All Comments (188)

ahh yes... Proverbs 16

What a great work you are doing! Must catch up with you soon
royjanet@iinet.net.au

Parker: you see, i get sensitive when others engage in double meanings. **I** am the ironic novelist, after all. I have to protect my territory.

Speaking of irony, yes, you're right, the Greeks who invented irony exhibited some of the highest in their own history.

Wasn't it God who said "pride cometh before the fall." (notice how devoid of pride I, America's greatest literary critic, am. It's what makes me great.))

Phaedrus,
I respect you a great deal. As far as I'm concerned, HJ and Darwin have answered your question, either implicitly or explicity.

HJ,
The double meaning was that the Greeks left us great wisdom as well as an example of what not to do. I enjoyed your comment about the "cycles of domination". Thanks.

LDS Mark, my Poor Child

you write "f you have ever studied the complexity of life, you would feel that it is not just some random coincidence that it ended up this way."

the most brilliant scientists in the world have studied the complexity of life over and over again, and they have overwhelmingly (virtually unanimously) condemned the Intelligent Design clap trap you are alluding to as grossly illogical, supported by no evidence, and as having no involvement with the scientific method.

Saying "evolution is just a theory" betrasy your ignorance in an appalling way.

As far as guides to complexity, I will take Stephen Jay Gould over LDS Mark any millenium.

Parker: very interesting Darwin quote. I couldn't have said it better myself.
However, I am not a great enough literary critic to divine your double meaning.

Implicit in Darwin's quote, at least for me, is an understanding of the cycles of domination.

When a new nation is hungry for growth and is poor, it might fight tooth and claw to establsh a local dominant position. Once it HAS achieved dominance, it may get to enjoy the fruits of its wealth a little too much, and fiddle around while Rome burns. They may have, for example, the same level of general intelligence as when they started, but they get soft, self-satisfied, arrogant, or over extended.

As Dr D says, there are SO mamy interacting factors. Morality is usually a civilization-appropriate balance between useful hypocrasy and control on man's natural tendancies for corruption (all of which I myself have not inherited).

Parker:

Is it your position that civilizations rise and fall based upon some sort of collective adherence to a moral absolute, or lack thereof?

SML,
Darwin observed:
"It has been urged by several writers that as high intellectual powers are advantageous to a nation, the old Greeks, who stood some grades higher in intellect than any race that has ever existed,* ought, if the power of natural selection were real, to have risen still higher in the scale, increased in number, and stocked the whole of Europe. Here we have the tacit assumption, so often made with respect to corporeal structures, that there is some innate tendency towards continued development in mind and body. But development of all kinds depends on many concurrent favourable circumstances. Natural selection acts only tentatively. Individuals and races may have acquired certain indisputable advantages, and yet have perished from failing in other characters. The Greeks may have retrograded from a want of coherence between the many small states, from the small size of their whole country, from the practice of slavery, or from extreme sensuality; for they did not succumb until "they were enervated and corrupt to the very core."*(2) The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks, though they owe much to the written works of that wonderful people."

* See the ingenious and original argument on this subject by Mr. Galton, Hereditary Genius, pp. 340-342.
*(2) Mr. Greg, Fraser's Magazine, Sept., 1868, p. 357.

So, SML, what I wrote had a double meaning. Take care.

Since the mercurial Phaedrus brought up shakespeare, another quote from the bard to boltress his point:

"there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

and evolution doesn't know or care what i think.

Hi Parker ~

Just out of curiosity, what specific truths rose out of which specific fallen civilizations?

Hi LDS Mark ~

"If you have ever studied the complexity of life, you would feel that it is not just some random coincidence that it ended up this way."

I have studied the complexity of life. And I do feel it's some random coincidence that it ended up this way, as well as the non-coincidental things being influenced by what man has done to mess things up as well (see the extinct dolphins in China I mentioned before, global warming, pollution, etc.).

And God is an unproven theory as well.

Have a great day.

Phaedrus ~

It's good to hear from you again. Hope all is well.

Sister Mary Lisa:

Actually...

Evolution is an unproven theory.

Yet it could also just be the way God changes things.

You should note that, the base design has remained the same.

If you have ever studied the complexity of life, you would feel that it is not just some random coincidence that it ended up this way.

Think about it...

mark

I enjoyed my quick scan of this thread, thanks to all participants. One brief note before leaving this in the hands of the oh-so-capable neurons of SML, Huff and HJ:

We must be careful not to confuse "is" for "ought." The law of gravity "is" what it is, regardless of whether any human thinks it "ought" to operate in the manner in which it does. Evolution (fact), whether by natural selection (theory) or something else, operates without the consciousness required to assess its machinations as good, bad, desirable, undesireable etc. There is no intention buried within its workings to produce something which pleases or displeases human beings.

The tendency for humans, existing by necessity within the natural world, to divide nature itself into nice and naughty bits, based upon how our one little species (or subset thereof)is affected by the workings of the whole is hugely narcissistic. There is no "meaning" in Shakespeare's "slings and arrows," outside of Hamlet's fictional consciousness, there are only slings and arrows. Things are what they are no matter what we think they "ought," or "ought not" to be.

