Sign in to follow this  
Carborendum

Zoramites and Korihor

Recommended Posts

This week's CFM lesson just jumped out at me.

What is an anti-Christ?  It gives a definition.  But what stuck out at me was 

Quote

Any doctrine or principle our youth hear from the world that is antifamily is also anti-Christ. It’s that clear. If our youth cease to believe in the righteous traditions of their fathers as did the people described in Mosiah 26, if our youth don’t understand their part in the plan, they could be led away.

 -- "Teaching the Doctrine of the Family", Ensign, May 2011)

Now let's take a look at a particular organization which shall remain nameless:

Quote

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

We also see the table

 Capture.PNG.c534ca574c1eeb7b1da55ef5203047bc.PNG

And what is being taught?

Quote from the video.

Quote

That's what y'all are taught to do.  To be demons.

If you don't believe that telling white people they are racist is equivalent to saying "they're going to hell" then just consider what kinds of feelings come up when you think of a generic "racist".   To me, there is immediate hatred and a desire to punch them.  They deserve to go to hell.

If you don't think that, then why are you complaining about racism?  If it's not that bad, why are you saying it is such a big issue?  Why use such language as "you're taught to be demons."

What is it they require? Riches (oh, I'm sorry, it's called reparations).

And what does the conservative side say?

  • #1 issue in the black community is father absence.  Restore the black family unit, and the community will fix itself.
  • Welfare is the #1 reason blacks have broken families.
  • Forget race, look at a person's character.  All are children of God.  All need to come to Christ.  That is the solution.

I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see an attack on family, God, and the nation that supports them.  The entire movement IS anti-Christ.  But the left calls that being a "sellout".

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This week's CFM lesson just jumped out at me.

What is an anti-Christ?  It gives a definition.  But what stuck out at me was 

Now let's take a look at a particular organization which shall remain nameless:

We also see the table

 Capture.PNG.c534ca574c1eeb7b1da55ef5203047bc.PNG

And what is being taught?

Quote from the video.

If you don't believe that telling white people they are racist is equivalent to saying "they're going to hell" then just consider what kinds of feelings come up when you think of a generic "racist".   To me, there is immediate hatred and a desire to punch them.  They deserve to go to hell.

If you don't think that, then why are you complaining about racism?  If it's not that bad, why are you saying it is such a big issue?  Why use such language as "you're taught to be demons."

What is it they require? Riches (oh, I'm sorry, it's called reparations).

And what does the conservative side say?

  • #1 issue in the black community is father absence.  Restore the black family unit, and the community will fix itself.
  • Welfare is the #1 reason blacks have broken families.
  • Forget race, look at a person's character.  All are children of God.  All need to come to Christ.  That is the solution.

I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see an attack on family, God, and the nation that supports them.  The entire movement IS anti-Christ.

I was doing that lesson as well and thought that there are several leading organizations today that promote this idea that Korihor in the Book of Mormon taught.  Many of the things (and it also is from conservatives/republican party) coming out today or being pushed as being enlightened or helping society are designed to break up the family.  From areas where families are separated from each other at the border, to ideas that children don't need both mother and father in the home, to this idea of not being married and having children, to many other ideas that feel like they are against the gospel.

The part that I've been thinking about though was this

Quote

In a broader sense it is anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel or plan of salvation and that openly or secretly is set up in opposition to Christ.

In regards to the family, today there is this idea that Love is all there is and that as long as someone loves another person, they should be able to do all sorts of things with that person (inclusive of iniquity).  While, I agree, as an American, we should let others have the freedoms that they desire as long as they do not impede on the freedoms of others, it does not mean that what they teach is of the Lord.

In light of the above quote, it may be worse than that.  At times it may be that some of them are trying to counterfeit the gospel into one where it is only about love, but nothing about righteousness. 

I think there are dangers of this on both sides o the political equation today though.  There are those that are openly rebelling, but there are also those that are quietly leading people down a dark path under the guise that Republicans are the religious choice. 

