The Old White Men? Yes the Old White Men! This is exactly the "Formula" that brought down the Grand Old Party. The Republicans.
Folks are not joining the Republicans. They are slowly dying off and leaving. THe same fate that has become the Mormon Cult. Crazy!
At this rate...families change/families argue about beliefs. You CANT control people forever in the Mormon World. All the lies and all the insane doctrines and belief systems. Its OVER.
TheHumanLeague Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is exactly the "Formula" that brought > down the Grand Old Party. The Republicans.
You mean the party that currently controls the White House, both houses of Congress, and 58% of state governorships? That party?
Hey, I'm a confirmed liberal/progressive. I'd love it if the (current) GOP had been "brought down." But I must've missed that news.
If you'll study history, you'll find a great many lessons to be learned that will help explain the present. Our country has regularly swung between "conservative" and "progressive" control. In fact, it's downright predictable. One "side" gains control. They start acting stupid, giddy with power. People get tired of them. In an election or two, it swings the other way. Then that side starts acting stupidly, giddy with power. People get tired of them. In an election or two, things swing back. Hell, you can set your watch by it.
We get relative "stability" when moderates (of whatever party) gain the upper hand for a while. Folks who understand compromise, and are less ideologically driven. But even then, the ideologues get riled up (on both sides) by compromise, and the swings start again.
This is nothing new.
The younger folks getting fed up with the morg are growing -- but the older true believers are doubling-down. And the cult recognizes the "problem" with young folks, which is why they lowered the missionary age and have done other things to try and combat the problem. They're losing, slowly...but they won't go quietly. This is nothing new as well...but it's not over yet :)
ificouldhietokolob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheHumanLeague Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is exactly the "Formula" that brought > > down the Grand Old Party. The Republicans. > > You mean the party that currently controls the > White House, both houses of Congress, and 58% of > state governorships? That party? >
But remember the Democrat in the 2016 Presidential election received 3 million more votes than the Republican. Trump got the right number of votes in the right places, but the American voters wanted Clinton by a significant margin.
elderolddog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Luckily, the Founders rejected the idea of a pure > democracy.
A direct election is different than a pure democracy. In a pure democracy, the citizens vote on each and every law. That is different from the citizens directly electing their representatives and head of state.
But yes, thankfully the founders decided that it would be better to have a small group of political elite select the leader of the country. That is so much better than what they do in places like China where they have a small group of political elite select their leader.
elderolddog Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Luckily, the Founders rejected the idea of a pure > democracy.
Our last election WAS a case of democracy being "too pure" for the framers' vision.
The framers put up a firewall against mob rule: the Electoral College. Since then, many States have neutered the EC by enacting laws requiring Electors to vote for their pledged candidate, or, political parties (which the framers hated) pick electors specifically for their loyalty to their one candidate. We've eliminated the human component of the EC, but kept the wacky scoring component.
All this makes the Presidential election--you guessed it--an exercise in "pure democracy" (at the state level at least). We are not using the founders' solution; so lets get rid of it completely.
It makes sense that the side that benefits from a supposed tenet of our representative democracy would want to hang on to it.
We have a few heavily populated states... In fact, you only have to count the first nine most populous states before you reach half of the population of the 50 states + D.C.; our total population is 325 or so million. These nine states have 163 million. They are CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA & NC.
All this is going to make for more spectator fun in 2020...
"We get relative "stability" when moderates (of whatever party) gain the upper hand for a while. Folks who understand compromise, and are less ideologically driven. But even then, the ideologues get riled up (on both sides) by compromise, and the swings start again."
Agreed, this coming from a former republican and current libertarian-leaning independent.
I have 4 children ages 26 to 33. Two are no longer Mormon and two are return missionaries and active in the church. The two that are return missionaries are and always have been very conservative in their politics. The two who aren't Mormon used to be very liberal/progressive but after Obamacare and 8 years of his presidency have now both become very conservative
So an unjustified war that cost a trillion dollars and 4000 American lives didn't do anything to your conservative kids, but a misguided attempt to provide health insurance to the poor was enough to turn the other two? Not trying to be judgemental but that just doesn't make much sense to me.