Once this is recognized and accepted, it makes discussions of the "intentions" conveyed in naturally-occurring events seem more than a bit silly. But, as Python shows us repeatedly, silliness can be lots of fun.

Best wishes,

P.

SML,
Do you realize what a rich vein you've tapped into? Evolution says civilizations rise and fall based on a set of moral conditions chosen by the society. So does Truth. Go ahead and blame the conditions you complained about on evolution--all you're saying is, "I wanted to find it out for myself. I didn't want the Supreme Being to warn me about it."

My last question doesn't make much sense. I am not good at clarifying my thoughts on evolution.

Let me try again.

People who believe in God believe that patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, sympathy, willingness to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good are traits that come from God to man like gifts. But can we agree that man being the kind of animal he is, such traits are actually ones that help to promote his survival?

Christians say those traits are gifts from God to further man's existence. Evolutionists say those traits are natural in order to further man's existence.

Christians say when a civilization gets wiped out, that's God showing his power in punishing wickedness. Evolutionists say survival of the fittest is at work when one civilization dominates or takes over or exterminates another.

To me, I see no difference in the two ideas except that evolution has a heckuva lot more evidence to back it up than the warm feeling in my bosom I get when reading the words in the scriptures. But then again...I got a warm feeling in my bosom when I read about evolution too.

SML,
I'm saying that truth rises from the rubble of fallen civilizations and primitive jungles, and Darwin's words could actually be discussed and used to put forth a favorable view of religion and most certainly a favorable view of morality. Have a good day.

Parker ~

What randomly beautiful thoughts you share in such a randomly beautiful way! Hooray to evolution for creating you! :)

Are you saying that you think God himself is the one changing species today to adapt due to changes in their environment in order to survive? Why would he do that, but allow the random violence he allows? Why did he allow the freshwater dolphins in China to become extinct this year?

Are you saying that somehow God is involved in giving tribes found in the deep jungle (who never once learned about God or worship any God) patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, sympathy, willingness to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good? That all came from God? How is that so if they don't even know about God?

Parker,

The great thing about Darwin (and common sense) is that he (it) puts Moroni and analogous "pwtfft"s on the myth and/or embellishment pile thereby putting the foundations of Mormonism (along with the foundations of Islam and Christianity) on the myth and/or embellishment pile.

Parker,

The great thing about Darwin (and common sense) is that it puts Moroni and analogous "pwtfft"s on the myth and/or embellishment pile thereby putting the foundations of Mormonism (along with the foundations of Islam and Christianity) on the myth and/or embellishment pile.

HJ and SML,
I suppose this is as good a place as any to insert an "Ode to Evolution" (by Parker):

Let us assume, for the sake of getting along with each other, and to see where it leads us, that evolution as postulated by Darwin is true. After all, the scientific community has had plenty of time to think about alternative theories, and has embraced evolution as the magic answer to how life began on this earth, and how there is so much diversity in the world. What a randomly beautiful thing this world ended up being, with randomly beautiful life forms and a randomly intricate balance of nature!

What randomly beautiful sunsets there are on so many horizons in the world! What randomly beautiful flowers there are in so many places! What randomly beautiful birds, and butterflies! Hooray to evolution for thinking so well of mankind to have provided for us such a beautiful place to live, and for inspiring so many offspring to create a world of beauty for ourselves and for our children! Hooray to evolution for not making life as drab as the science lab where intelligent scientists do their tinkering, make their “aha!” discoveries, and come up with their “aha!” theories.

Hooray to evolution for generating the creative minds of the musical geniuses of history, such as Mozart, Brahms, Handel and Beethoven! Hooray to evolution for generating Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt and Renoir! Hooray to evolution for Homer, Hugo and Shakespeare, and for allowing our minds to get a glimpse of the deep meaning of many things! Hooray to evolution for ennobling mankind with compassionate, energizing love—a life-giving force and a life-sustaining wellspring of goodness. Pity the man or woman who does not feel this love as they move through their life, trying to make sense of their existence.

Hooray to Darwin for putting things together for us in an interdisciplinary approach to scientific reasoning, to tell us how we came to be in a world that happened to have just the right combination of chemical composition and placement in the heavens to allow life to form and develop by such a fortuitous chance. What incredible odds there were against it happening, but here we are! Darwin wrote so well, so convincingly, shooting down the opposition very nicely as he went along, making sure they would feel stupid if they didn’t agree with him. His is a very personable, readable style, sort of like a long personal essay. English students would do well to read his work for the sake of learning from his writing style as well as from his ability to win a reader over to his point of view. Others would do well to read his work for the sake of learning what he had to say about some of the complex social implications of a belief in evolution.

If by a belief in evolution we think we are supposed to be in a world where “survival of the fittest,” random chance, and random mutations will always rule, where we should allow nature to take its random course, then we had better realize that the world is more complex than this. Darwin was careful to point it out.
Says he: “We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

He also adds: “Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

The study of evolution warns us that if we as the species homo sapiens do not collectively build a benevolent and ethical culture within our society, we likely face a decline by war, lawlessness and loss of intellectual achievement. This decline may take generations, but that is what evolution is all about—change by slight degrees, one year to the next, decade by decade, generation by generation. A thousand years is a drop in the bucket in evolutionary time, but to look at our world today and then imagine what it may be like in a thousand years based on present social and environmental trends is to recognize the need for a collective consciousness that yearns and strives to provide those generations yet unborn with a world that has not declined into an unwelcome, inhospitable place to live and find happiness.

