srmaher

Urstadt The word intellectualism can be used in so many ways. It goes without saying that Mormon theology encourages intellectualism. I don't know about you, but i think Elder Holland, Scott, Nelson, Eyring, and Elder Maxwell fit into the category of intellectuals. Now, i can't speak for everyone, but I believe the kind of "intellectualism" that we see worshiped in our day (University Professors) is not one that has truth as its highest value, but rather an ideology that is more interested in social justice then pursuing truth. They are more interested in making their students into activists then individuals that can think and reason. In short, the intellectualism of today is anything but that, rather, its a secular ideology with the label, "intellectuals."

Carlimac I have thought the exact same thing over the years, in fact if I were asked what were the greatest threats to members of the church, and I had not read Elder Packers counsel, I would include Pornography, apathy and the pursuit of wealth over the kingdom. I have come to the conclusion that what and how we think is among the most important thing. For example, we know that without belief (in the doctrines and principles of the gospel) we cannot grow spiritually. Section 93 teaches that we lose "light and truth" through disobedience AND "the tradition of the fathers." I take latter to mean that what you believe effects the amount of light and truth you have. My point is this, looking at pornography (or adiction to..) is a behavior, and it goes without saying that there are destructive beliefs that serve as the prime motivator for doing this. Many who struggle with addictions know that the church is true, that Joseph Smith is a prophet and on and on and on, but are to spiritually weak to overcome this destructive habit. Now, in comparison with what Elder Packer warned us against, modern feminism, the gay rights movement and "the so called intellectuals." This is far more destructive because its a competing ideology. It think it would be accurate to compare this to trying to be active believing Mormon, and at the same time try and also be a active/believing Hindu. Even then, i think this example falls short because at least Mormons and Hindus share many of the same values, the same cannot by said for Mormonism and secular progresivism (i.e. Feminist, gay movement. intellectuals), The basic value system of the two are diametrically opposed to each other. Thank you for your thoughtful comment

The world is paying a heavy price for President Obama being a basketball fan, because had he followed hockey he would have learned that the best way to deal with instigators and thugs is to demonstrate that you have superior strength. It is for this reason that professional hockey teams use enforcers as a way of protecting their best players. Historically, the best enforcers have had the privilege of sharing the ice with some of hockey’s greatest players. Marty McSorley played most of his career with Wayne Gretzky. Bob Probert was another enforcer who had a long career playing beside Detroit Red Wings star, Steve Yzerman. What holds true for Hockey also holds true in other areas of life, like our foreign policy. Many would argue that this approach when dealing with our enemies makes matters worse. But what we have seen in the last few months in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, is nothing more than the product of this President’s failed foreign policy. Totalitarians like Putin are emboldened by weakness, especially when that weakness comes from the United Sates, which is the only power on earth that can restrain them. Obama made it very clear from the beginning of his presidency that he was going to take a softer approach with our adversaries. In his first-inauguration speech he said: Every time he extended "a hand" to our enemies only affirmed our weakness. For example, one of the first things the Obama administration did was announce they were pushing "the reset button" with the Russians. They did this in part by removing all sanctions imposed on them by the Bush administration for the invasion of Georgia in 2008. This kind of approach works with your estranged sibling, but not with a former KGB agent. To further appease the Russians, Obama canceled the "missile-defense agreement" the Bush administration made with Poland and the Czech Republic. Anyone familiar with their history would understand why the Poles and Czechs would want a missile DEFENSE shield. The cancellation was announced 70 years to the day that the Soviet Union invaded Poland as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany. Let's not forget that President Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, that once the election was over (2012), he would be "more flexible with Putin on missile defense.” Then, there was the Presidents failure to follow through with his threat to the Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad, that the U.S. would get involved in that countries civil war if he used chemical weapons. Putin had made it clear that he wants to see Russia return to what it was before the Soviet Union broke apart, which means the reclaiming of land that once belonged to them as the Ukraine. Knowing what motivates Putin helps us understand why he has invaded Ukraine. It's like the 1930's all over again in the fact that the west is just standing by and does nothing. We won't even give the Ukraine's weapons so they can fight the Russian rebels. Consider for a moment the message Sent to Putin in how the west has responded the Russians shooting down the Malaysian flight. The New York Times ran a story a few weeks after the Malaysian Airline was shot down titled, Despite Anger over Downed Airliner, Europe Shies Away From Sanctions on Russia. It laid out how spineless and impotent the West has become in confronting real evil. The article reported that the nations of Europe, with the exception of Britain, have all but conceded the fact that the Russians will pay no price for blowing up a passenger jet. Europe fears the potential consequences that Putin would impose on those countries dependent on the Russians for their energy. Thus "harming the Continent’s economic growth." It is beyond belief that the west has done NOTHING after 290 innocent civilians were blown out of the sky, of which 40% were children? Actually, I miss spoke, the west (U.N.) has done something, hold meetings and offer words of condemnation to to Russia. If the west is not willing to act now, what kind of event would force them to take military action. It's actually a scary thought when you put it into perspective. Putin Knows he can do what he wants because the the likes of Obama and the impotent U.N. will do nothing.I fear the world will pay a mighty price for the decision to do nothing while Putin has his way with Ukraine. I hope I am wrong, but what indication do we have that he will stop?

