Human Sacrifice - Cats and Dogs Living Together...

[Snow]

A regular charge is made that societal morals are on the decline. Usually it is opined that the loss of morals forebodes some dire consequence. One current thread posits that the loss of morals, and other parallel declines may have already resulted in a collapse of The United States - quick, look outside your window and see the marauding hordes of Huns, Visigoths, feminists and liberal intellectuals.

Frankly, short of some evidence. it sounds to me like meaningless carping... what's the matter with today's youth, they all listen to that devil Elvis music... no doubt a refrain repeated though the ages.

What's the evidence that 2010 is any less moral that 1910 or 1710 or 1210 or 110 CE?

[talisyn]

People write their history books based on (for the most part) older history books, and people tend to put stuff in them that makes their own people look good. As an example, if I may....according to the history books I read (even the grown-up history books) the Greeks were just awesome supermen who did amazing things with math, science, and philosophy. True enough. But it wasn't until the internet all those years ago that I was able to look at some jars and wall paintings from ancient B.C.E. times and I found out a lot of those people were huge perverts lol. Egyptians, Babylonians, even the time of Noah, there will always be those who push past the boundaries of their respective society.

I don't think our society is any worse than past societies. But I think that the time of repentance is getting a whole lot shorter

[john doe]

Well, for one thing, we keep getting told that it's evil to spank children nowadays.

[Dravin]

quick, look outside your window and see the marauding hordes of Huns, Visigoths, feminists and liberal intellectuals.

I know who the Huns are but that combination still made me laugh.

[Elgama]

There is more of us of course there is more happeneing

[Traveler]

A regular charge is made that societal morals are on the decline. Usually it is opined that the loss of morals forebodes some dire consequence. One current thread posits that the loss of morals, and other parallel declines may have already resulted in a collapse of The United States - quick, look outside your window and see the marauding hordes of Huns, Visigoths, feminists and liberal intellectuals.

Frankly, short of some evidence. it sounds to me like meaningless carping... what's the matter with today's youth, they all listen to that devil Elvis music... no doubt a refrain repeated though the ages.

What's the evidence that 2010 is any less moral that 1910 or 1710 or 1210 or 110 CE?

I cannot speak for all but much has changed in society since I was a youth. As a student at Provo High in the 60’s I took my father’s deer hunting rifle to school to refinish the stock and blue the barrel in shop class for a Christmas gift. Since the rifle did not fit in my locker, I carried the rifle to several classes with me. The gun sat on the floor next to me during several classes until I got to my shop class. No one even asked me why I had the gun or if it was loaded.

To say nothing has changed in the last 40 years that impacts the morals of the USA is, in my observations a rather foolish error. BTW there was one girl in our class (about 300) that dropped out of school because she got pregnant. I could make a list of changes I have seen in dating habits and other social graces during my lifetime but I am not sure if we have yet passed the proverbial point of no return.

The Traveler

[marts1]

This country is full of sin. I think North America would not be anywhere near the position it is in, if it were not for that ever so small a percentage of people who are living good clean lives. I think that if freedom of religion remains, we will prevail.

[Elphaba]

I agree with Traveler, Snow. It's a silly question in that the country's morals are obviously going downhill. And who is to blame for this travesty? The gays, of course.

Those obnoxious gays want to be treated special, in that they want to be able to marry the person they love, have a family with that person, participate in the community, and worst of all, worship God in our churches!

As long as the "gay agenda," or, as mormonmusic put it, the "gayification" of the country continues, it will not be long before you DO see baby birds hopping around frantically, asking everyone "Are you my mother"? only to have one of those gays say: "Well, no I'm not, but I am the mother of some children whose real mom couldn't care for them.

So, if you can't find your real mom, come on back and I will care for you as if I were your mother."

Abomination!

Elphaba

[Moksha]

I loved that quote from an ancient Greek who asked what this younger generation was coming to.