Of course, this is ALL bias, even on my own part.  I see your ideas, but I would say it is not just those of minorities, but a plague on the US right now in regards to divorce.  Divorce, in my opinion, is one of the leading causes of disruption of the plan of salvation.  Immorality before marriage, during marriage, and otherwise, as the cause of fornications and adulteries are something that are leading this society in rebellion against the Lord.  You see it in full display among both Democrats, Republicans, and most other factions in our society.  It is glorified and accepted. 

Two of the headings though bring hope, and following those ideas can give us strength to face the wicked world.

Quote

The Book of Mormon can help me resist the influence of those who try to deceive me.

God's word has the power to lead people to righteousness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think there are dangers of this on both sides o the political equation today though.  There are those that are openly rebelling, but there are also those that are quietly leading people down a dark path under the guise that Republicans are the religious choice. 

I found most of your post to be quite enlightening.  And this quoted portion is mostly true.  But I don't believe a lot of average Americans believe that Republicans are "the religious choice." 

It is not, overall, a religious platform.  No question.  Yet, Democrats seem to think it is without any evidence. It merely "allows" for religion under the umbrella rather than shunning religion as an enemy of a free society as Democrats do.

Now, I want to point out that this post was about the CFM lesson.  That's why it's in the Gospel Discussions subforum.

There is certainly an interaction between politics and religion.  But, clearly, they are not the same thing.  I posted the OP to warn people about some things that so clearly are not merely anti-religion or non-religious, but anti-Christ.

An atheist that tells people that religion is just a fairy tale is much less damaging than an organization that purports to uphold "righteousness" but are really about destroying the family and destroying religious institutions (false Christ).  These are not merely political organizations that may or may not like religion.  They are anti-Christ organizations.

There is the warning.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This week's CFM lesson just jumped out at me.

***

I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see an attack on family, God, and the nation that supports them.  The entire movement IS anti-Christ.  But the left calls that being a "sellout".

I think the spirit of contention and pride keep people both on the left and the right from working together to arrive at understanding and generously applying true principles. Bad actors who know that will try keep them stirred up against each other by promoting contention and pride, not because they've taken a side, but because they want to bring it all down and make what is left theirs. Just my opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the spirit of contention and pride keep people both on the left and the right from working together to arrive at understanding and generously applying true principles. Bad actors who know that will try keep them stirred up against each other by promoting contention and pride, not because they've taken a side, but because they want to bring it all down and make what is left theirs. Just my opinion...

Your words are true, but I suspect they lead to a false paradigm. It sounds like you're saying "Both sides are to blame." This is true in the sense that the guy who drives unsafely and the guy who forcibly rapes women both contribute to the ills of society. But that observation obscures the fact that one of the actors is fundamentally, orders-of-magnitude worse than the other.

I could spend all day listing out the hypocrisies and outright lies told and done by the Republican Party and even by conservatives in general. But to pretend that that's somehow equivalent to the evils perpetrated on a daily, even hourly, basis by the Democrat Party and the political left is an unabashed falsehood. I think that recognizing and honestly dealing with the failings of "your side" is a worthy exercise, one that is needed for any healthy, moral person or society. But to build false equivalencies between two sides is to doom us to utter failure. I have seen this sort of thing happening for at least half my life, and I'm sure it's been going on far longer than that. It is what has brought us to this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

Your words are true, but I suspect they lead to a false paradigm. It sounds like you're saying "Both sides are to blame." This is true in the sense that the guy who drives unsafely and the guy who forcibly rapes women both contribute to the ills of society. But that observation obscures the fact that one of the actors is fundamentally, orders-of-magnitude worse than the other.

I could spend all day listing out the hypocrisies and outright lies told and done by the Republican Party and even by conservatives in general. But to pretend that that's somehow equivalent to the evils perpetrated on a daily, even hourly, basis by the Democrat Party and the political left is an unabashed falsehood. I think that recognizing and honestly dealing with the failings of "your side" is a worthy exercise, one that is needed for any healthy, moral person or society. But to build false equivalencies between two sides is to doom us to utter failure. I have seen this sort of thing happening for at least half my life, and I'm sure it's been going on far longer than that. It is what has brought us to this point.

False paradigms are prevented through charity and humility (which oppose contention and pride), and even bad actors can repent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

False paradigms are prevented through charity and humility (which oppose contention and pride), and even bad actors can repent.

Not sure what you mean. How do charity and humility prevent false paradigms?

