pop/rock music. Accordingly, I am conservative. Ultra conservative, one might say. However, I have always been more liberal than my parents. For example, when I hit my teenage years I rebelled against the no rock music thing. I introduced Michael Jackson to our peaceful home. The horror. Even worse, I later brought in Metallica. As you can imagine, my mother was not happy about it. I retained my conservative leanings overall, stayed active, went on a mission, etc., but was definitely more liberal than how I was raised. Until recently. Okay, in some ways I may still be more liberal than my parents, and that is cultural and generational. But in some ways I have actually become more conservative than them. I find myself in conversation with them nowadays and I find myself taking the more conservative stance. It's been fascinating and surprising. I clearly see this to be a phenomenon of my changing too...meaning to say that my parents are not more liberal than they used to be (though they are a lot more chill about being conservative than they once were). No. It's me that's changed. As the years pass I get more and more conservative. And I don't even have children yet (side note: fertility issues...we're seeking treatment...hopefully soon.....) I can imagine that having children will increase my conservationism even more. So, anyhow. I was wondering where you see yourselves on this life-path. State of rebellion? Constantly more liberal? Getting more conservative through the years? Etc., etc. As it's relevant I suppose the discussion might include (for those wiling) ages. I'm currently 42.

I agree. However, there are two things to consider. First, a lot of the issues at hand are based on social conventions and the natural culture of the church. As the church grows this becomes more and more difficult to manage and keep in line, so to speak. Many complain about the authoritative bureaucracy that the church has become. Would we risk pushing that further for the sake of curbing these sorts of problems? Or should we teach the membership at large to be wise, be forgiving, study, pray, etc.. (Note that this is the current approach as to sex). Secondly, and more importantly, we run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as they say, when we push back on concerns like this. We see this in discussions like the recent one surrounding Tad R. Callister's morality/modesty talk. The responses, even if, perhaps, based on a semblance of right thinking, are so extreme so as to be the devil's advocate for discontinuing modesty, chastity, and morality all together. The prevailing liberal expression tends to account to the equivalent of "Don't teach your children to be righteous because it might make them feel bad when they sin."

Self quote as a response (see bolded):

I was born in '71 -- which is as far as they currently go back on LDS .org. I have google/youtubed some older talks which were entirely fascinating (George Albert Smith, for example). They don't talk the same nowadays. :) (George Albert Smith was unique anyhow. In some ways more like an old-school Christian preacher).

This counsel (better to spend eternity single...) is also a nonstarter in LDS theology though because we believe that no unrighteous person who did all they could to obey will be denied exaltation because of things beyond their control. We are also strongly counseled to marry someone we are compatible with...so...choosing to not marry a jerk would certainly not be held against us as a "You had your chance" sort of thing. Along the same lines, the choice between a good nonbeliever and a bad believer is also a nonstarter in that the righteous person married to either will still be blessed with exaltation. Regardless, I am in complete agreement that I would counsel against both. Find a good believer. Period. Completely agree. In point of fact, the interactions I have with my wife, both good and bad, are significantly more influenced by the interactions I had with my brothers and sisters growing up than by any dating I did. Moreover, learning about our own likes and dislikes is significantly less important to a good marriage than A. Learning to be selfless and righteous, and B. Choosing someone who is selfless and righteous. Speaking to this is the stereotype of good girls liking bad boys. They may "like" the bad boys. They may dislike the clean cut nerdy religious boys. But if they marry the bad instead of the good their likes will have little to do with the quality of their marriage in the long run. You need to meet more Mormons.

I usually hit the headlines on a few sites (cnn usually) just to see if there's anything of interest. If there is I'll look at a few articles. It's so much less of a time dedication than watching news. I despise TV news anyhow.

That was hilarious. I wonder if they would have responded that way if the votes were silent instead of ridiculously vocal.

It's almost hard to put a finger on why. The message is the same. But there's something subtle in the difference of how it's said. Of course there are obvious things like: Is it too much to teach our children that it is better to die in defense of virtue than to lose it? These sorts of sentiments are specifically called out as promoting suicide in today's day and age. I enjoyed this talk, btw. Thanks. I particularly liked: Have you a precious child? Would you save his soul? Would you fight to protect him from immorality, pornography, liquor, tobacco, and drugs? Do you shield him from evil companions? How vigorously do you fight? Do you go all out for your child, or don’t you love him that much? Would you try as hard to save him from sin as you would to save him from drowning or from fire? If not, why not?