I bet Homo Erectus got more than his fair share of head shakes and disapproving glances when he stood solely on his hind legs. What a liberal he must have been! Turned out not to be gay though, despite the rumors.

[Snow]

I'll grant that sexual mores are more liberal today than 20-40 years ago but the murder rate is lower today than it was then, Travelers anecdote notwithstanding. But how does sin in general compare across the centuries?

[ADoyle90815]

It might seem as if things are going downhill fast, but that mentality has existed as long as there were younger generations. Also, with the worldwide media, we hear about earthquakes and other disasters in the world as they happen, while in previous generations, unless a disaster happened locally. People also thought that volcanoes and other disasters happened because they angered a deity somehow. Then, with bringing in slaves from Africa, people still think that someone who isn't white couldn't have possibly been born in America, even though they were born in a US state to an American citizen.

[Dravin]

To even be able to attempt to systematically compare the morality of societies wouldn't the first step be to categorize the 'seriousness' of sin or to pick a 'yardstick' sin? For example, which is the less moral society? One in which rape is rampant and condoned or one in which slavery is rampant and condoned? How many murders does it take to be worse than rampant sexually liberal mores? I'm probably not communicating effectively here, but if you are going to compare something like this even as a thought experiment one needs a metric. So either the various sins need to be weighted (x instances/prevalence of one is equal to or greater/less than Y instances/prevalence of another) or we need to pick one and compare societies in respect to that particular sin.

[Traveler]

I'll grant that sexual mores are more liberal today than 20-40 years ago but the murder rate is lower today than it was then, Travelers anecdote notwithstanding. But how does sin in general compare across the centuries?

I believe you bring up a rather interesting question. History seems to record worse "sins" than what we may be thinking we are seeing now days. But what comes to mind to me is there have been a few times that the L-rd has indicated that sins were bad enough that civilizations were warned to repent or be destroyed. There does appear to be a common thread of sins connected to those civilizations. The question would seem to be – of the popular sins of our civilization – how do they compare with the popular sins of the societies set by G-d to be destroyed.

I believe it is not really the quantity of sins but the “quality” of sins. According to the book of Enoch two sins directly connected to the flood that destroyed the societies of Noah were:

1. That they had changed the order of marriage (we can guess what that was).

2. That children were born for carnal purposes. (we can guess what that was as well)

There is another sin that has to do with “secret combinations” that destroyed the Nephit society. Some scholars (Hugh Nibly for example) believe that secret combinations are connected to the other two.

The Traveler

[Guest WhoShotJS]

feast your eyes!

[Elphaba]

I believe you bring up a rather interesting question. History seems to record worse "sins" than what we may be thinking we are seeing now days. But what comes to mind to me is there have been a few times that the L-rd has indicated that sins were bad enough that civilizations were warned to repent or be destroyed. There does appear to be a common thread of sins connected to those civilizations. The question would seem to be – of the popular sins of our civilization – how do they compare with the popular sins of the societies set by G-d to be destroyed.

I believe it is not really the quantity of sins but the “quality” of sins. According to the book of Enoch two sins directly connected to the flood that destroyed the societies of Noah were:

1. That they had changed the order of marriage (we can guess what that was).

2. That children were born for carnal purposes. (we can guess what that was as well)

There is another sin that has to do with “secret combinations” that destroyed the Nephit society. Some scholars (Hugh Nibly for example) believe that secret combinations are connected to the other two.

Like I said, it's all the gay's fault.

Elphaba

[Dravin]

Like I said, it's all the gay's fault.

Elphaba

Don't leave the heterosexuals out in the cold. Premarital sex and light views on marriage/divorce would also fall under that criteria. I don't blame you though, same sex marriage is the first thing that pops into my mind when someone says something like that.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Snow. I hope you've been well (no sufferring implied)! :)

I'll grant that sexual mores are more liberal today than 20-40 years ago but the murder rate is lower today than it was then, Travelers anecdote notwithstanding. But how does sin in general compare across the centuries?

