a TEST is coming

[skippy740]

34 minutes ago, JoCa said:

The entire purpose of the first amendment was to ensure that the United States did not come and tell each state what religion they must worship.  The Baptists in Georgia didn't want the Congregationalist in Massachusetts gaining power over them via the federal government and then via the federal government telling Baptists in GA that they are 2nd class citizens or that their ability to worship God was restricted.

Okay, I can understand that.

But what happens when someone moves from Massachusetts to Georgia?  Does the STATE mandate a religion on their citizens?  What happens if I didn't want to be a Baptist in Georgia?  Could a Congregationalist in Massachusetts establish a congregation in Georgia?

Remember that the Constitution that gave states so many rights over its people... also protected slavery as a fundamental right.

Before the Civil War, it was "The United States are".  After the Civil War, it became "The United States is".

Some things SHOULD change.

As for prayer in school - unless it's a private school with the faith of my choosing, I don't want teachers teaching doctrine.  It's a funny thing, but that's MY job and the job of the church... NOT the school system.  But if your entire state was unified in ONE faith... I guess it wouldn't have been an issue back then.

As populations grow, so do varying opinions and a diversity of life, faith, and beliefs.  This also includes ideas that are antithetical to religious teachings too.  Part of the wheat and the tares equation.

[JoCa]

6 hours ago, skippy740 said:

Prove it.  As though it was on trial.

To get back to the point of this. You are asking for something that in general can't be proven (at least is very hard to prove).

You see one of the keys that I have learned in life is that as much as people want to say in this new, improved "enlightened" age that facts and reason hold say.  The truth is they don't.

Facts and reason don't mean jack. I could show you studies, I could deduce it logically but it doesn't matter. The only way you will come to believe it is and should be legally wrong is through emotion. 

Because the truth is that people make up their mind based on emotional responses and then find the facts that fit their narrative. It is why propaganda works, it is why the very first thing the Left did with Homosexuals was to emotionalize the issue. Never mind the facts that statistically speaking homosexuals and those that engage in that behavior are at a higher risk for STDs are at a higher risk of AIDS are at a higher risk of suicide, mental depression, illness, etc. etc. etc. Never mind that statistically speaking homosexuals on average have hundreds of sexual partners in their lifetime, never mind that statistically speaking a homosexual union (either by dating or marriage) is more unstable (as in more likely to separate) than heterosexuals.  Never mind any of that at all.

This issue is purely an emotional issue rather than a logical issue (and therefore one that can't be put on trial and therefore why what you are asking for is impossible to give you).  Why b/c for every study that says homosexuals are not "born that way", someone will say yeah but what about this case or what about this other case.  For every study about homosexual mental health problems or health problems, someone will say, yeah but look at my brother he is homosexual and it's not a problem for him.

This issue is emotional (and cannot be proven logically) b/c look at how the issue came to it's current status.  It came about b/c purely by propaganda. TV shows in the mid-late 90s started pushing this idea that homosexuality is nothing more like a different hair color.  Look at these wonderful homosexuals-they don't show the actual perverse behaviors or the negatives, no they just simply say look being homosexual is not different than anything else.

So I'm sad to say my friend, you've been totally brainwashed. I don't blame you or fault you.  Society in general has been brainwashed.  The speed with which homosexuality became accepted in modern society is absolutely astonishing-it took maybe 10 years to go from 65-70% against to 30-35% against.  That can only happen by brainwashing.  No new data came out, no new science came out . . .it was pure and absolute emotional brainwashing.

My advice to you and to all is to unindoctrinate yourself:

https://thembeforeus.com/marriage-married-parenthood-global-survey-gay-marriage-weakens-childrens-rights/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-13/katy-faust-ask-bigot-daughter-of-lesbians-gay-marriage-lateline/6694258

Another antidote as a society we have perverted a lot of God's laws.  As much as we might say that we receive judgement in the hereafter.  The vast, vast majority of commandments (and especially the big ones) were and are for the here and now.  They are God's laws b/c the consequences of disobeying them are quite drastic.  100 years ago sex out of wedlock would be pretty guaranteed to give a baby.  Homosexuals naturally died early and naturally didn't have any progenitors. 