Over the past few weeks, I have come across several articles and videos (See below) that rail on “the insidious nature” of cat-calling. Now, the purpose of this post is not to defend “cat-calling” since I can understand how this could be offensive to women. I do know many women that find the “hooting and hollering” very flattering as they walk down the street. What I don’t understand is the hysterical reaction by these women in this video who equate a “whistle” as harassment. Below I have provided a few quotes that show the kind of mentality of those opposed to this practice. "Street harassment (Cat-calling) is about ownership…It's about the idea that women's bodies and very presence in public space is not for [her]." "Of course, a whistle on the street is not a physical attack, but it reflects the same sense of entitlement over women's bodies that could lead to one." "Street harassment is almost like a gateway drug to other, more serious forms, of violence," Pozner said. "The idea that women don't control their own bodies is so connected to the culture that allows women to be sexually assaulted." This way of thinking is the product of the indoctrination that has come from our Universities, which offer mind numbing courses in “Chicana Feminism; Studies in Queer Literatures and Cultures; and Feminist and Queer Theory.” This is just a small sample of the kind of courses offered at our universities that do nothing more than create a victim mentality in students who are taught to see men as “oppressive” and “sexual predators.” I shake my head in disbelief when reading these kinds of statements. I thought modern feminism was to strengthen, not weaken women's sensibilities? I blame academia as a whole for fostering this kind of victim mentality, which leads one to see threats where none exists, or in the very least, making mountains out of molehills. Let me provide three (I could provide many more) examples that show the product of modern feminism, and then you tell me if this movement has made women stronger. Wellesley College The first example comes to us from Wellesley College, an all-girls school (and the alma mater of Hillary Clinton). The “Sleepwalker” was an art piece put on display on the campus of Wellesley College. This particular piece was so controversial, so shocking, that it caused “students trauma...apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault.” What on earth could produce such traumatic feelings? A statue of a man sleepwalking in his underwear. One administrator was reported to have said, “The statue presents an obvious trigger for many students, who are forced to see it outside their window before they're going to sleep,or as they're on their way to class.” Trigger Warnings If statues of men wearing underwear are traumatic, could you imagine reading a book like the Great Gatsby, which contains “a variety of scenes that reference gory, abusive and misogynistic violence?” But no need to worry, unbiased academics are busy at work placing what are being called, “trigger warnings,” on books and other academic materials. These “trigger warnings” are meant to alert students, “that the material they are about to read or see in the classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans.” I am not sure George Orwell could have dreamed up something so ridiculous, but again, he didn’t live at a time when radical feminist ideology saturated academia. Larry Summers Heretical Idea In January 2005, at the Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce, Larry Summer, who at the time was the Dean of Harvard, spoke about the potential reasons for women being underrepresented "in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions." In his talk, Summer said something so outrageous, so grotesque, that it almost caused Nancy Hopkins, a Biology Professor from MIT to "faint and throw up." He hypothesized in his speech that a possible reason for the “gender gap” in the math and sciences might be there inherent biological differences between the sexes and that women are more likely to choose family and children over “rigorous academic jobs.” For saying this, he lost his job and almost made Dr. Hopkins faint and throws up. Conclusion These are just a few examples showing what modern feminism has produced. I find it so ironic that this movement was intended to empower women, which in actuality has caused many to see themselves as powerless victims, trapped in a sexist society run by privileged white men. It’s quite sad because I don't believe a person can be happy and at the same time believe they are a victim. [embed] [/embed]

drham3rd Thanks for sharing!