To quote further from Darwin:
"With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues,
such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or
even held sacred.... Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment- originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men,
ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit.
It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his
children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of
morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice
themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.

We compare the weakened impression of a past temptation with the ever present social
instincts, or with habits, gained in early youth and strengthened during our whole lives, until they have become almost as strong as instincts. If with the temptation still before us we do not yield, it is because either the social instinct or some custom is at the moment predominant, or because we have learnt that it will appear to
us hereafter the stronger, when compared with the weakened impression of the temptation, and we realise that its violation would cause us suffering. Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant."

I wish it were so. Happy the progress of humankind if such be the case. Regard, Parker

SML

You and I ARE creating a new world right now! Someone has to do it. And YOU are a powerful agent!

And Ues, Carlin is there with us, because he speaks the truth regardless of what the sanctions of Politeness or Hypocrasy demand.

Mormons pride themselves on having "civil discourse." Civil discourse can be "lovely", but in this case it is used to preserve exploitative power relationships: men over women, straights over gays, the General Authorities over members who realize how crazy stories like the Book of Abraham are.

Carlin is like Swift: his satire illustrates that the Emporer and the Prophet have No Clothes, just temple garments that preserve the hierarchy for time and all eternity.

Luv yo, but don't tell your other husband.

Henry

Parker ~

You aren't way in over your head. I just enjoy creating a scenario which causes men (and women) to look at the system as I see it from my point of view every single Sunday and every single day of my life growing up in an LDS environment. Boys rule and girls drool. You can't help that you feel the way you do. That's what I'm saying: Patriarchy and sexism as blatant and unfair as found within the Mormon church is wrong for both men and women to practice or endure. It does you no favors ~ well, it does do you SOME favors because you're a guy and therefore handed powers and authority, but you know what I mean. Is it any wonder men feel superior to women so often within the church? Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't you? Unless you think it over and realize openly what you have been given simply because you were born a man. That which your wife and daughters will never have unless Otterson's cronies in the First Presidency decide to change things for the women as they should.

The truth is, there is no reasonable explanation for sexism like this. Of course, the church is a private organization and can set it up however they want it to be. And until the majority of the women and also men as good as you are stand up and say so to the old dudes at the top who came of age in the fifties and sixties, then it's not gonna happen. What a sad thing this is. Exactly what would it hurt you or any man in the church to have women also able to give blessings, baptize their children, conduct Sacrament Meeting, conduct interviews? It woudln't. Instead the church leadership promotes the teachings that women should embrace such treatment, and remain submissive and accept their role as helper and housekeeper and mother in Zion. This works for many women, and sucks for many. And those for whom it sucks are taught that they are unrighteous for feeling this way, and that they should repent.

Which leads me back to a God who knows the big picture, and doesn't mind treating half his children like they are worth nothing more than broodmares which can be collected ~ as many as a man desires.

Take care, Parker, and thanks for letting me go off on a new tangent. Back to our regularly scheduled debate over Opposition in All Things. ;)

Henry ~

Do you think in the world you and I create that George Carlin will be beneficial to our perfected society goals? I do!

Parker, you Ghost You

like Huff, i remember no quote from darwin that says evolution will lead to a perfected society.

on the EXTREME contrary, evolution has NO teleogical component. what happens happens depending on the specific interaction of a species with the environment, the Niches as Huff tells us.

We seemingly agree that the world and its humans are "free" to make their decisions, for better or worse, whether guided by God or randomness.

You and I also seem to agree that God is NOT guiding us. He/She is letting us make our pitiful mistakes left and right. Call it free will or random meaninglessness, it amounts to the same thing.

Does God love us? Not in a way that can be demonstrated by any evidence.

Shakespeare, as quoted before, has it just right: "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport."

Mormons believe that you and I and Willard Richards will be rewarded in the afterlife. Who knows?

luv you man.
henry
(in a non homoerotic way)

SML,
I suspected I would get in way over my head trying to present a reasonable explanation. Ah, well, such is life.

All the rest,
I don't think I meant to imply that Judeo-Christian ethics were the foundation of American government. You all made good points. Evolution, though, implies very long term results--where are those countries now in terms of economic leadership, stability, and progress toward a perfected society? What happened, and why did it happen? (Where is Darwin when you need him?) Best to you all. Adieu.

SML's response to the quotation "praising" women for being so compassionate etc that they don't "need" the priesthood was most restrained, given that the quote drips, oozes, condescension.

Parker: did you realize that when you quoted it, or did you think it was going to make a woman like SML feel better about the restriction of the priesthood to men?

Having said that, I must say I find it as repulsive to have it turned completely opposite as you probably do, Parker. I think it would be best if the church included women in the priesthood and the leadership and the authority in the home to preside in righteousness. BOTH should have this. Not one or the other.