Since Democrats in Congress also overwhelming voted for this admittedly wasteful war, it would actually be surprising if said war swayed anyone from either party to the other.
It is not news that some portion of Mormon young people wind up going inactive when they become adults. That's been happening as long as I can remember, but I don't think it is any more likely now than it was 40 years ago. As a general rule I find that as many stay active as go inactive. It means there is more and more dead wood on the LDS membership rolls, but there continues to be an increase in the numbers of active Mormons simply through children who stay on for whatever reason. The social tradition is strong among Mormon families.
As for the GOP, as long as the Democrats continue to abort their babies the GOP will have a fighting chance.
I hope LDS young people continue reading the real history and keep on rejecting. However I also hope that they don't simply all become atheists. For those with a spritual bent, there's lots to choose from out there.
I agree with your first statement of "I hope LDS young people continue reading the real history and keep on rejecting," but your next of hoping "they don't all simply become atheists " because there is a lot of spiritual choices out there implies to me that in your book atheism does not measure up to spiritual living.
I disagree.
Do you know atheists? Do you think their actions show that they are less moral than believers? What makes you have this viewpoint you have....what is the basis for it?
If you are interested, there are studies out there that show we atheists are A-okay, contributing, caring, and behaving. We in no way are making the world go to hell in a hand-basket just because we see no evidence which convinces us there is a god or gods.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2018 12:21AM by presleynfactsrock.
It is and isn't political. Christianity after Paul is based on the notion of reworking society to be the kind of place Jesus would like. Ever since its inception Western Christianity has been inseparable from politics. It sees all of reality in terms of a vast cosmic conflict with unimaginable consequences, so any attempts limit its sphere are fought by any means available. No, it is not requisite that Christians be Republicans- in fact, up until around Richard Nixon and the Southern Strategy most Southern white Christians were Democrats. But is it requisite, in Christian eyes, that they be allowed to run the country. In their eyes this is both their right (as champions of Biblical Jesus) and their awful (in the old sense) responsibility, for the fulfillment of which they will be judged by God. As for party politics, they believe that the only valid party is themselves, and so they opt to take over any available party and say that is the right one. This is when political opposition from the non-religious segment of society becomes not just acceptable but downright necessary. They must be stopped on their own terms.
Look, we would all love a world in which religion were a purely personal thing, with meditation and self-introspection and all that. But Christians, at least in the West, keep insisting that the only really appropriate manifestation of their belief system is to "convert" the whole world, by which they mean "bring under their control". So yes, their politics need to be countered by other politics.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2018 01:45AM by slskipper.
Your analysis also highlights something I said above -- that the study of our history has a lot to teach us.
It wasn't that long ago (as you partially pointed out) that the Democrats were the "christian" party, and the Republicans were considered a party of "elites."
Notice how currently the roles have completely switched. How about that :)
What I said has nothing to do with morality. When I say "Spirituality" I am assuming the belief in at least one Spirit being out there. Morality is a whole different issue.
Lots to choose from??...just more hokey pokey and a new flavor of koolaid IMO...people kinds need to belong to a flock is impressive...just a real tragedy the shepherds have been AWOL for hundreds of years..almost like they don't exist...but if you'll pony up some pesos...some inspired young thing will be glad to tell ya stories of the old days when things were just fantastic...yup young norms are leaving in droves even in northern Mecca...right from a horses mouth...good for em...let the high priests fart dust to their hearts content...and pay for the privilege
Yes. It seems to be a given in our culture that a person needs some kind of institutionalize religion, and the problem is deciding which one. What about "None"?