I hope I didn't come across that i was disagreeing with you or trying to show you that i am right. I was just sharing some of my thoughts about the subject, its something i think of often because of so much evil in the world. King Lamoni's conversion gives me a lot of hope for many who I might judge to be pure evil. Its something that I struggle with because I hate those who kill the innocent. To be honest i hope they burn in hell, like the communists who starved millions of Ukrainians to death (including infants and children) in the 1930's, or those who sent Jews to gas chambers and Mao who started 45 million people to death in only three years during the great leap forward. might I remind you that many tens of millions of these people were innocent women and chilren.I have to admit that i have no charity for these these people and only wish the worst to come upon them. The only thing i disagree with is your statement, "in our own hate fuelled fervour, we are no better than them." I couldn't disagree more. God is angered by evil, thats one of the reasons i love the OT is because he becomes angry when the innocent are victimized. people think he gets angry over every little thing, oh no. he gets angry when his children kill and massacre one another. Anyway, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

John Doe Love it..

2ndratemind i don't have an answer to this question, just something I think about when I read of these kind of things. God hates evil, and there are evil people, Satan is evil and I do not believe God still loves him or his followers. It is easy to confuse evil people with those who make very bad choices and sin, they are very different. I don't know how these guys do not constitute pure evil. On the other hand we have the example of king Lamoni in the BOM who was forgiven even though had "murdered" people, thats the word the BOM uses. Now, I don't think Lamoni was cutting dudes heads off. Just a thought!

I think if we add the word "homemaker" to this equation, it might help clear up some of your questions. Since you bring up equal partners, should the husband expect his wife to get a job, even though he earns enough to meet their needs? After all, "equal partners" right? If what you are saying is true, believe me, they would be having a lot of sex (generally speaking). Where would you get the idea that I implied in any way that the proclamation specifically deals with sex?

The Folk Prophet No one is saying this, the study is showing what turns a women on. Look, if a women finds a man attractive who neglects fulfilling the gender role of being a man, then thats fine. Most women do not find this attractive. I would say that most women expect their husband to help our around the house but they expect their husband to fill his primary role as a man first and foremost. The point I believe Kimball is making is that sex plays a central role in the emotional connection between a husband and wife. The lack of Physical intimacy in a marriage is a symptom (general rule) of a emotional detachment between the two. Attraction between the sexes is more likely to happen when each person fulfills their gender role, a man does not want a competitor and a women does not want to be married to another women.

I agree, unfortunatly society (academia, media) are preoccupied with equality, which i see as the most destructive force over the past 40 years. To your point, it is politically incorrect to discuss gender roles, your looked at as a bigot and sexist if you say anything that advocates traditional roles. If your a women and you advocate gender roles, forget about it, your considered a traitor to your sex. The brethren have been clear, men are to help out around the house, but their primary role is to provide and protect their family.

MarginofError I am glad you read the article. What are your thoughts about those conducting the study being surprised by the results? To me its common sense, the preoccupation with equality in our society has had awful consequences, especially to marriages. The definition of equality that I am deriding is how liberals define it, which is the equality of results which is different then the equality of opportuinty that takes into account peoples differences, especially man and women.

Notquiteperfect: You mentioned that traditional, 1950's type roles would cause resentment. If your husband came home and said, you know what. I want to be a stay at home dad, i don't want to work and provide for this family, in fact I think these "traditional" gender roles is nothing more than social constructs. You need to go out and work and provide for the family and I will be the stay at home dad. What would be your reaction? Perhaps you might support such a thing, but I presume that most women would not. That being said, would you say that your husband primarily does the "masculine" jobs around the house? If so, then I think you find it tremendously attractive when he helps out doing traditional "feminine" activities. As the study says, women want their husband to "help out around the house," but they want them to fill the masculine role. although the study does not say this, I believe that women are more attracted to their husbands when they primarily focus on the "masculine roles," than help out their wives doing "feminine" chores. This is a theory of mine, what are your thoughts?