But really, who cares what I think?

Why must the greatest opposition to be found in my life come from my status as a second class citizen (woman) in the church? How can I use this opposition to find happiness?

Parker ~

I wish to share with you the lesson on the Priesthood as found on pages 81-84 in the Gospel Principals lesson manual I taught from for over three years. Bear with me, it's rather long. Imagine you are an investigator for the church visiting this beginners class for the first time, having never heard this stuff before.

THE PRIESTHOOD

WHAT IS THE PRIESTHOOD?
The priesthood is the power and authority of Goddess. By her priesthood power the heavens and the earth were created. By this power the universe is kept in perfect order. Through this power she accomplishes her work and glory, which is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of woman" (Moses 1:39).

Our Heavenly Mother shares her priesthood power with worthy female members of the church. The priesthood enables them to act in God's name for the salvation of the human family. Through it they can be authorized to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances of salvation, and govern Goddess' kingdom on earth.

WHY DO WE NEED THE PRIESTHOOD ON THE EARTH?
We must have priesthood authority to act in the name of God when performing sacred ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism, confirmation, administration of the sacrament, and temple marriage. If a woman does not have the priesthood, even though she may be sincere, the Goddess will not recognize ordinances she performs (see Matthew 7). These important ordinances must be performed on the earth by women holding the priesthood.

Women need the priesthood to preside in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to direct the work of the Church in all parts of the world. When Christine lived on the earth, she chose her Apostles and ordained them so that they could lead her Church. She gave them the power and authority of the priesthood to act in her name. (See Mark 3, John 15).

Another reason the priesthood is needed on the earth is so we can understand the will of the Goddess and carry out her purposes. Goddess reveals her will to her authorized priesthood representative on the earth, the prophetess. The prophetess, who is President of the Church, serves as the spokeswoman for Goddess to all members of the Church and all people on the earth.

Discussion:
*Name some things that can be done only by women who hold the priesthood. Discuss the need for priesthood authority.

HOW DO WOMEN RECEIVE THE PRIESTHOOD?
The Goddess has prepared an orderly way for her priesthood to be given to her daughters on the earth. A worthy female member of the Church receives the priesthood "by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof" (Articles of Faith 1:5).

This is the same way women received the priesthood long ago, even in the days of Mosessa. "And no woman taketh this honour unto herself, but she that is called of Goddess, as was Erin" (Hebrews 5:4). Erin received the priesthood from Mosessa, her priesthood leader (see Exodus 28:1). Only those who hold the priesthood can ordain others.

Women cannot buy and sell the power and authority of the priesthood. Nor can they take this authority upon themselves. In the New Testament we read of a woman named Simona who lived when Christine's Apostles presided over the Church. Simona became converted and was baptized into the Church. Simona became converted and was baptized into the Church. Because she was a skillful magician, the people believed she had the power of Goddess. But Simona did not have the priesthood, and she knew it.

Simona knew that the Apostles and the other priesthood leaders of the Church had the true power of Goddess. She saw them use their priesthood to do the Goddess' work, and she wanted this power for herself. She offered to buy the priesthood. (See Acts 8). But Petera, the chief Apostle, said, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of Goddess may be purchased with money" (Acts 8:20).

Discussion:
*Who is given the priesthood? How is it given?
*Who may ordain a worthy female member of the Church to the priesthood?

HOW DO WOMEN PROPERLY USE THE PRIESTHOOD?
The priesthood should be used to bless the lives of our Heavenly Mother's children here on earth. Priesthood holders should preside in love and kindness. They should not force their families and others to obey them. The Goddess has told us that the power of the priesthood cannot be controlled except in righteousness (see D&C 121:36). When we try to use the priesthood to gain wealth or fame or for any other selfish purpose, "behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Goddess is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that woman" (D&C 121:37).

When a woman uses the priesthood "by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned" (D&C 121:41), she can do many wonderful things for her family and others. She can baptize and confirm, administer the sacrament, and bless the sick. She can give priesthood blessings to her family members to encourage and protect them when they have special needs. She can also help other families with these ordinances and blessings when asked to do so.

Women use priesthood authority to preside in the Church in such callings as branch president, bishop, quorum president, or stake and mission leader. Men who hold positions in the Church as officers and teachers work under the direction of the women who hold the priesthood.

Discussion:
*Read D&C 121:34-40. How should the priesthood not be used?
*Read D&C 121:41-44. How should the priesthood be used?

WHAT BLESSINGS COME WHEN WE USE THE PRIESTHOOD PROPERLY?
The Goddess has promised great blessings to righteous priesthood bearing women who use the priesthood to bless others:

"The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever" (D&C 121:45-46).

A great latter-day prophetess, Deanie O. McKay, promised every woman who uses the priesthood in righteousness that she "will find her life sweetened, her discernment sharpened to decide quickly between right and wrong, her feelings tender and compassionate, yet her spirit strong and valiant in defense of right; she will find the priesthood a neverfailing source of happiness -- a well of living water springing up unto eternal life" ("Priesthood," Instructor, Oct. 1968, p. 378).

