Filthy Lucre

[Guest MormonGator]

38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 But when one person stands alone on a position and everyone else feels free to disagree publicly with him, it can very easily seem like we're piling on him.  

 

In your view does it show that many LDS think alike? That's not a negative or a positive. Just a question. 

[Guest]

I believe that for any culture you're going to find a "mainstream consensus" that is indicative of the common practice whether it is doctrinally correct or not.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not really "alone" alone. Jojobag often goes too extreme in his expression and views...but I basically agree with him on this matter.

As far as the pornography aspect, I think most of us do (Gator seems to be on the opposite side of that issue).  It's just Jojo's extreme attitude that even you had disagreed with.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

As far as the pornography aspect, I think most of us do (Gator seems to be on the opposite side of that issue).  It's just Jojo's extreme attitude that even you had disagreed with.

I'm not totally opposite-I think there is such thing as pornography and yes, LDS should avoid it. I am on the opposite in thinking that every single painting of a nude or a statue of a couple engaged in a kiss is pornography though, yes, absolutely. 

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe that for any culture you're going to find a "mainstream consensus" that is indicative of the common practice whether it is doctrinally correct or not.

I agree. It's good-because on doctrine we shouldn't disagree on the major things. Smith being a prophet, Thomas Monson being so. 

But on politics/culture it's a bad thing. You can be a democrat/liberal and be in the church, you can enjoy art galleries, heavy metal music, etc. 

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

As far as the pornography aspect, I think most of us do (Gator seems to be on the opposite side of that issue).  It's just Jojo's extreme attitude that even you had disagreed with.

Fair enough...but I'm honestly not sure if I'm being swayed by cultural peer-pressure. The fact is that I cannot really see any value in depictions of nudity -- artistic or otherwise. I see the possibility of some neutrality...maybe... I see definite potential harm.

[Guest]

@MormonGator,

Who says heavy metal and art galleries are the domain of the liberal?  I like some heavy metal.  It's not that I go for the category of music.  I like some bands.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@MormonGator,

Who says heavy metal and art galleries are the domain of the liberal?  I like some heavy metal.  It's not that I go for the category of music.  I like some bands.

They aren't, I was using it as an example of ways LDS can be different. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

...The fact is that I cannot really see any value in depictions of nudity -- artistic or otherwise. I see the possibility of some neutrality...maybe... I see definite potential harm.

There is a documentary series called "The Human Animal" by Desmond Morris.  This series was instrumental in pulling me out of my nerdy - math & science mindset to really understand interpersonal relationships.  The beginning and end of the series contrast to both make and refute your point.

The first episode had an opening scene with two actors (male and female) walking naked through a crowded mall.  I don't know if it was greenscreen or what.  But it was not meant to be sexual at all.  It was a device to start the series as "humans are one type of animal that we can study just like any other animal."  And other animals we usually see naked in a state of nature.  I do not believe it was important to actually show the inappropriate parts.  The point could have been made, blocking the parts with appropriate camera angles, etc.  So, this really was not useful.

The final episode went on to discuss, not merely reproduction, but coupling.  It showed what could easily be considered pornographic.  But it certainly wasn't meant to be.  Everything was described in a very forensic way.  Dr. Morris was describing it as if it were two animals coupling.  It may as well have been two insects with biting heads off and eating out the guts.  For the sake of the educational element of this to be complete, I believe most of the nudity was required to properly & scientifically discuss the topic.  There was a value to it.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

@Carborendum Clearly medical purposes are good and necessary reasons for nudity. I had to strip down once in front of our female fertility doctor. There was nothing wrong there. Medical is medical. Scientific, certainly, has it's place too. When I used the term "depictions" I was specifically thinking for public display...and by "public display" I do not mean depictions that are used for various purposes such as medical learning, etc. I believe there is even appropriate use in art for learning and study, etc.

[mrmarklin]

On February 27, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Vort said:

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a restaurant today, would he serve alcohol?

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a retail outlet in Washington or Colorado, would he sell marijuana?

Context is everything.

 

We can only guess the answer to these questions.

TODAY He would maybe serve no alcohol, but certainly he drank those beverages during His lifetime. This is a matter of record.

