SJW in Church . . .why??

[Backroads]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

This very well could be; you can get a backlash generation. I do have to remind myself that my kids are not in the Millennial generation, they are post-millenial-whatever that is.  The 4 turnings of generations is an interesting philosophy.

I've seen several social scientists predict the current babies and kids will be the most conservative generation ever.

[Guest MormonGator]

51 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I've seen several social scientists predict the current babies and kids will be the most conservative generation ever.

I do hope you are right of course, but I think conservatism is sort of a "learned" philosophy. Yes, I'm speaking in generalities but most young people are more liberal than their elders. Just because you (not you as in @Backroads, generic usage of the word) were conservative at 18 doesn't mean my point isn't a good one. The famous saying by Irving Kristol "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality" has a lot of truth to it. At 18-35ish you think you've seen the world, but you really haven't. Thus, you are much more likely to be a liberal. When you begin to see how to world really works, you lose your idealistic liberalism and begin to see that philosophy as highly impractical and naive. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

15 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I read an article this week about a sort of revolution happening in the Church. A softening in that we're trying to be kinder, less harsh in judgment, etc. I think that's a very good thing, and has already begun to take hold.

I read that article too. I thought it was so much garbage and based on a series of things that were not true.

Not to say, of course, that being kinder isn't important. But that's not really what the "revolution" referred to was really about at all.

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I do hope you are right of course, but I think conservatism is sort of a "learned" philosophy. Yes, I'm speaking in generalities but most young people are more liberal than their elders. Just because you (not you as in @Backroads, generic usage of the word) were conservative at 18 doesn't mean my point isn't a good one. The famous saying by Irving Kristol "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality" has a lot of truth to it. At 18-35ish you think you've seen the world, but you really haven't. Thus, you are much more likely to be a liberal. When you begin to see how to world really works, you lose your idealistic liberalism and begin to see that philosophy as highly impractical and naive. 

This is generally true and how it is supposed to be.  Unfortunately, liberalism in the US ceased to be liberalism long time ago.  Now, classic liberals have slid over to side with conservatives.  So what you're saying here is liberalism as defined classically and does not apply to how the word is used anymore in today's children.  So, conservatism.... is the new idealistic counter-culture with all its impracticality and naivete, with the slide to classic conservatism (closer to libertarian) as the "mugged by reality" end position.

Edited April 3, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

They appear to me to be an almost meaningless change in policy, done in part (I suspect) to placate the weak in faith who might be misled by the rantings of KK types. Why make subtle distinctions that could raise hackles? There is no known doctrine prohibiting the practice, and it may avoid giving offense, so why not?

I have often wondered if doing so (placating the weak) has the effect of weakening them further, and...weakening others who might not have been weakened otherwise.

13 hours ago, Vort said:

I have perhaps never agreed more strongly with @yjacket than I do about the idea that, when we continually whine about or refuse to follow God's counsel and commandments, he withdraws those commandments, and then we don't receive the blessings of those commandments.

What makes "we" though. Do the SJWs in the church have the special privilege of including me in the "we" that brings about a loss of blessings?

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I know we like to think that anyone who dares disagree with us is a fool, conformist, juvenile or whatever, but in reality that's not the case. I find SJWs obnoxious too, but they could just as easily say the same thing about religious people. Would I agree with them? Of course not, but when we try to dismiss them with names like that it lowers us to their level. 

Truth and morality are not relative and all values are not equally valuable. Not everyone's opinion counts the same as everyone else's.

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What makes "we" though. Do the SJWs in the church have the special privilege of including me in the "we" that brings about a loss of blessings?

No, of course not. But there does seem to be some sort of "critical mass" involved. We as a people receive or fail to receive blessings from God, not based on personal worthiness, but on a sort of group worthiness. If, as a people, we choose a lesser path, then we, as a people, receive a lesser blessing.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Truth and morality are not relative and all values are not equally valuable. Not everyone's opinion counts the same as everyone else's.

I have a friend who says that the only opinion he cares about it God's. I think there is true wisdom in that philosophy.

[unixknight]

To be honest, I'm surprised we haven't seen an organized offshoot of the Church that espouses these "progressive" ideas.  Get enough people mad at the First Presidency and who think they know better than Church leaders and it's only a matter of time.  It's happened before.

Edited April 3, 2017 by unixknight

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have a friend who says that the only opinion he cares about it God's. I think there is true wisdom in that philosophy.

Yes, there's wisdom in it.  There's also danger... there are tons of people who are of the opinion that what they believe is God's opinion is different from what Pres. Monson says is God's opinion.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

To be honest, I'm surprised we haven't seen an organized offshoot of the Church that espouses these "progressive" ideas.  Get enough people mad at the First Presidency and who think they know better than Church leaders and it's only a matter of time.  It's happened before.

The modern SJW's don't hold the goal of having enough people follow them so as to compete with the mothership.  Rather, they hold the goal of usurping the mothership.

[person0]

10 minutes ago, unixknight said:

To be honest, I'm surprised we haven't seen an organized offshoot of the Church that espouses these "progressive" ideas.  Get enough people mad at the First Presidency and who think they know better than Church leaders and it's only a matter of time.  It's happened before.

While there are plenty of offshoots from the Church, most of them have developed a quasi-reasonable explanation as to why they hold the authority of God (or why the Church doesn't hold it anymore).  I imagine it has been considered (or may be down the road), however, It would be very difficult for them the establish themselves as a legitimate LDS entity.  I cant at this moment come up with a realistic hypothetical that would grant them their quasi-reasonable explanation (aside from those that already exist among other offshoots).

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have a friend who says that the only opinion he cares about it God's. I think there is true wisdom in that philosophy.