Let's jump ahead to the lesson on Family Responsibilities, page 237.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MOTHER
The mother is the matriarch of the family and has important responsibilities that are hers alone. She is the priesthood holder and has the duties of priesthood leadership. She should guide her family with humility and kindness rather than with force or cruelty. The scriptures teach that those who hold the priesthood should lead others by persuasion, gentleness, love, and kindness (see D&C 121:41-44; Ephesians 6:4).

The mother shares the blessings of the priesthood with the members of her family. When a woman holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, she can share these blessings by naming and blessing babies, administering to the sick, baptizing children, and giving special priesthood blessings and ordinations. She should set a good example for her family by keeping the commandments. She should also make sure the family prays together twice daily and holds family home evening.

The mother should spend time with each child individually. She should teach her children correct principles, talk with them about their problems and concerns, and counsel them lovingly. Some good examples are found in the Book of Mormon (see 2 Nephi 1-3; Alma 36-42).

It is also the mother's duty to provide for the physical needs of her family, making sure they have the necessary food, housing, clothing, and education. Even if she is unable to provide all the support herself, she does not give up the responsibility of the care of her family.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FATHER
President Deanie O. McKay said that fatherhood is man's noblest calling. It is a sacred calling, a partnership with Goddess in bringing her spirit children into the world. A father's most important responsibility is to bring children into the world and to care for and teach them. Bearing children is one of the greatest of all blessings.

Elder Boyda K. Packer praised men who were unable to have children of their own yet sought to care for others. She said, "When I speak of fathers, I speak not only to those men who have borne children, but also of those who have fostered children born to others, and of the many men who, without children of their own, have fathered the children of others" (Fathers, P.8)

A father needs to spend time with his children and teach them the gospel. He should play and work with them so they can discover the world around them. He also needs to help his family know how to make the home a pleasant place to be. If he is warm and loving, he helps his children feel good about themselves.

The Book of Mormon describes a group of two thousand young women who rose to greatness because of the teachings of their fathers (see Alma 53). Led by the prophetess Helawoman, they went into battle against their enemies. They had learned to be honest, brave, and trustworthy from their fathers. Their fathers also taught them that if they did not doubt, Goddess would deliver them (see Alma 56). They all survived the battle. Later they expressed faith in the teachings of their fathers, saying, "We do not doubt our fathers knew it." Every father who has a testimony can have a profound effect on his children.

Discussion:
*Why is fatherhood called a partnership with Goddess?

So, Parker. I do think (and I said something about this in a sacrament meeting talk I had to give earlier this year) that the men don't need the priesthood role I enjoy in terms of leadership or service because they are innately born with both compassionate leadership through loving and open communication as they lead, and an in-born desire to look outside of themselves and serve and nurture. We women have to grow into those roles, and only if we do will "the rights of the priesthood," "the doctrine of the priesthood," and the power of the priesthood flow unto us "without compulsory means...forever and ever." In short, women're way behind the men in the qualities that we need, and having the priesthood reminds us that we'd better be about the business of trying to catch up (to the men), because God expects us to learn to be just as compassionate and understanding as are the men.

Best to you.

Judeo Christian Values are NOT Judeo Christian Values

Concerned is right: we should give more credit to the Hammarabi (sp) code than to Moses. The ten commandments are Baby level "morality."

We didn't really need the Jewish God in the time of Moses to tell us not to kill or steal other men's wives (unless you were David and powerful enough to get away with it). And Having No other God than Yahweh has NOTHING to do with morality.

We Greeks had much more advanced morals at around that same period. check this out:

10 Commandments of Solon

Solon the Athenian was born, we believe, around 638 B.C.E., and lived until approximately 558, but the date in his life of greatest importance to us is the year he was elected to create a constitution for Athens, 594 B.C.E.

1. Trust good character more than promises.
2. Do not speak falsely.
3. Do good things.
4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
5. Learn to obey before you command.
6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
7. Make reason your supreme commander.
8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
9. Honor the gods.
10. Have regard for your parents.

Solon is the founder of Western democracy and the first man in history to articulate ideas of equal rights for all citizens, and though he did not go nearly as far in the latter as we have come today, Moses can claim no connection to either. Solon was the first man in Western history to publicly record a civil constitution in writing. No one in Hebrew history did anything of the kind, least of all Moses. Solon advocated not only the right but even the duty of every citizen to bear arms in the defense of the state--to him we owe the 2nd Amendment. Nothing about that is to be found in the Ten Commandments of Moses. Solon set up laws defending the principles and importance of private property, state encouragement of economic trades and crafts, and a strong middle class--the ideals which lie at the heart of American prosperity, yet which cannot be credited at all to Moses.

Evolution and Trust

Parker: I think you give your Judeo=Christian tradition too much credit.