Through the miracle or modern technology we can mask much of the bad temporal consequences for disobeying God's laws . . . except that while we can mask them on an individual basis we can not mask them on a society basis.  It will cause the downfall of our society-sad to say but I believe I will see it in my lifetime.  You think it's bad now . . .just wait, it's gonna get a lot worse.   

[JoCa]

12 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

Okay, I can understand that.

But what happens when someone moves from Massachusetts to Georgia?  Does the STATE mandate a religion on their citizens?  What happens if I didn't want to be a Baptist in Georgia?  Could a Congregationalist in Massachusetts establish a congregation in Georgia?

Remember that the Constitution that gave states so many rights over its people... also protected slavery as a fundamental right.

Before the Civil War, it was "The United States are".  After the Civil War, it became "The United States is".

Some things SHOULD change.

As for prayer in school - unless it's a private school with the faith of my choosing, I don't want teachers teaching doctrine.  It's a funny thing, but that's MY job and the job of the church... NOT the school system.  But if your entire state was unified in ONE faith... I guess it wouldn't have been an issue back then.

As populations grow, so do varying opinions and a diversity of life, faith, and beliefs.  This also includes ideas that are antithetical to religious teachings too.  Part of the wheat and the tares equation.

Yeah, and with regards to slavery that is why and amendment was passed. 

I agree some things should change-slavery is one.  But let's not get all self-righteous here about how evil the US was.  Slavery still exists today . . .in Africa . . .with blacks enslaving blacks . . .legally.

I understand you don't want teachers teaching doctrine.  I do! Your job and your church .  ..lol good luck with that.  Let me add up the hours.  A child goes to Church for 3 hours a week, a child is at home with his parents after school say 3 hours a night + weekends (10 hour days).  That's 25 hours. How many hours in school?  40 hours.  Which one is going to hold more sway after 18 years?

The parent . . lol not if the State is teaching aethism.  The Church? Not if the State is teaching the doctrine on secularism.

You kid regardless of how much you want to believe isn't learning religion at school they are!! They are learning the religion of secularism.  Why do you think kids today are so aethists? It's another indoctrinated lie . . oh heaven forbid my child be taught doctrine at school so we will remove religion from school.  Lol you blooming fools -they are being taught doctrine, the doctrine of the world and atheism.

If it weren't so incredibly sad it would be quite funny at how people seem to think of this idea "I don't want teachers teaching doctrine" .  . .here's a hint for you. They teach it every single day.  Sometimes in words, but mostly by action. And now they are forced to teach things contrary to their beliefs b/c of the state.  If your kids are going to a public school with teachers who are not Christian . . .well good luck to ya!

Edited September 21, 2017 by JoCa

[skippy740]

3 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I understand you don't want teachers teaching doctrine.  I do! Your job and your church .  ..lol good luck with that.  Let me add up the hours.  A child goes to Church for 3 hours a week, a child is at home with his parents after school say 3 hours a night + weekends (10 hour days).  That's 25 hours. How many hours in school?  40 hours.

+ 40 minutes per school day in seminary + 1.5 hours in mutual, plus QUALITY instruction from me.  And this past summer, my daughter was at EFY and girls' camp.  My sons are in scouting.  Plenty for a parent to talk about with their children.

The best way to teach children... is by example.  Everything else will pale in comparison no matter WHAT they say or teach.

5 minutes ago, JoCa said:

You kid regardless of how much you want to believe isn't learning religion at school they are!! They are learning the religion of secularism.  Why do you think kids today are so aethists? It's another indoctrinated lie . . oh heaven forbid my child be taught doctrine at school so we will remove religion from school.  Lol you blooming fools -they are being taught doctrine, the doctrine of the world and atheism.

It's because of dual-income households and not making it a priority.

No one said they aren't being taught "the ways of the world".  You can look at any sex-education course and determine that.  It's all about "wait until you're ready".  Well when's that?  My answer:  "There will be a big party.  You'll be wearing a white dress and people will be giving you gifts that you'll send thank you notes for.  You'll have applied for a marriage license and someone marries you.  THAT's when you're ready."

I can't change the world.  Not my job.  I can change my family.  THAT'S my job.  If we want to change society, we start at home.