I agree, bad actors can repent. Thank God for that, or we would all be lost. But as long as the bad action continues, are we not required to identify it for what it is? Turning a blind eye to sin and wickedness is no way to help either society or the sinner himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vort said:

Not sure what you mean. How do charity and humility prevent false paradigms?

I agree, bad actors can repent. Thank God for that, or we would all be lost. But as long as the bad action continues, are we not required to identify it for what it is? Turning a blind eye to sin and wickedness is no way to help either society or the sinner himself.

Maybe correct is a better word than prevent. But after correction, prevention going froward. When we act according to the truth we possess (charity), and learn more truth (humility), we see more clearly. Turning a blind eye to sin and wickedness is a sinful and wicked thing to do, as is treating the sinful and the wicked as they treat others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Maybe correct is a better word than prevent. But after correction, prevention going froward. When we act according to the truth we possess (charity), and learn more truth (humility), we see more clearly. Turning a blind eye to sin and wickedness is a sinful and wicked thing to do, as is treating the sinful and the wicked as they treat others.

If I despise the sinful and wicked because of their fallen state, then I am a hypocrite. But if I consider them as a deadly poison threatening to murder my loved ones, and I see their attempts to destroy society and replace it with open wickedness, how is it wrong for me to marshal all the evidence, argumentation, and logic I can to meet that threat? Is merely pointing out "these are wicked people advocating evil" wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Vort said:

If I despise the sinful and wicked because of their fallen state, then I am a hypocrite. But if I consider them as a deadly poison threatening to murder my loved ones, and I see their attempts to destroy society and replace it with open wickedness, how is it wrong for me to marshal all the evidence, argumentation, and logic I can to meet that threat? Is merely pointing out "these are wicked people advocating evil" wrong?

I think it depends on the paradigm one uses -- if anyone further "left"or "right" of one's paradigm is considered to be a mortal enemy (the paradigm of most extremists), that is not helpful. When a label alone leads to such a conclusion, the same. I think charity and humility are fundamental attributes in obtaining the knowledge, skills, abilities and resources in promoting truth and combating error as we prepare for the Lord's second coming through proper application of the Restored Gospel and the US Constitution (our system of government). We find far less compromise of course in the Gospel than in politics! :) But with the firm foundation of the Gospel we can better participate in politics and the Lord will bless our efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Turning a blind eye to sin and wickedness is a sinful and wicked thing to do, as is treating the sinful and the wicked as they treat others.

So, killing someone in self-defense is off the table, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Vort said:

If I despise the sinful and wicked because of their fallen state, then I am a hypocrite. But if I consider them as a deadly poison threatening to murder my loved ones, and I see their attempts to destroy society and replace it with open wickedness, how is it wrong for me to marshal all the evidence, argumentation, and logic I can to meet that threat? Is merely pointing out "these are wicked people advocating evil" wrong?

All this is complicated by that troublesome 2nd great commandment to love our neighbors.  Honestly, I find that commandment, and Sun Tzu's advice to "know thy enemy" to walk harmoniously hand in hand, when it comes to some of my neighbors.  Thinking specifically about my real-life anarchist facebook arguing buddy.   I've known for years that if something ever causes a shooting war in the US, he and I will be on opposite sides of the fence.  Yet we've managed to retain a certain fondness for each other through the unbridgeable distances. 

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it depends on the paradigm one uses -- if anyone further "left"or "right" of one's paradigm is considered to be a mortal enemy (the paradigm of most extremists), that is not helpful. 

Strawman/ Red herring.

You're assuming this is being done.  It is not.

I specifically stated the specific messages given by specific people.  I was giving a word of warning to those who are "on the left" but still good people who may have simply gotten swallowed up in group think.  I'm warning them that if they continue to follow that road because of sympathy or unity or "love" they are also buying into a whole lot that they may not want to support after all.  And I'm pointing to those specific beliefs that I don't believe they actually want to buy into.

So, for all those "good liberals" out there, I'm trying to warn them to stay away from those specific groups with specific goals and what may lead to supporting those goals.

I find it ironic that in all this haranguing that you've been doing with Vort, that you're trying to not "lump everyone in" a group, but that is exactly what you're doing with my thread.  You've made this about something I never stated. 