Not sure about the MJ.  Apparently there are medicinal uses, so I would say, "the jury is out".

IMHO these are difficult questions. We don't really know.  Certainly in Mormon culture, there is a big bias against the using of these items, but without context, we can only speculate on the true answers.

[mrmarklin]

On February 27, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Vort said:

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a restaurant today, would he serve alcohol?

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a retail outlet in Washington or Colorado, would he sell marijuana?

Context is everything.

 

We can only guess the answer to these questions.

TODAY He would maybe serve no alcohol, but certainly he drank those beverages during His lifetime. This is a matter of record.

Not sure about the MJ.  Apparently there are medicinal uses, so I would say, "the jury is out".

IMHO these are difficult questions. We don't really know.  Certainly in Mormon culture, there is a big bias against the using of these items, but without context, we can only speculate on the true answers.

[mrmarklin]

On February 27, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Jojo Bags said:

Let's say a person earns $30,000 a year for 35 years and then goes on SS.  At the current contribution of 6.2%, that would mean he contributed $65,100.  If he goes on SS at age 65 and receives say, $1750 each month and he lives till 80, he would receive $315,000 in 15 years.  That would mean he received $249,900 in money he did not earn.  Like I've said, SS is a Ponzi scam and anyone receiving proceeds from stolen money is receiving filthy lucre. 

You are not allowing for the time value of money. The govt. has your money, and you are entitled yo a reasonable return on investment. That being said SS at best is only getting one's money back. The govt. is not giving a fair return. The reason for privatizing SS is to remedy this defect, so people will have even more retirement proceeds.

 

if there is filthy lucre, it's the government cheating us.

[theSQUIDSTER]

Ok, so back to the OP speaking mostly about "filthy lucre."  I think a lot of great comments have already been made about some of the meanings of this expression.

I'd like to once again throw in the "render unto Ceasar" quote from our Lord.  I think our Lord was a revolutionary in the things He preached.  The problem Is He was preaching of a revolution of the heart and liberating the spirit rather than the socio-political revolution so many we're looking for in a messianic figure.  

 

I believe the "render unto Ceasar" expression had broader meaning than just money.  Part of our mortal experience involves learning about submitting to the Father in all things.  Perhaps, somewhat paradoxically, submitting to earthly governments is a part of that experience.  And lest we should wonder too quickly why the Father and our Lord ask us to experience such hard and unfair things, it's important to remember that the inequities and injustices of life were not things our Lord was spared from during His mortal sojourn... Not in the least degree!  We aren't asked to experience anything that He hasn't already gone through.  What could be more poignant and charitable and just than that?  Who has a perfect right, in all respects, to ask such things of us if not He who descended beneath all?  

 

That being said, if there ever comes a time when He inspires our spiritual leaders to run across the Whitehouse lawn with guns drawn and raise a Title of Liberty up the flag pole, then I hope I'm here to see it and be a part of it in whatever way that I might be asked to be.  

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Certainly in Mormon culture, there is a big bias against the using of these items, but without context, we can only speculate on the true answers.

I'm not sure it's valid to call it "bias". And we have some context.

[Vort]

13 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Context is everything.We can only guess the answer to these questions.

TODAY He would maybe serve no alcohol, but certainly he drank those beverages during His lifetime. This is a matter of record.

Not sure about the MJ.  Apparently there are medicinal uses, so I would say, "the jury is out".

IMHO these are difficult questions. We don't really know.  Certainly in Mormon culture, there is a big bias against the using of these items, but without context, we can only speculate on the true answers.

How about the context of "Jesus has given us commandments and further knowledge"?

[Jedi_Nephite]

On 3/3/2016 at 11:36 PM, mrmarklin said:

TODAY He would maybe serve no alcohol, but certainly he drank those beverages during His lifetime. This is a matter of record.

I could be wrong, but what would he have had to drink other than wine? 

I would imagine that clean drinking water would not have always been available.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

I could be wrong, but what would he have had to drink other than wine? 

I would imagine that clean drinking water would not have always been available.

That is correct. People of His time (and up until very recently, really) drank wine. We all would have if we were alive then.