[skippy740]

15 minutes ago, JoCa said:

To get back to the point of this. You are asking for something that in general can't be proven (at least is very hard to prove).

And that's the problem that we have as believers today in trying to preserve a nation with a rich Judeo-Christian heritage.  We can't prove it, so it won't fly.

[JoCa]

As for the state question.  That's why it's up to the States!! That was the wonderful thing about the founding of this country.  That's why Utah was a Mormon state.  If you wanted to be around Mormons you went to Utah, if you wanted to be around Catholics you go north.  Not hard.  And it's how communities work.

This idea that well we should just love everyone and accept everyone is just utter bull.  Communities are based on friendship, friendship is based on commonalities, commonalities are based on well things you have in common.  I've got nothing against Muslims . . .but I don't want them in my community.  They have a totally different belief structure, on what basis is my friendship going to be?  Talking about how the sky is blue?

It's why there is such social chaos right now, b/c the basic unit of society right above the family is breaking down, communities.  It's breaking down b/c everyone is buying into this lie that welp we just need to accept everyone.  No, we don't.  Human being are tribal at heart, it's what everything is based around.  Families grew and became larger families and became tribes.  Different families had different value systems which lead to different tribal values.  It's okay to be different and it's okay to live in different diverse but homogeneous communities.  It's why there are Asian communities and Hispanic communities, etc. etc.  

Today each State isn't really a separate community, it's just an arm of one large government.  Sure there are minor differences here and there but they are mostly administrative rather than an actual difference of community.

[skippy740]

17 minutes ago, JoCa said:

So I'm sad to say my friend, you've been totally brainwashed. I don't blame you or fault you.  Society in general has been brainwashed. 

I have not been brainwashed.  I simply see our nation's laws for what it is.  Am I an advocate for it?  Only so far as to say that foster care and orphanages are worse than being with same-sex couples.  There may not be an intrinsic study of the long-term effects, but I'd rather see children in a home that is stable, rather than in an environment that can be prone to abuse.

[JoCa]

2 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

+ 40 minutes per school day in seminary + 1.5 hours in mutual, plus QUALITY instruction from me.  And this past summer, my daughter was at EFY and girls' camp.  My sons are in scouting.  Plenty for a parent to talk about with their children.

The best way to teach children... is by example.  Everything else will pale in comparison no matter WHAT they say or teach.

It's because of dual-income households and not making it a priority.

No one said they aren't being taught "the ways of the world".  You can look at any sex-education course and determine that.  It's all about "wait until you're ready".  Well when's that?  My answer:  "There will be a big party.  You'll be wearing a white dress and people will be giving you gifts that you'll send thank you notes for.  You'll have applied for a marriage license and someone marries you.  THAT's when you're ready."

I can't change the world.  Not my job.  I can change my family.  THAT'S my job.  If we want to change society, we start at home.

I agree with a lot of what you say.  But the community used to be also for protection.  There are always examples and exceptions where the family isn't strong like it should be, whether by choice or by just random crap happening.  The herb/village/community would help protect those by helping to reinforce the common set of values.  Today that doesn't happen. 

It is why society is breaking down.

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, skippy740 said:

I have not been brainwashed.  I simply see our nation's laws for what it is.  Am I an advocate for it?  Only so far as to say that foster care and orphanages are worse than being with same-sex couples.  There may not be an intrinsic study of the long-term effects, but I'd rather see children in a home that is stable, rather than in an environment that can be prone to abuse.

No you are brainwashed.  You have a daughter 18.  Question.  Were you for homosexual marriage and adoption 20 years ago, 10 years ago? If not then why now?  What happened what changed?

Dude, yes you are indoctrinated and brainwashed.  It's blunt but the truth.

[JoCa]

11 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

And that's the problem that we have as believers today in trying to preserve a nation with a rich Judeo-Christian heritage.  We can't prove it, so it won't fly.

Right, b/c it's not something that can be proven-it is something that is indoctrinated.

You either indoctrinate Christian beliefs into society or you indoctrinate atheistic, hedonist beliefs into society. Hedonistic beliefs lead right where we are today. I can't imagine you enjoy or belief this is how culture should be.