CNN published an article by James Dawes called “Is ISIS Evil.” In a nutshell, Mr. Dawes believes that one of the worst things we can do is to label ISIS as evil. His solution to the problem of terrorism is to understand the circumstances that led “normal men” to become “monsters.” He asserts that when we use labels such as “evil,” it prevents us from understanding the root causes of such things as terrorism. Below are a few quotes from his article and my response to them. Contrary to what Mr. Dawes thing, the reason its essential to properly label something as evil is given by Dr. Scott Peck, the author of, People of the Lie. He wrote that, “to name something correctly gives us a certain amount of power over it.” For example, what if we didn’t have proper labels for diseases such as cancer, diabetes or Aids? When a disease is referred to by its name, this implies that certain symptoms are present that justified that diagnosis. Once a patient is properly diagnoses then they can be properly treated. The same idea applies to evil. If we do not know how to define it by it’s symptoms then how can we fight it? History has shown what happens when the world stands by and does nothing to confront evil. Academics like Mr. Dawes, are the product of a secular value system that permeates our Universities which hinder their ability to think clearly when it comes to moral issues. Those who believe people are inherently good, as Mr. Dawes does. Blame society and other external factors for producing individuals for their defective behavior. Dennis Prager explains in his book, Think a Second Time, that the defining issue that separates those on the left and the right is whether or not they believe people are inherently good or evil. This is why the left believes in big government because it has the authority and power to make the necessary changes in society that result in making better people, or at least this is what they think. His approach to dealing with terrorism is a perfect example of what happens when you believe people are inherently good. The presumption is if we can just “understand” the reasons (I.e. external factors) that lead “normal men” to become terrorists, then we could reverse the process by changing their circumstances and prevent the spread of terrorism. These type of solutions work well in the minds of academics. Maybe if this Mr. Dawes was around in WWII, understanding Hitler would have been a better strategy than crushing them! We don’t fight to win anymore because of those in the media and academics think the same way as Dawes. Had we leveled the cities in Iraq and brought them to their knees I would guarantee you ISIS would not exist.Conclusion Psalms 97:10, sums up well why the left is incapable of confronting evil. “Ye that love the LORD, hate evil.” A society can be measured in its “love of the Lord,” by what it considers to be evil. The western world is in great trouble for turning away from the Judeo-Christian values which have produced the greatest civilizations in history. We are seeing more and more of those in the western world loving evil, or in the very least tolerating it, and hating the God of Israel.

A few months ago, The New York Times Magazine discussed a study which found that couples who considered their relationship as “egalitarian” had less sex than couples who adhered to traditional gender roles. The results from this study surprised many. It was assumed that sex would improve as the marriage became more equal. Not so! This study found “that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming…then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car….The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.“ Women “do want their husbands to help out — just in gender-specific ways. Couples in which the husband did plenty of traditionally male chores reported a 17.5 percent higher frequency of sexual intercourse than those in which the husband did none.” The findings in this study comes as no surprise to those who work in the field of family therapy, “No matter how much sink-scrubbing and grocery-shopping the husband does, no matter how well husband and wife communicate with each other, no matter how sensitive they are to each other’s emotions and work schedules, the wife does not find her husband more sexually exciting, even if she feels both closer to and happier with him. For those who are LDS, consider these questions. What might the proclamation on the family say about the results of this study? Does the proclamation on the family encourage egalitarian marriages? Personally, I don’t think so, but a person who sees life through the lens of equality might interpret this document as advocating egalitarianism, when in fact The Proclamation on the Family emphasizes distinct gender roles between men and woman. I believe The Proclamation on the Family, if followed to the extent circumstances allow, will lead to happier marriages. I also believe it’s important to emphasize, when it comes to marriage there are no guarantees of living happily ever after. There have been many couples who have adhered to traditional gender roles and are now divorced. An important bit of fact to take from this study is that men and woman want different things, and it is those differences that attract us to each other. Most (99.9%) of people who are married understand how important physical and emotional intimacy is. How important? President Kimball, a Prophet of the Mormon Church taught that the number one cause of divorce is over the issue of sex. “If you study the divorces…you will find that there are [many] reasons. Generally sex is the first. They did not get along sexually. They may not say that in the court. They may not even tell that to their attorneys, but that is the reason.”(The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 1982, p. 329) The Proclamation on the family lays out clear guidelines for man and woman to follow in their relationship. The roles defined in this document are considered sexist and bigoted by today’s society. I myself am thankful that this study was done, as it confirms the wisdom found in The Proclamation. It shows that men and woman are in fact different, and it is those differences that attract us to one another.