The problem with this is that God hasn't revealed everything to us. We must believe someone else's opinion on some things. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, of course not. But there does seem to be some sort of "critical mass" involved. We as a people receive or fail to receive blessings from God, not based on personal worthiness, but on a sort of group worthiness. If, as a people, we choose a lesser path, then we, as a people, receive a lesser blessing.

We have in the church what seems to be (in this social media world) a silent majority. And yet the church often gets defined by the wrongheaded minorities within it. The SJWs are not "we". Ordain Women are not "we". That is my simple point.

Edited April 3, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

32 minutes ago, unixknight said:

To be honest, I'm surprised we haven't seen an organized offshoot of the Church that espouses these "progressive" ideas.  Get enough people mad at the First Presidency and who think they know better than Church leaders and it's only a matter of time.  It's happened before.

Of the two extremes of contemporary wolf-in-sheeps-clothing apostasy (what one might casually refer to as the Snuffer/Dehlin extremes), the looking-beyond-the-mark-over-zealous crowd (Snuffer-ites) have, indeed, started an offshoot. The other end of the spectrum might well soon too.

Edited April 3, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, there's wisdom in it.  There's also danger... there are tons of people who are of the opinion that what they believe is God's opinion is different from what Pres. Monson says is God's opinion.

You'll have to clarify for me. It seems like you're suggesting that the "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding" scriptural principle is flawed.

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The modern SJW's don't hold the goal of having enough people follow them so as to compete with the mothership.  Rather, they hold the goal of usurping the mothership.

For now.

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, person0 said:

While there are plenty of offshoots from the Church, most of them have developed a quasi-reasonable explanation as to why they hold the authority of God (or why the Church doesn't hold it anymore).  I imagine it has been considered (or may be down the road), however, It would be very difficult for them the establish themselves as a legitimate LDS entity.  I cant at this moment come up with a realistic hypothetical that would grant them their quasi-reasonable explanation (aside from those that already exist among other offshoots).

It's not very difficult to develop a quasi-reasonable explanation as to authority. In fact, it's very, very simple. You just say, "I had a revelation and........"

[person0]

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, there's wisdom in it.  There's also danger... there are tons of people who are of the opinion that what they believe is God's opinion is different from what Pres. Monson says is God's opinion.

I agree with you.  Many people seek to disregard the truth's taught by modern prophets and follow after their own wisdom, while still claiming to sustain the prophet.

 On an unrelated side note:  Does God really have very many 'opinions'?  I mean, if you consider the extent of his knowledge, there's not really much room for opinion as everything is based in absolute truth.  There are some truth's that will be different in the specific details for everyone such as the healthiest thing to eat for breakfast, but even God's 'opinion' on that would be fact.  I could imagine the only true 'opinions' being things like, what is God's favorite color/food, etc?  Now you've got me curious about those things   We know that Jesus ate fish and honeycomb in his resurrected form, but did he like it? Or was he just being polite? 

[Guest MormonGator]

56 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have a friend who says that the only opinion he cares about it God's. I think there is true wisdom in that philosophy.

It is, but you have to be careful with that. Soon you'll (generic usage, not you meaning @Vort) being to think that you are the sole beacon of wisdom, truth, morality, justice,  and all that is holy while the rest of us are plebeians, sinners and fools. So while it's certainly a good thing to be concerned with how God views you, you need to check yourself to make sure you don't become self-rigetous and holier than thou. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by MormonGator

[zil]

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The modern SJW's don't hold the goal of having enough people follow them so as to compete with the mothership.  Rather, they hold the goal of usurping the mothership.

Yes.  While others might be content to go away and form a competing church and try to convince folk to join them, the very definition of SJW requires them not to do that, but to be in someone else's business - because someone else is "wrong" and the SJW must cause the "wrong" party to change, to admit they're "wrong", and you can't do that by going away and leaving the "wrong" party alone.

[person0]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It's not very difficult to develop a quasi-reasonable explanation as to authority. In fact, it's very, very simple. You just say, "I had a revelation and........"

Okay, okay, touché.  But in my defense, that one has been done many many times.   

[Backroads]

43 minutes ago, person0 said:

While there are plenty of offshoots from the Church, most of them have developed a quasi-reasonable explanation as to why they hold the authority of God (or why the Church doesn't hold it anymore).  I imagine it has been considered (or may be down the road), however, It would be very difficult for them the establish themselves as a legitimate LDS entity.  I cant at this moment come up with a realistic hypothetical that would grant them their quasi-reasonable explanation (aside from those that already exist among other offshoots).

Yes. As of the time, they can't get a viable population to agree that the Church is morally old-fashioned AND the prophet is not really a prophet. 

I'd assume those ideas naturally go together, but many don't seem to mind the contradiction.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Backroads

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It is, but you have to be careful with that. Soon you'll (generic usage, not you meaning @Vort) being to think that you are the sole beacon of wisdom, truth, morality, justice,  and all that is holy while the rest of us are plebeians, sinners and fools. So while it's certainly a good thing to be concerned with how God views you, you need to check yourself to make sure you don't become self-rigetous and holier than thou. 

The implication being that that check is our fellow weak mortal beings?

[unixknight]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

While there are plenty of offshoots from the Church, most of them have developed a quasi-reasonable explanation as to why they hold the authority of God (or why the Church doesn't hold it anymore).  I imagine it has been considered (or may be down the road), however, It would be very difficult for them the establish themselves as a legitimate LDS entity.  I cant at this moment come up with a realistic hypothetical that would grant them their quasi-reasonable explanation (aside from those that already exist among other offshoots).

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but keep in mind that "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder.  These SJW types find it perfectly reasonable to expect the First Presidency to bend to societal pressure.  To them, "reasonable" is whatever modern "progressive" culture says it is.