This is my point, the moment we stopped indoctrinating the youth (in schools and in our communities) in a Christian lifestyle is the moment things went down the slippery slope.  There is no middle ground here; either we are teaching our youth in every aspect a Christian lifestyle or we are teaching them that religion doesn't matter.  Look at communities who actually take their job seriously of indoctrinating the youth-the Amish, the Menonites, LDS (until recently), and you will find a very strong line of values being passed from one generation to the next.

It's why if as a society we aren't careful Muslims will rule the world-they don't give a rip about secularism or any of this crap.  They understand the world better than we do in many ways. It's why if as a society we don't collectively get our heads out of the sand they will end up ruling over us.

Edited September 21, 2017 by JoCa

[skippy740]

Just now, JoCa said:

Dude, yes you are indoctrinated and brainwashed.  It's blunt but the truth.

Compared to what?  or whom?

Now we can get into petty differences, but I see a larger perspective... and perhaps you see a different larger perspective.

Tell me - where in the scriptures does it say that you SHOULDN'T love and accept everyone?  Christ dined with the sinners and publicans.  Christ died next to two thieves.  Christ said to go unto all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.  Wouldn't that mean that EVERYONE can become part of the Body of Christ and, as such, become our neighbor in the faith?

Note:  my daughter's 14, not 18.

4 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Were you for homosexual marriage and adoption 20 years ago, 10 years ago? If not then why now?  What happened what changed?

You want to know what changed?  Prop 8 changed me after it was overturned by our judges.  I was annoyed.  But I had to make sense of it.

And here's what I concluded:  I'm not going to vote MY BELIEF SYSTEM onto others through the ballot box.  Not anymore.  Anyone can live any way they want.  That is a right of our nation - AS LONG AS it doesn't interfere with the liberty or rights of another person.  The plan of salvation was based on individuals making choices.  Let them make their own individual choices in their lives.  Through the teaching of the gospel, that is when individuals will CHOOSE to follow the path of the Savior.

Until then... WHO AM I to interfere with how someone else chooses to live their life?   

[JoCa]

22 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

Compared to what?  or whom?

Now we can get into petty differences, but I see a larger perspective... and perhaps you see a different larger perspective.

Tell me - where in the scriptures does it say that you SHOULDN'T love and accept everyone?  Christ dined with the sinners and publicans.  Christ died next to two thieves.  Christ said to go unto all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.  Wouldn't that mean that EVERYONE can become part of the Body of Christ and, as such, become our neighbor in the faith?

Note:  my daughter's 14, not 18.

You want to know what changed?  Prop 8 changed me after it was overturned by our judges.  I was annoyed.  But I had to make sense of it.

And here's what I concluded:  I'm not going to vote MY BELIEF SYSTEM onto others through the ballot box.  Not anymore.  Anyone can live any way they want.  That is a right of our nation - AS LONG AS it doesn't interfere with the liberty or rights of another person.  The plan of salvation was based on individuals making choices.  Let them make their own individual choices in their lives.  Through the teaching of the gospel, that is when individuals will CHOOSE to follow the path of the Savior.

Until then... WHO AM I to interfere with how someone else chooses to live their life?   

Yes, I see it at a society wide level. Not at an individual level. 

Christ dinned with sinners and publicans .. .man probably the most misunderstood and misused modern usage of scripture. Christ loved them yes, but he didn't "accept" them.  Today accept is just another word for "I don't have to change and for you to tell me I should change means your a bigot". There is absolutely 0 doctrinal basis for God or Christ simply accepting us as we are.  

Alma 11:43"34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word."

No, He may always love us as we are but He spews us out of his mouth when we attempt to be saved in our sins.  The Bridegroom will absolutely reject those who are not willing to follow him, give up all their sins and strive with all their might to do nothing against His Commandments.  There is not one instance in the Scriptures where a man (or woman) commits sin and God says . . .yeah that's okay I accept you, go ahead keep sinning.  No, it is always, God forgives you-go and sin nomore. We seem to have forgotten the nomore part of the scriptures.