I'm warning about a specific group that is courting the liberals of this country -- many of whom (the liberals) are very good people.  I'm specifically NOT lumping them in.  But you're lumping my ideas in with all people who are "against the left" with every "anti-left" idea.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, killing someone in self-defense is off the table, apparently.

I was thinking more in line of public discourse and other politics. People trying to kill me and killing people in self-defense is not my go-to scenario/hypothetical in a thread such as this.

I think people on both on the left and the right need to work together in good faith to arrive at understanding and generously apply true principles. Sometimes that involves listening to an opposing view that is uncomfortable, disagreeable or wrong with the long-term view of winning someone over using the attributes listed in D&C 121:41-44.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Strawman/ Red herring.

You're assuming this is being done.  It is not.

I specifically stated the specific messages given by specific people.  I was giving a word of warning to those who are "on the left" but still good people who may have simply gotten swallowed up in group think.  I'm warning them that if they continue to follow that road because of sympathy or unity or "love" they are also buying into a whole lot that they may not want to support after all.  And I'm pointing to those specific beliefs that I don't believe they actually want to buy into.

So, for all those "good liberals" out there, I'm trying to warn them to stay away from those specific groups with specific goals and what may lead to supporting those goals.

I find it ironic that in all this haranguing that you've been doing with Vort, that you're trying to not "lump everyone in" a group, but that is exactly what you're doing with my thread.  You've made this about something I never stated. 

I'm warning about a specific group that is courting the liberals of this country -- many of whom (the liberals) are very good people.  I'm specifically NOT lumping them in.  But you're lumping my ideas in with all people who are "against the left" with every "anti-left" idea.

I said "depends" and 'if"... I see no specific groups mentioned in the OP, unless they are mentioned somewhere in the video which I didn't watch (the OP narrative is more important). I do see a generalization of two sides, so I kept my remarks general.

How might someone win over a person they have decided is very, very wrong (outside of criminal justice issues)? Or do they even try?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

How might someone win over a person they have decided is very, very wrong (outside of criminal justice issues)? Or do they even try?

I have naive but sincere questions. Does "winning someone over" mean pretending to agree with them until you're ingratiated enough that you can begin your attack on their thinking from the inside? Is there no Godly virtue in standing your ground from the beginning? Can a man not be polite and friendly to others without openly disagreeing with them on matters of principle?

When I think of how I would deal with my siblings or my children, my black-and-white view gets tinged with strange emotional hues. But when I try to remain rational and principles-based when considering dealing with others by sticking to one's guns, I perceive the fault to lie something close to 0% with those of us who try to be loving and accepting while still openly championing our principles, and something close to 100% with those whom we want to "win over" but who refuse our sincere offer of friendship because we don't believe the right things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have naive but sincere questions. Does "winning someone over" mean pretending to agree with them until you're ingratiated enough that you can begin your attack on their thinking from the inside? Is there no Godly virtue in standing your ground from the beginning? Can a man not be polite and friendly to others without openly disagreeing with them on matters of principle?

When I think of how I would deal with my siblings or my children, my black-and-white view gets tinged with strange emotional hues. But when I try to remain rational and principles-based when considering dealing with others by sticking to one's guns, I perceive the fault to lie something close to 0% with those of us who try to be loving and accepting while still openly championing our principles, and something close to 100% with those whom we want to "win over" but who refuse our sincere offer of friendship because we don't believe the right things.

To me, "winning someone over" entails using the attributes listed in D&C 121:41-44 so that they come closer to supporting your position and hopefully over time, even closer. Both standing your ground and compromising are valid means to arriving at political solutions, and these godly attributes are key in forging either. I'm assuming that, by it's nature, good-faith political dialog entails open disagreement, but these attributes are also effective in dealing with less straightforward actors as well. Extremists, I think, are manipulated by others as a means to an end, which is usually some other goal entirely (such as power and gain). Ezra Taft Benson gave a speech / pamphlet about that back in 1967, whcih I think applies today, outmoded terminology and examples notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I you read the following post, I'm going to make an effort to get back to my original intent.