Just curious. Why from the 80s? As they have them all the way back to '71 on lds.org.... Like I said, just curious.

*shrug* Annoying is annoying whether it goes away in a second or not. Having a button hidden directly below a mouse-hover drop-down menu is not good design. Seems like it ought to warrant at least a to-be-considered bug...but it's not my site or say.

I don't think you need to worry about being called as a bishop Lakumi. :)

This is a bit finicky...but... The View New Content button in the Full Version theme is so close to the user dropdown that I find myself accidentally opening the user drop down often when going to click it...which then covers up the View New Content button and I have to mouse off it and wait for the menu to go away. It's not a major deal...but a bit annoying. (Edit: or the search dropdown)

Just a bit of formatting....mostly to be a wiseacre: if (horrible) { make unhorrible; }

To be clear, I was not suggesting that missionary dating take place. I was suggesting that, in my opinion, for an evangelical to try and date someone LDS is, to me, different than an LDS trying to date an evangelical. It's more of a statement of theory than practicality, and is clearly based in my bias towards the LDS religion as true.

I did not say immediately. But I don't think it's line-upon-line either. When the veil is removed it will be, I think, all of a sudden. It will be, I think, at the judgment day, when all remembrance is brought to us. And it will be, I think, a pretty great shock to us all. Weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth indeed.

It only sets up a false dichotomy if one chooses to read things into it that aren't there. Clearly there is room for tender, chaste, and delicate withing sexuality. I disagree that the church needs to put thought into how it wants to present sexual concepts. The church teaches these principles very clearly, and it is on us to learn them, just as it is with any principle. It is invalid to blame the church when we misunderstand sexuality because we are not well informed about it. There is information a-plenty about it, and that information does not need to be stretched to be more candid, nor do I believe that it should be, because it is not meant to be. There are plenty of parents in the church who raise their children on church principles, teach their children to be wise, selfless, and Christlike, whose children grow up with a healthy understanding of marital relations. And there are plenty of parents who fail at this. Such is life - both in and out of the church, and with teachings on physical relationships as well as other principles in (and out of) the gospel. The required information and understanding is out there. It is on parents to discover this information and pass it on to their children. And it is upon the children, once they are to be married, to avail themselves of this information as well.

Maybe. I'm not sure we can add specificity to the way anyone's sexual relationship should work. That is between themselves, the Lord, and if necessary, perhaps the advice of a good therapist. We can speak in terms of Christ-like principles. But to apply those principles in the bedroom on behalf of others would be quite inappropriate. In point of fact, we cannot even apply them on behalf of our spouses. We can only apply them to ourselves and our choices and behavior.

Fair enough. But, then again, what criteria are you applying for determining what is and isn't inspired counsel? Shouldn't be head scratching with application of the LDS-only teaching of Eternal Marriage.

Iron Butterfly, on the other hand...

Ah...but you forget that Superman's suit is also Kryptonian.

The concern is, of course, that one leads to the other. If they don't go on casual dates, they're unlikely to become their own little item, and thereby unlikely to marry. As I understand it (and I believe this has been clearly taught...though I'd have to do some reading to validate it) the church suggests that even casual dating outside the faith, as it were, should be generally avoided.

Wise counsel is wise counsel regardless of a parents reasonings. I would counsel a Bishop to stick to his guns, with as much kindness and friendliness as possible. And if offense is taken, that is each person's prerogative in this life. But we hold to right principles regardless of how others decide to take it. Frankly, any parent that complained to a Stake President that their Bishop was giving them counsel that not only aligns with church teachings, but is also designed to lead that person to peace and happiness.... Well...that parent is asking for trouble. LDS teachings do not forbid dating non-LDS. But they clearly counsel against it. Any Bishop or Stake President would be right in sharing similar counsel. As to the evangelical youth counsel...that's a bit more complicated. As we (LDS) believe we are the only church with the fullness of the gospel, we would hope all youth find means to explore the truthfulness of our gospel. If a desire to date an LDS person were motivating them to explore to that end, then that is good. So I hesitate to say I would want evangelical leaders to discourage dating LDS. And yet, I do not think it wise to date and marry outside of one's religion, and so I only hesitate to say it in terms of hoping for them to explore the LDS religion, and not because I think cross-religious dating is wise.