There is a big, big difference between accept and love.  I love my children to death, I love them more than anything except life and my wife.  But I do not in no way shape or form accept bad behavior on their part.  I don't accept, I expect, I expect good behavior.  I know they will fall, I know they will screw up, I'm totally cool with that, but I still demand and expect them to be better.  I don't accept sloppy work from them, I expect good work.  I love them enough to understand that they have a much higher potential than what they are currently doing or how they are behaving (if they misbehave). I love them enough to understand what they can be and I can give them an idea of the vision of what they can be in life.

Our Heavenly Father is no different.  "Be ye therefore Perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect".  I think that qualifies as an expectation about us on God's part.

------

Libertarianism is what you are referring to.  Let's get something straight libertarianism is not libertine (it can be but it doesn't need to be).  It is based on one principle, initiation of force. In other words no one has the right to initiate force against another human being unless they are being forced upon.  I get it I'm a libertarian at heart.  I wish the government were out of public schools, out of marriage and were only in a very, very few minor things. 

Unfortunately that's not the case.  So we can either deal with the world as we would like it to be (as in as long as don't harm someone else) you are free to do as you please.  Or we can deal with the world as it is (i.e. there is a war going on attempting to use force on people to alter their belief structures).  As long as there is a war going on to use force to alter belief systems . . .I'll vote for moral laws.  Sidenote: The libertarian principle can apply against homosexual adoptions b/c it can be proved (and I've linked articles to it) that homosexuals raising children can inflict serious damage on another human being.  But again-this is an emotional issue so facts won't matter to you.

As much as you think you are being rational . . ."equality" is one of the biggest lies ever sold.

Edited September 21, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

22 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

Until then... WHO AM I to interfere with how someone else chooses to live their life?   

Which is why the State should get out of marriage altogether.  The fact that the State is now enforcing homosexual unions and forcing children to be raised in homosexual homes is not libertarian . . .it's ugly, it's evil.  It is interfering with how someone else lives their life-it is interfering with the development of a child.

And this same lie, is used to justify abortion.  Hey it's their life, what should I care that they are killing a child.

[skippy740]

21 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Yes, I see it at a society wide level. Not at an individual level. 

Christ dinned with sinners and publicans .. .man probably the most misunderstood and misused modern usage of scripture. Christ loved them yes, but he didn't "accept" them.  Today accept is just another word for "I don't have to change and for you to tell me I should change means your a bigot". There is absolutely 0 doctrinal basis for God or Christ simply accepting us as we are. 

The individual is the most oppressed minority.

WE are not the gatekeepers into the Kingdom of Heaven.  Christ is.  And until we have our own planet, we are a guest here.  

D&C 64:34

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

Now that does not mean 'accept'.  When Christ is referring to standards of acceptance, it means entering in the Kingdom - either in Heaven or on Earth (His Church).  You and I are NOT ones to change that.  That's not for us to decide.

As you speak of "unacceptables", yes, you are referring to God's standards... but you were also referring to tribalism, and not accepting of people who are DIFFERENT from you.  And it's attitudes LIKE these that caused those of African descent to not be accepted into the Priesthood from the 1850's - 1978.  It took a long time for that to change because of the law of consent, ALL the apostles hearts had to be changed and ready to make the change to make the priesthood available to every worthy male.

This whole thing reminds me of this dialogue from the movie/musical 1776:

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: We've no choice, John. The slavery clause has got to go.

John Adams: [stunned] Franklin, what are you saying?

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: It's a luxury we can't afford.

John Adams: [pause, then] 'Luxury?' A half million souls in chains... and Dr. Franklin calls it a 'luxury!' Maybe you should have walked out with the South!

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: [dangerous] You forget yourself sir. I founded the FIRST anti-slavery society on this continent.

John Adams: Oh, don't wave your credentials at me! Maybe it's time you had them renewed!

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: [angrily] The issue here is independence! Maybe you have forgotten that fact, but I have not! How DARE you jeopardize our cause, when we've come so far? These men, no matter how much we may disagree with them, are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about - they are proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies. And whether you like them or not, they and the people they represent will be part of this new nation that YOU hope to create. Now, either learn how to live with them, or pack up and go home!

[pause, then]

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: In any case, stop acting like a Boston fishwife.