If you look at the last 5000 years, we had great civilizations and high power in
Egypt the Pharohs worshipped the Christian Goddess Isis. Oops, she wasn't Christian.
Greece: worshipped atheistic homosexual Socrates til they killed him. and Zeus: what religion was he?
Rome: Worshipped Power. and Empire. And Latin. Were the Romans Christian in 9 AD?
Middle Ages: the middle East and Islam was more successful and innovative.
it's really only in the last 500 years that the Christian West, as it tried to exterminate the Jews, became dominant. Their Crusade era was not too trusting, and their success was largely due to their perfection of Colonialism: exploiting the resources of the third world.
Now: watch out: the Christian USA will be a province of Confucian China and Hindu India in 25 years.
So Christian Triumphalism is both Non-historical and Premature. Sic transit gloria.
Also, you probably havve read Guns Germs and Steel which gives more detail on the REAL factors that lead to economic dominance. And didn't Jesus say something about Rich Men getting into heaven?

Parker,

The Judeo-Christian ethics were borrowed, plagiarized and/or were slight adjustments to the ethics and morals of the ancients i.e. Hittites, Canaanites, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Macedonians, et al. e.g. The Code of Hammurabi. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

So yes, King Hammurabi played an important role in achieving trust in the modern world.

('Glad I had a nap earlier.) Huff, insightful comments--many thanks. But if we look around the world, don't we have to admit that Judeo-Christian ethics have played a significant role in achieving that state of trust you noted? If we examine why some countries have excelled in their economies and other countries are way behind, it appears that there are many factors involved but a major one is that trust you noted, because it allows greater energy and exertion towards production rather than protectionism and hoarding. I don't see that as "naturally" occurring all around the world. Do you?

SML,
I guess we were both writing comments at nearly the same time, so I was not ignoring your very well thought out and expressed observation.

I think you have a good point, for which I honestly don't have a good answer--uncomfortably so. But I do think (and I said something about this in a sacrament meeting talk I had to give earlier this year) that the women don't need the priesthood role in terms of leadership or service because they are innately born with both compassionate leadership through loving and open communication as they lead, and an in-born desire to look outside of themselves and serve and nurture. The men have to grow into those roles, and only if they do will "the rights of the priesthood," "the doctrine of the priesthood," and the power of the priesthood flow unto them "without compulsory means...forever and ever." In short, we're way behind the women in the qualities that we need, and having the priesthood reminds us that we'd better be about the business of trying to catch up, because God expects us to learn to be just as compassionate and understanding as are the women.

As to women praying in sacrament meeting, I think that was a no-brainer change that should have been made whenever it was started in the first place.

Again, a gem of a thought. Thanks for asking. I hope the above may have made at least a tiny bit of sense. Peaceful sabbath to your family.

Parker:
Somehow I must have missed that quote by Darwin, that evolution would result in a perfected society. One, I don't see how his theory would predict that. But, if he did say it, I feel comfortable in saying he is likely to be wrong about that.

Evolution predicts that organisms will exploit niches in their environment. For example, perhaps there is a particular pine tree in abundance in the environment, but none of the animals have digestive systems that can extract nutrients from it. So, the animals compete over the relatively sparse dogwood tree leaves. Over many generations, an organism is born with a mutation that allows it to extract some nutrients from pine trees. And due to selection pressures, the descendants of this organism fare very well as there is plenty of food for them and not much competition. We have organisms taking advantage of a niche.

Similarly, our societies have evolved to function mainly on trust. We trust that no one is going to run us over with their car; we trust that bank employees will not empty our accounts through access to our information and for the most part our trust is well-placed. If none of us trusted each other, we would constantly be wasting our resources trying to defend our resources from others who would steal from us, etc. Cooperative societies end up being wealthier; less is wasted on wars and stability allows for longterm investment in property improvements, etc.

But, then, why do we have dishonest people and wars, etc. Because "trusting societies" open up a niche that can be exploited. A thief can acquire more resources without having to expend much of his own by stealing which is made possible because defenses are much lower in a trusting society. Scientists have actually run statistical models and the most stable societal models have a moderate amount of dishonesty.

How is that?

OK, Huff,
You've picked apart God and religion. Now back up your side of the field with irrefutable logic as to how evolution moves along toward enhancing the species (Darwin said it would result in a perfected society), yet here we are with as much depravity in the world as there has ever been, as much selfishness, as much "I'll do whatever I feel like doing thank you very much regardless of what it does to my family, my tribe, my country, my society, or my world" as there has ever been. Show and tell. Good luck.

Interesting to me is the leadership positions being withheld from blacks possibly having the ramifications you allude to, Parker...and comparing this with how women had more opportunities for leadership and priesthood power to bless others and so on early in the church during Joseph Smith's time. Yet that slowly got changed until women were not allowed to practice priesthood, give blessings, etc. as before. I find it interesting that the Relief Society was originally created as a separate organization led and organized and directed solely by women with the approval of the prophet to be such, yet over time this autonomy was taken from them and the women's organization was placed under the sole direction of the male priesthood leaders. There was a large number of years where women weren't even allowed to pray in Sacrament Meeting. How wrong is that?? That wasn't very long ago, either.

I wonder why God wouldn't expect his righteous priesthood holders to maintain and promote better equality between his righteous women and men. This particular issue would not have affected persecution by the opponents of Mormonism at any time in its history as far as I can tell. It is solely an internally evolving (devolving?) issue that has been embraced and accepted as right and just by the men in power, and by the bulk of the membership, and I think this is a tragedy that hurts not only the women (even if they think this is perfectly OK for them) but also the men who are expected to support such inequality in action too.