I'm NOT saying liberals are all out for the same agenda.  What I'm seeing is that the movement that seems to be sweeping the country is continuing down the same road (when a long train of abuses and usurpations...)

https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

It is absolutely bonkers to hear a black organization (National Museum of African American History & Culture) tout the following traits as "whiteness" in such a manner that it seems they think that if you have these traits, you must be a racist.  It actually sounds like the complaint list from a KKK group about why they are superior (whites are this way and blacks aren't). 

It makes no sense that this came from a black source. But here are the traits that make you racist:

whiteculture_info_1.thumb.png.c5617ed6b1904ebc089f42479d540ba9.png

Does anyone really think this is still able to be supported in light of gospel principles?

DISCLAIMER:

  • I don't believe they are all correct (i.e. accurate assessment of "white culture".  Some are painting with a wide brush for a minority of the cases following the description)
  • I don't believe they are all right (i.e. it may accurately describe the status quo, but it doesn't mean I agree that it should be that way)
  • I believe most of them to be correct and right.
    • It is these that I believe are right in line with gospel principles.
    • It is these that continue to follow this pattern of being antiChrist (anti-family, anti-Christianity, anti-truth)

Regardless of religion, I don't see how on earth the authors of this pamphlet can say that "emphasis on scientific method" is somehow a bad thing?

Why, exactly, are they trying to say most of this stuff is somehow to be avoided?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Before I you read the following post, I'm going to make an effort to get back to my original intent.

I'm NOT saying liberals are all out for the same agenda.  What I'm seeing is that the movement that seems to be sweeping the country is continuing down the same road (when a long train of abuses and usurpations...)

https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER:

  • I don't believe they are all correct (i.e. accurate assessment of "white culture".  Some are painting with a wide brush for a minority of the cases following the description)
  • I don't believe they are all right (i.e. it may accurately describe the status quo, but it doesn't mean I agree that it should be that way)
  • I believe most of them to be correct and right.
    • It is these that I believe are right in line with gospel principles.
    • It is these that continue to follow this pattern of being antiChrist (anti-family, anti-Christianity, anti-truth)

Regardless of religion, I don't see how on earth the authors of this pamphlet can say that "emphasis on scientific method" is somehow a bad thing?

Why, exactly, are they trying to say most of this stuff is somehow to be avoided?

Well, on the bright side, we can authoritatively say (according this pamphlet) that the Saints of the church aren't white culture!

Though, most of the items apply to members of the Church in the Mormon Corridor (N. Arizona through Utah and S. Idaho), there are some that stand out that I KNOW (at least in the past, for my generation, I had 7 kids, soooo....) don't describe members at all!

1.  Children should have their own rooms (not in my house they didn't.  There were at least two in each room generally.  We'd have had to have a MONSTER house to have that many rooms!).  Many members of my generation (though I know many have smaller families now, I think they still have larger families then most in the US) couldn't have done that even if they wanted to!!!

2. Objective, rational thinking (this one will get me in trouble if I comment too much on it) - Many think that our way of finding truth (feeling the spirit) is not rational in a "scientific" manner.  And, in the secular view, it isn't.  I'd say that it actually IS rational and logical, but in regards to how the world views us, I think they would agree that we are not rational in how we know the truth of the Gospel.

3. Christianity is the Norm - There are (or used to be) many other Christians that claimed that we were not Christians (and we were not, in the sense that they claimed only those who were Trinitarian in the very specific way they identified it could be the only one's to lay claim to the term Christian).

4. The King's English Rules - Maybe in the Mormon Corridor, but as the Church is worldwide, we have over a hundred languages (more than that even, I'm not sure of how many to be honest) natively spoken by members in the church.  Even in the US we have Spanish and other languages spoken in many wards as the native language of the ward or branch. 

5.  Don't Show emotion - Have you gone to one of our Testimony meetings recently?  Or even watched General Conference.  At least one talk will have someone tearing up at the podium!

Conclusion - We must not be part of this White culture they are referring to, even if they think they mean we are part of it.  Their own points to show what White Culture is indicates that we have vast differences between their "White culture"  and who we are!!!

PS: Hopefully this doesn't offend anyone, this is tongue in cheek to a degree...

Points out what I think are valid items, and though serious, I'm also a little bit cheeky in this.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this