[askandanswer]

On 19/09/2017 at 6:51 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

In 1990 in an Ensign article by Gordon B. Hinkley (First Presidency Message) he quotes Orson F. Whitney quoting Heber C. Kimball:

“I want to say to you, my brethren, the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then, brethren, look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall; for I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming, and who will be able to stand?” (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1945, p. 446.)

What is (or are) this (or these) test (tests), do you think?

I think any BYU or U of U student who is reading their course guides and listening to their lecturers should have some idea of what tests are coming their way and what they will be about. Perhaps Elder Kimball at the time he said this talking to the students at the University of Deseret?   

[askandanswer]

My guess is that the test probably happened, and finished, long ago. Maybe it was the financial crash of the 1890's, maybe it was the persecution associated with the practice of polygamy and the passing of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, maybe it was World War 1.  Notwithstanding the many obvious exceptions in the scriptures, generally speaking, prophets and apostles are more inclined to speak to their people about issues that will impact on them directly, at the time they are alive, rather than talking about events that will only have an impact several generations later. What good would it do for the people of the 1850's for President Kimball to tell them of something that was going to happen long after they were all dead? 

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Traveler here's what it's like trying to talk with you:

Me: I think [some gospel principle].

You: So you hate Jesus then?

 

@The Folk Prophet  

Here is what it seems like to me when we discuss a topic.

You:  I think [some gospel principle].

Me: I agree with [some gospel principle] but how do you specifically apply that principle or what is your opinion about [some related but perhaps difficult situation – perhaps even something I have questioned and considered for a very long time hopping for deeper than surface insight].

You: So, you are saying I hate Jesus?  I done talking to you!

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its in the use of the word and the driven point of its use on an agenda that makes its context. Its a politically charged word. You dont have math teachers saying "welcome to secular math 101". Neither do you have a science teacher that says "according to the general secular understanding of the periodic table". Secular doesnt mean anything that doesnt mention the word "God". Secularism is a direct affront to religious thought, belief, spirituality, etc. As it is properly used its always in the context of being against God.

 

Because I have lived most of my life and work in the “secular” world, making a living – It seems to me that religious thinkers without much of any scientific background want to argue that anytime there appears to be a conflict between the observable empirical world and their religious theories that all such empirical observations are “against G-d”.  Mostly making the distinction between secular and religious thinking as though there is nothing common between them. 

Most atheists and agnostics I know and work with once lived in a religious home (mostly Christian) and as they pursued empirical understanding; encountered conflicts with what they were told growing up in a religious home (example 6000-year-old earth verses a preponderance of empirical evidence the earth is billions of years older than 6,000 years).  They are then told that to believe secular stuff; means that they cannot believe in G-d.  So, they began to think there must not be a G-d that would lie with evidence and hide the truth of his doings and tell man something different with revelation.  They become atheists or agnostic.   Most scientists do not see things as secular or religious rather they see all truth as being interrelated. 

I think it is a mistake for those religious thinkers to suggest that empirical evidence of things is evil and worldly and therefor against G-d.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

13 hours ago, JoCa said:

I understand you don't want teachers teaching doctrine.  I do! Your job and your church .  ..lol good luck with that.  Let me add up the hours.  A child goes to Church for 3 hours a week, a child is at home with his parents after school say 3 hours a night + weekends (10 hour days).  That's 25 hours.

If you live such a life that school teachers hold more sway and spend more time with your children than you do, you need to re-evaluate the way you're raising the kids.

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, Armin said:

I think it's what we experience these days: the cultural war in the Western societies (see USA as an example).

And Germany.

[JoCa]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If you live such a life that school teachers hold more sway and spend more time with your children than you do, you need to re-evaluate the way you're raising the kids.

I wish it were so, but all one needs to do is look at the product of children coming out of Public Schools.  Look at how many children are actively rebelling against their parents and following the way of the world.  It's no secret the Church has a retention problem among the youth.  Why do you think that is?  Why do you think that in every  totalitarian regime, the first thing they do is indoctrinate the children through schools.

All one needs to do is look at history to see how completely wrong your statement is.  Just look at the Hitler Youth.  They were indoctrinated in schools and then ended up turning in their own parents who were arrested and killed . . .and the children felt good about it!!

It's easy to figure out  . . . it's because what they are being taught in school doesn't coalesce with what they are being taught at home and at Church.  And I'm not talking about evolution here, I'm talking about a mode of thinking. The way children are being taught to think in schools is vastly different than how they are taught to think in church and at home.