The history of the world has been a cycle of restorations and apostasies. A reading of the scriptures readily reveals this. Adam heralded in the first dispensation, but over time his children fell in to apostasy. The gospel was restored through Enoch, beginning a new dispensation, which was followed by yet another apostasy, and so on.

When we consider these cycles of righteousness and wickedness in the world, then making a comparison "across the centuries" needs to be refined to accomodate the dispensations. We should focus, instead, our comparison to the beginning of the latest dispensation and the current state of affairs. Now, if we are going to compare our current state of affairs to previous dispensations, then it seems the only way to do this in a sensible way would be to compare our current state with past dispensations at their height and at their low. In other words, does our current state more closely match the beginning of a past dispensation, the middle, or the end of a past dispensation (assuming the state of morality can be measured from past dispensations). Given that, generally speaking, it is in the beginning of a dispensation that people are the most righteous, in the "middle" of a dispensation the state of sin is the highest, and towards the end of a dispensation that there is a general move towards more righteousness, we should be able to see where we stand as compared to different eras of a past dispenstation. However, I think the most accurate comparison will occur if we limit the comparison to the passage of time in our current dispensation.

Obviously there is going to be some personal bias in how "sinfulness" is going to be measured. So, we need to also define what will be the standard by which we measure sin. It seems to me that the Standard Works are that measure. Sin, then, will be whatever is defined as sin in the scriptures.

Regards,

Finrock

[Maureen]

...One current thread posits that the loss of morals, and other parallel declines may have already resulted in a collapse of The United States...

Didn't you hear Snow? Obama is president.

M.

[rameumptom]

Hugh Nibley wrote concerning the pre-Flood period. He stated that the secret combinations were for a long time kept secret, until Laban shared them with his two wives. At that point, they spread it around, and then secret combinations sprang up all over the place, until the earth was filled with violence, and was ripe for destruction.

Sins occurring a century, or even 50 years ago were much like the ones today. Except they were not as ubiquitous. Pornography meant finding your Dad's girlie magazine or looking at the lingerie pictures in the Sear's catalog. Today, kids can watch x-rated films on the Internet or on cable television.

A new study, announced today, shows that kids watching R rated movies increases their sexual and violent output. Keeping kids away from R-rated movies may prevent early drinking

Given that in 1960, 50 years ago, most kids did not have access to R rated films, this alone would suggest a major change in society.

Societal views have changed. Where problems, like drugs, violence, gangs, and sex, tended to exist only in major cities, now they are in even the most remote parts of our nation. Homosexuality is viewed as a norm, and in some areas is being forced upon churches, doctors and others to accept. The Catholic Church may have to stop working in adoptions in Massachusetts and elsewhere because they will not adopt children to homosexual couples.

Video games and violent films are proving to affect children's views on violence. There are many studies showing how it is desensitizing children. The same goes with sexual promiscuity. A former bishop complained that he had to teach the youth that oral sex is still sex!

Out of wedlock births are at a high. Teenage girls are making pacts to get pregnant together while in high school. Meanwhile, today's drugs are more plentiful and powerful than they were when I was their age.

Elvis' music had an impact. It brought our nation into a new era, the 1960s, where free love, drugs and rock n' roll were praised. Media plays a major role in this, as well. As a kid, we had just 4 tv channels. Today there are hundreds, and with Victoria Secret and Girls Gone Wild commercials getting past my television's V-Chip, it means my kids can watch them virtually on any channel I do not fully block out.

[rameumptom]

Another point, who is to say that the Lord hasn't castigated our nation/world before for grave sins?

Many early apostles, and Joseph Smith foresaw the Civil War as a punishment on the nation for slavery AND their poor treatment of the Saints.

World Wars I and II were/are often viewed as moments for God to chastise the nations.

While our murder rates are down overall, our violence rates may not be. And they differ from place to place. Sometimes the murder rate is just a sign of problems that need to be fixed.