And it is all fully supported by a loving God whom the church says loves his girl children too.

Henry James said:
"But as a matter of fact, we get God's tempermental and infantile ravings about how he wants to flood his imperfect creation and destroy ALL the humans at Sodom becuase SOME are egregious sinners.

It's not like he has given us no insight into his motivation. It is that the insight that the Bible DOES give us reveals an immoral, juvenile, tempermental, manipulative, fierce God who somewhere back there wants us to believe Love is involved."

Well said! You have expressed my thoughts better than I could myself. Of course, JD, with the way he looks at scripture, has a convienent out. JD declares that scripture only has some truth in it mixed with a lot of error from the prophets. So, God didn't really tell the Israelites to slaughter the children of their enemies (that is just an error inserted by the mind of men).

I am really glad that I was raised orthodox Mormon, because it was a lot easier to recognize that it was wrong, than if I had grown up with this wishy-washy belief system in which anything inconvienent can be explained by the flaws of god's spokesmen and anything that doesn't make sense has an explanation only available after your dead. JD's faith is completely unfalsifiable and depends too much on trusting things that in my opinion are not established enough to deserve my trust.

Give me falsifiable religion any day. This is just a difference in basic approach. He feels that he has reason to trust god on issues that he does not understand. I can look at that same evidence and those life events and see natural forces at work and nothing to incline me to trust in a god. And there we are.

Parker

thanks for the insights. i agree with you. it seems you and i were back there with Willard
(and Joseph, who ordained blacks, did he not).

once again this emphasizes to me that the particularities of what you or I believe are not as important as our common humanity.

i btw consider smith to be a charismatic religious spiritual genius. what that adds up to regarding the nature and earthly involvement of "God" is another question, much more complicated.

but you and i and SML want our brothers and sisters to have comfrot in this crazy world, and to have a reason to try to do our best.

that is what is really important.

and yes, all sensient human beings know that awful things happen in this world, whether with or without a God. the important thing is to help each other as much as we can, whether or not we make it to a Celestial kingdom.

luv
henry

HJ,
I had long since figured out that you were a descendent of the remarkable Willard Richards.

If the early Church in Missouri had openly practiced ordaining Blacks to the priesthood (though it did happen as shown historically) and the leadership positions (which I wouldn't personally have had any problem with), it would have been snuffed out like nobody's business--ten times the persecution than happened. The United States wasn't ready for such a change, nor the rest of the world.

Peace to you, friend.

God CAN reveal his reasons IF He wants to

God revealed his rationale for denying the priesthood through his incredibly racist prophets Brigham Young and Ezra Taft Benson.

Many of us didn't understand why Blacks must be denied the priviege of holding the priesthood (including this descendant of Brigham Young's second counselor, who was also with the prophet Joseph as his "assassination" - any of you trivia experts able to identify this Great Man?)

SO
if God WANTED to reveal to us why he tolerates/buildsin/encourages so much innocent (ie not as a result of guilty free wil actions that should be punished)

one presumes he could at least make a stab at it, and the philosophically advanced among us such as JD would get an inkling of the reasons).\\

But as a matter of fact, we get God's tempermental and infantile ravings about how he wants to flood his imperfect creation and destroy ALL the humans at Sodom becuase SOME are egregious sinners.

It's not like he has given us no insight into his motivation. It is that the insight that the Bible DOES give us reveals an immoral, juvenile, tempermental, manipulative, fierce God who somewhere back there wants us to believe Love is involved.

OK, SML and HJ. Thanks for the clarification. But I hope since I must assume your only recourse is to believe in naturalistic evolution as opposed to believing in a supreme creator, that you'll do all in your power to salvage the evolutionary society that Darwin predicted in "Descent of Man,", 'cause right now it ai'nt lookin' so good. Best to you, and good luck without a religious framework to rally people's sensibilities. It seems to me that there is a lot going against what he predicted. I wish his book were required reading in schools, and discussed at length. Kids would see that his logic is full of "ain't happenin's". I know you mean well, and wish you well.

Hey Henry ~

I am also from long lines of Mormon lineage. Luke S. Johnson listed in the preface of the BOM is a direct descendant of mine. :)

I like your comments to Parker and fully agree with them. As a good wife always should, she said enthusiastically.

Addendum

Parker:
while i stand by my statement that you and i are both trying to solve that basic human problem:
that Awful Rowing Towards God
as Anne Sexton said it,

i should stipulate that SML is ALSO, again, regularly, and predictably right that on the details of certain religious beliefs (Book of Abraham, DNA, reliability of the Visions of a fraudulent closet polygamist)
our credulity has been strained beyond the breaking point that, in my case, had been reinforeced for 5 generations.

While those "details" are important to me - and they are ESPecially important when they entail the exploitation/demeaning of less powerful classes such as blacks, women, and homosexuals - i can at the same time respect and value the spirit and motivation to fairness of people like you.