We seem to have bought into this lie that the most important learning is learning of facts.  Totally wrong.  The most important learning is learning how to think properly.

At Church and at home we teach moral values, we teach there is an objective Truth, that one can find that objective Truth-that Truth (ultimately how to live ones life) comes about due to Truth found in the scriptures. So when a child is indoctrinated for 18 years for over 40 hours a week by teachers, peers, social pressure that truth is subjective, that all things are relative.  When they get to be adults they will have severe cognitive dissonance.  They will either need to cast off the thinking of the world or cast off the thinking of God. And we can all hold some bit of cognitive dissonance in our brains, but if that gulf becomes too wide something must give.  

I submit that the way children are taught today is vastly different than 20 years ago. Yes, moral relativism was taught, but not like it is today.

Edited September 21, 2017 by JoCa

[anatess2]

47 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I wish it were so, but all one needs to do is look at the product of children coming out of Public Schools.  Look at how many children are actively rebelling against their parents and following the way of the world.  It's no secret the Church has a retention problem among the youth.  Why do you think that is?  Why do you think that in every  totalitarian regime, the first thing they do is indoctrinate the children through schools.

All one needs to do is look at history to see how completely wrong your statement is.  Just look at the Hitler Youth.  They were indoctrinated in schools and then ended up turning in their own parents who were arrested and killed . . .and the children felt good about it!!

It's easy to figure out  . . . it's because what they are being taught in school doesn't coalesce with what they are being taught at home and at Church.  And I'm not talking about evolution here, I'm talking about a mode of thinking. The way children are being taught to think in schools is vastly different than how they are taught to think in church and at home.

We seem to have bought into this lie that the most important learning is learning of facts.  Totally wrong.  The most important learning is learning how to think properly.

At Church and at home we teach moral values, we teach there is an objective Truth, that one can find that objective Truth-that Truth (ultimately how to live ones life) comes about due to Truth found in the scriptures. So when a child is indoctrinated for 18 years for over 40 hours a week by teachers, peers, social pressure that truth is subjective, that all things are relative.  When they get to be adults they will have severe cognitive dissonance.  They will either need to cast off the thinking of the world or cast off the thinking of God. And we can all hold some bit of cognitive dissonance in our brains, but if that gulf becomes too wide something must give.  

I submit that the way children are taught today is vastly different than 20 years ago. Yes, moral relativism was taught, but not like it is today.

Most of the kids in our stake are in public schools.  My children are in public schools.   They've been there for most of their school life and both of them are now in high school.  The only kids that get indoctrinated in public school are the kids whose parents have not, and did not, build foundational principles in their children or did not pay attention to their kids while in public school.  The way that kids are taught in schools cannot override what parents teach at home when parents have instilled morality, respect and trust of parents, self-confidence, and courage in their children.  Parents who do not feel their kids can handle the diversity of thought in public schools should know to either re-enforce teachings at home or take the kids out of toxic environments.  My kid in junior year of high school goes to a very liberal school of the arts.  Yesterday, he walked into the school with his MAGA Trump t-shirt.  Every Friday he wears his MAGA hat.  He has 2 best friends - one is a Ted Cruz-to-Trump guy, the other a Bernie-to-Clinton guy.  His other friend who is the only other Mormon in the entire school is a Romney-supporting Never Trumper.  Most of the rest of the school, including the teachers, are SJW anti-Trumpers.  The first week of school he told his English teacher that the most recent book he read was the Book of Mormon.   His teacher told him that book is the bible of a religious cult.  My kid told her, no, it''s not the bible, but it is another testament of Christ.  He got moved to another English teacher the next class.  When he was in 6th grade, he distributed BOMs to his classmates who wanted a copy - there were 10 of them.  The teacher told him he is not allowed to give kids scriptures.  My son told her she, as a teacher, can't give kids scriptures but he, as a student, can if his classmates ask for one.  He then told the teacher she can keep one for herself if she wants one.  In any case, if my kid would have shown he has no confidence in who he is then I wouldn't put him in that school regardless of the excellence of its arts program.  His younger brother goes to an IB high school.  Not much of a problem there.  He has a very patriotic conservative history teacher, very patriotic conservative ROTC sergeants, and all the rest concentrate on their non-political subject matter.  The IB kids are a good balance of religious and political ideologies.  That's the cool thing about the IB program in our county's public schools.