However, it seems to me that God did not wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah because homosexuals dwelt there. Rather he wiped them out because they were inhospitable: attempting to force their views and ways upon the innocent. Institutional violence to achieve an evil goal establishes whether a nation is ripened in iniquity or not.

Israel was allowed to wipe out the Canaanites, Amalekites, and others, not because they were Israel, but because the nations had ripened in iniquity (1 Nephi 17). Had they been righteous, Israel could not have replaced them in the land. What kinds of sins? Institutional sins of sex and violence. The Moabites worshiped Baal-Peor, which included ritual prostitution of the women. Many Canaanites and others worshiped Molech, which included passing their children through the fire. Other worship included human sacrifice (a la Abraham in Ur). God puts up with disorganized sins. However, when it becomes part of the norm, and is even pressed upon all people to adopt, THEN the nation is ripe for destruction.

That our nation does nothing regarding the violence on our Mexican border, nothing regarding Wall Street crimes (in fact, bails them out), nothing about massive debt, nothing about the divorce rate, nothing about promiscuity, and in many locales does nothing about violent crime and gangs, THEN we have a problem.

[Snow]

World Wars I and II were/are often viewed as moments for God to chastise the nations.

Meaning, I suppose, that God somehow conspired with Hitler and Hirohito to kill Europeans and Americans but then sided with America and Russia to defeat his goon squad.

Sounds unreasonable.

[Moksha]

How many murders does it take to be worse than rampant sexually liberal mores?

I like these trick questions. :)

Okay, here goes:

1. In the Land of Repression, it would take the mass murder of untold millions to be roughly equivalent.

2. In Delaware and parts of Maryland, it would take just one murder.

What's with those Delawarians and Marylanders anyway?

[hordak]

Like I said, it's all the gay's fault.

Elphaba

I don't know how anyone would come to that conclusion (I know you're just pointing out that he is inferring , not you)

In the reading of Enoch the only changing of marriage i have seen. The Sons of God (Fallen angels, Watcher ,or aliens if you Google it;)) mate with the daughters of men. These women give birth to evil spirits and giants.

Not to mention the book goes on to explain how star revolving (based on the number of angels in them) produces light.

[rameumptom]

Meaning, I suppose, that God somehow conspired with Hitler and Hirohito to kill Europeans and Americans but then sided with America and Russia to defeat his goon squad.

Sounds unreasonable.

God doesn't conspire. He allows things to happen. The Book of Mormon is very clear that whenever the Nephites were wicked, they would be humbled by Lamanite invasion. I do not think that God conspired with the Lamanites to cause such destruction. What happened is God withdrew his spiritual protection from the Nephites, allowing the Lamanites to no longer fear them, to open the door to their ancient anger, and to invade.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon rameumptom. I hope you are having a fine day! :)

God doesn't conspire. He allows things to happen. The Book of Mormon is very clear that whenever the Nephites were wicked, they would be humbled by Lamanite invasion. I do not think that God conspired with the Lamanites to cause such destruction. What happened is God withdrew his spiritual protection from the Nephites, allowing the Lamanites to no longer fear them, to open the door to their ancient anger, and to invade.

I agree. Not only do people forfeit the protection of Heavenly Father when they do wickedly, but also often because of their wickedness they bring upon themselves the predicted destruction. The Book of Mormon in particular teaches this principle clearly. God knows what the consequences of unrighteous living is. He knows what will occur, and thus He warns His children that if they do not repent, they will be destroyed. Not because He will conspire with evil men to bring about their destruction, but, because, like you said, they will no longer be protected, and they will bring upon themselves their curse and their destruction. Below are listed a couple of scriptures to illustrate this truth:

"Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them. Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation" (Alma 3:18-19).

"And this to the intent that whosoever will believe might be saved, and that whosoever will not believe, a righteous judgment might come upon them; and also if they are condemned they bring upon themselves their own condemnation" (Hel. 14:29).

Regards,

Finrock