In a talk given to the Church Coordinating Council in 1993, Elder Boyd K. Packer identified three areas that pose a serious threat to the spiritual welfare to the members of the church. He said, “The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.” Of all the things he could warn us about, why did he choose these three things? I believe Elder Packer was warning us about an ideology, a belief system that is incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ (not to mention American values). His warning has proven to be prophetic because each one of these issues (primarily feminism and gay marriage) is continually front and center in the media. Because there is too much to discuss with these topics, I have divided this post into two parts. The first will cover the feminism movement and its war against gender identity and the perceived threat of the patriarchal system. The second part will continue many of the themes in this post since all of them virtually share the same values and goals. Gender and the Patriarchal System In order to understand feminism, one must understand that the cornerstone of this movement is the belief that men and women, by nature are the same, and the only reason that gender roles exist is because of “social constructs.” That is where their belief that boys like guns and girls like dolls originates, because they are taught to. This reasoning explains why men are masculine, and women tend to be feminine, not because God made us this way, but because we are socially programmed to think this way. Their stance is that since these roles are learned, they can be unlearned. Feminists believe that the greatest perpetrator of these oppressive roles is the patriarchal system, where a man is the provider and protector, while the woman is the homemaker. Betty Friedan referred to the home as “a comfortable concentration camp.” “What better way to “re-educate” a generation than to do whatever is possible to destroy the traditional family? Jessica Valenti, an outspoken feminist, identified this as one of their objectives in an op-ed she wrote for the Washington post; “Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It’s a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end.” Robin Morgan, another leading feminist said, “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” In essence, it is the patriarchal system that they see as an obstacle to women’s liberation. Once you understand this, you can begin to see why they have such contempt for the likes of Sarah Palin and Conservative Christians, and why Betty Friedan would refer to home makers as “feeble-minded.” One of the reasons that the feminist movement has been so active in the gay rights movement is that it undermines the “patriarchal system” and gender identities. What gay marriage is saying, in its essence, is that there are no gender distinctions, whether you have an actual mother and father, father and father or mother and mother, it doesn’t matter. Gay marriage only furthered the agenda of the feminists to remove any gender distinctions. So important is the removal of gender distinctions to this movement that Susan Okin, an academic theorist, envisioned a time when “one’s sex would have no more relevance than one’s eye color or the length of one’s toes.” No assumptions would be made about “male and “female” roles. It would be a future in which men and women participated in more or less equal numbers in every sphere of life, from infant care to different kinds of paid work to high-level politics.” If you think this is an example cherry picked from the fringe of this movement, here are but a few examples (I can provide many more); The Vancouver public now allows student to choose gender-neutral pronouns such as, “Xe,” “Xem” and “Xyr.”California is in the process of allowing gay men to list themselves as “mother” (how adorable) on their child’s birth certificate.NPR ran a story last year, called “Young People Push Back against Gender Categories,” I quote from the report, “They refuse to be limited by notions like male and female. ‘I want you to call me Tractor and use pronouns like zee, zim and zer.” Tracker? You can’t make this stuff up.What Does This Mean For Latter-day Saints? The Proclamation on the Family makes it clear “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” With indisputable evidence, not to mention, common sense, one has to “will” themselves to believe otherwise. In essence, Feminism is a rebellion against nature, against what is true. That is why it can be accurately called an ideology, a religion. One of the worst things about this ideology is how it contaminates ones thinking. It leads a person to perceive threats where none exists. It becomes easy, almost natural to think of oneself as a victim. This may be the reason Kate Kelly perception that the church is an “institution that is fundamentally unequal, oppressive,” and demonstrates classic symptoms of a “very aggressive serial abuser.” There will come a time when we will need to make a choice of which way we face, because it is impossible to adhere to values thatare in-congruent. For this very reason, Elder Packer warned us of their danger.