Trails end Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots to choose from??...just more hokey pokey and > a new flavor of koolaid IMO...people kinds need to > belong to a flock is impressive...just a real > tragedy the shepherds have been AWOL for hundreds > of years..almost like they don't exist...but if > you'll pony up some pesos...some inspired young > thing will be glad to tell ya stories of the old > days when things were just fantastic...yup young > norms are leaving in droves even in northern > Mecca...right from a horses mouth...good for > em...let the high priests fart dust to their > hearts content...and pay for the privilege
There hasn't been a shepherd on this planet since the bible claims of jesus i think. This world has been totally leaderless since i was born. Like a real leader not a guy that reads teleprompters.
Badassadam1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There hasn't been a shepherd on this planet since > the bible claims of jesus i think. This world has > been totally leaderless since i was born. Like a > real leader not a guy that reads teleprompters.
Personally, I think "leaders" such as you describe are only for people who want someone else to think for them.
I'm quite happy to elect "leaders" who will represent my interests (and the interests of others) for a short time.
I have no interest whatsoever in "following" anyone.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Badassadam1 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > There hasn't been a shepherd on this planet > since > > the bible claims of jesus i think. This world > has > > been totally leaderless since i was born. Like > a > > real leader not a guy that reads teleprompters. > > Personally, I think "leaders" such as you describe > are only for people who want someone else to think > for them. > > I'm quite happy to elect "leaders" who will > represent my interests (and the interests of > others) for a short time. > > I have no interest whatsoever in "following" > anyone.
Well then maybe you are your own leader. Which is probably the way it should be.
I think...what is happening is that MOST folks in the USA have feelings/rights/opinions etc. Its almost like no one can comment on much of anything anymore? You work around different age groups and the complaints are all over the map.
I have watched over the years people change. I have witnessed opinions change. The biggest problems are when folks reject other viewpoints almost completely.
You cant force people to accept your viewpoints period. Thats the Mormon way! They are convinced that their way is the way. Proof or opposition does not matter. So basically the Church is dying off slowly but surely. It may not last another 10 years? Who knows. I was just using the GOP comparison because it was very similar.
Also note that the most 'successful' Mormons are also GOP businessmen. The two go very well together because of Mormonism's conservative values. And it takes business acumen to run the corporation that is TSCC.
As for "Mormonism's conservative values": IMO, the problem is a complicated fact of the exact reverse. The conservative mind set decides early on that it has the true understanding of God, and then becomes the public face of religion. Personal, inner spiritual quests or feelings are ridiculed and denigrated. As i said, it's complicated.
The majority of the seniority in Quorum running the cult are descendants of JS or BY. The cult is a family business masquerading as a church via brand "Jesus". All other members of the cult are just slaves of an organization to support the families of JS and BY. When some of these folks realize their true role in the organization as slaves, they find the exit door. The folks who stay do so for various reasons including but not limited to co-dependency addiction, trap. They are spiritually blind as long as the Q15 keep telling them lies. That is how they were socialized and don't know any other worldview. The cult will shrink but not go extinct because it is a family business.
This thread sounds like every morning in a McDonalds anywhere in the USA. You know, the old men (and sometimes their wives) enjoying their breakfast group chats. Not saying that is good or bad, just what this thread reminded me of.
The title of this thread made me laugh and think back to Star Trek: The Voyage Home when Kirk, trying to explain Spock's seemingly "odd" behavior to a 20th century human says
"He did too much LDS back in the day"
Female scientist looks at him, raises her eyebrows and says "L *D*S?"
While I believe that the nasty history and oppressive social control are leading reasons why anyone might reject the LDS church I think there is another, more vital reason why young people are rejecting it.
It is a bore and a lie. It's sick and twisted. It's not fully formed or articulated and poses, as an oxy-moron. It leads to nowhere (good or fast). It, AS A 'CHURCH', has baser (more sinister) intentions than you. It never tires of talking about itself [not what it can (SHOULD) do, but what OTHERS have done]. It idolizes itself in it's own [fabricated (tarnished)] image. It gets drunk on its temple impressions, etc., etc., etc.