By condoning the church's treatment of Gays (admittedly better than 20 years ago) however, you are repressing your innate sense of justice and supporting the ignorance and prejudice of the 90 year old men who run the church. That doesn't make you a bad person. Just human. But it is too bad, and I hope you speak out against it. Also for women holding the priesthood that blacks now hold.

Parker
Let me prefact his by saying that i honestly and truly love you - it isn't hard in your case - and i have a great sense of our common humanity, that we both have the same kind of human wants and desires and spiritual sensibilitys.

All of us humans, you and me and SML, are trying to make sense of the joy and suffering and trials and tribulations that are intailed in being human (thank god i'm dead). and i love the way you grapple with the questions. we probably just have different names for the things we believe in.

SML is right, of course. One's wife is ALWAYS right, he said enthusiastically. I auffered no abnormal abuse as a child. My Mormon mother 3rd generation was TRULY a saint and a relief society president for whom there was NO difference between the church presented mother and the private mother.

My father was a brilliant stake president, and if i ever become a stake president i want to be the same kind he was. he was tempermental and difficult, but aren't most of us (except me). Certainly not way overr on the edge, and not abusive.

So again,
SML is right: our views of "God" come from a relatively healthy background. Many feel as SML and I do, esp if they weren't raised as mormons.

luv

Henry

Parker ~

I can't speak for Henry but I can speak for myself. My growing up being abused or not has nothing whatsoever to do with my views of God (or lack of belief in a god) at this time.

I was a faithful LDS woman until one year ago, and it wasn't until I stepped back and looked at issues I had never been taught at church, such as the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith's many wives I'd never heard of, his methods for translating or creating the Book of Mormon using not a Urim and Thummim but rather a rock in a hat, Brigham Young's teaching that Adam was God the Father...all that stuff made me re-evaluate the entire belief system that I had taken for granted and assumed my entire life was TRUE. It was the first time in my life that I honestly LOOKED at God as the Mormon church portrays him, and came to my own conclusions about his nature if he's really there in people's lives like the religions claim.

My own father has nothing whatsoever to do with my views on Heavenly Father. And I don't really know why you've used Henry and me as examples of people who were abused. I only theoretically used the example of me being raped. I never was, thankfully, but I can imagine how horrible that would be to believe that God had allowed such a thing. There are millions of sisters out there who have endured that and worse, and if there really IS a God allowing this to occur to them for their "growth" and "betterment" then I have no use for such a sadistic presence in my life.

Your excusing Henry and me of any blame for speaking against such a God due to abuse is sweet, but hardly what a bishop would condone. We are all expected as church members to have faith and believe in God no matter how confusing the doctrine is on treatment of blacks, treatment of women, DNA reports, worthiness of active gay people, lack of info on Heavenly Mother, etc. etc. etc. According to your religion, Henry and I are fully accountable for what we say, yea, even what we THINK will be considered a sin if it's not shiny and clean and repented of before we die.

Best to you, my friend.

JD1,
Here is the thing. Is what you are suggesting possible? Yes, as a logical rational being I have to acknowledge that it is possible. But, is it likely to be the case? IMO, not at all, not even close, not by a long shot.

Is it possible that Santa Claus might be real? Yes, any rational being must concede the possibility. Is it possible that Santa has some magnificent reason why poor children throughout the world wake up on Christmas morning without any presents, a reason that he does not tell us because it is beyond our comprehension? Yes, it is possible. Likely? Not at all. I rate the probabilities of the type of god you being in existing about the same as the probability of a real Santa existing.

Is there some evidence for both? Sure. Some children wake up with presents labeled from Santa and some people claim to have prayers answered. But, naturalistic explanations can account for that evidence. There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence for us to leave naturalistic explanations in favor of supernatural ones, IMO.

Henry and SML,
I want you both to know that if you were abused during your life, in my view the feelings you have about God cannot be judged or criticized by anyone. For the abuser, the scriptures are clear that they will suffer a just retribution unless they repent, ask forgiveness, and have a mighty change in behavior. For the one abused, it is clear that they have to some extent an emotional withdrawal from feeling God's love in their life, and only see the things you speak of when they think of God.

So the following comment about Sodom and Gomorra is only in the midst of this "foil" which is that by answering your concern, I am thinking of others who may learn a little bit by a perspective they may be unfamiliar with--for you, on the other hand, you have somewhat of a "free pass" because of the abuse you suffered.

Abraham showed faith and that God can be approached in a counseling way--that He listens and responds to faith. The people of Sodom and Gomorra excepting Lot had become like the people before the flood, totally selfish, totally engaged in the imaginations of their heart being "evil continually". This becomes abusive for the children born into such a situation. Would you have the abuse continue down through the generations? The destruction was mindful of the future generations, and important still was the plan of spirit world continuance and spirit world repentance for those souls--part of the reason that God would cause such destruction by a natural disaster: a volcano. I'm not saying every natural disaster is retribution by God--definitely not. That was a specific case written up in the scriptures.

But again, the good things you do show your innate goodness and kindness, and that is what is going to count in the long run for you, not how you view God because you could not be held accountable for the results of the actions of the abuser. '