PARENTS ARE THE PRIMARY EDUCATOR of their children.  The teachers are simply there to share the burden.  So when the parent says truth is not subjective and the teachers/peers are saying otherwise, the kid WOULD recognize that the teachers/peers are wrong because it is not what the kid knows to be true.  If the kid is taking the side of the teacher/peers in this kind of conflicting instruction, then the parent has failed to establish a trusting relationship at home and has failed to teach the child the goals and objectives of school and what school is for and to warn the child of its pitfalls.

Hitler youth cannot rise up in the USA simply because of the US Constitution.  Antifa may riot in Berkeley but at the end of the day, if parents/society want to squash that silliness in a quickness, all they have to do is enforce the laws or exercise their liberties to take the kid out of toxic environments.

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The only kids that get indoctrinated in public school are the kids whose parents have not, and did not, build foundational principles in their children or did not pay attention to their kids while in public school.

I disagree. If someone has your children for six to eight hours per day, they can indeed have a staggering influence over the children. I agree with the fundamental idea you preach, that parents should make the home the center of teaching, but I think it's naive to say that the only children adversely influenced ("indoctrinated") by public schools are those whose parents didn't do a good job of teaching them at home.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

@The Folk Prophet  

Here is what it seems like to me when we discuss a topic.

You:  I think [some gospel principle].

Me: I agree with [some gospel principle] but how do you specifically apply that principle or what is your opinion about [some related but perhaps difficult situation – perhaps even something I have questioned and considered for a very long time hopping for deeper than surface insight].

You: So, you are saying I hate Jesus?  I done talking to you!

 

The Traveler

Since you are struggling with the figurative, let me be literal. Here's the literal conversation:

You: I think finding common ground is the test.

Me: I don't think finding common ground is the test.

You: You have misjudged God. You think God requires that those he loves accept his plan of salvation. If someone refuses to recognize common ground they lack Christ-like love.  It would seem to you that common ground is compromising.

The thing is, not only do you make up a bunch of stuff about me in every response you give, you actually misunderstood the criticism I had of your theory in the first place. I don't have a problem with finding common ground. You're acting like my rejection of your idea is a rejection of finding common ground. But that is a false conclusion. The problem I have with your idea isn't in finding common ground. You've gone off beating that scarecrow to death as if I stated that "I don't believe in finding common ground!" I did not say that, do not think it, and find it strange that you'd jump to the conclusion because it is NOT the obvious conclusion to draw.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that I don't think finding common ground is "THE TEST". Just like I said. That doesn't mean I'm anti-common ground or associate finding common ground with evil. What I did say is that we cannot find common ground with evil. That doesn't mean there is no common ground to be had, as should be obvious, but you go off the rails interpreting it to mean that.

No....finding common ground is not compromising. Yes, pretending to find common ground with EVIL is -- because there is no common ground with evil, there is ONLY compromising.

If there is good to be found, great. If there isn't there isn't. What I reject is the nonsense implication behind your theory that if I don't find common ground with even Satan himself and all his followers then I'm failing "the test" and am that enemy of the people of God.

Stop responding like I'm saying that finding common ground is the evil. I'm not. I didn't say it and don't believe it. I'm talking about finding common ground with evil being evil. You can't cut out half the meaning behind what I'm saying and then expect decent communication to continue.

Edited September 21, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I disagree. If someone has your children for six to eight hours per day, they can indeed have a staggering influence over the children. I agree with the fundamental idea you preach, that parents should make the home the center of teaching, but I think it's naive to say that the only children adversely influenced ("indoctrinated") by public schools are those whose parents didn't do a good job of teaching them at home.

If the parents are doing a good job of overseeing the education of their children they would know how the public school is affecting their child and would know to pick a better school if it is not working out.

I have done this to my younger child.  I pulled him out of 1st grade public school because it was not working out.  I put him in private school until I found a public school better suited for him.

Edited September 21, 2017 by anatess2