The most critical, important, core duty of any successful society is to nurture families. Every other organizational structure in society but mimics the root family structure. Every good function of state and religion can be seen as a reflection of the good family.
This should be obvious, it should be a basic mental model that everyone understands. The military as fatherly protector, the judicial branch as the fatherly role of judge, the state and church's charity as reflection parental love for its members. Fraternal organizations always consider its members brothers, young soldiers look up to their commander as children to a trusting father, etc. I could go on!
So, for example, we see the state sanctioning family-destructive practices such as murdering unborn children, inverting sexual relationships and "family" from reproductive to primarily consumptive. I mean this literally in both its meanings - two men playing house is primarily a useful union for the economy as consumers, but also is a reflection of a disease undermining the state's foundation.
Because, of course, without healthy, reproductive families, the state dies. The current trend to replace all the state's own children with foreigners is a temporary band-aid seeking more consumers. Of course, the joke is that the adopted children aren't quite as bright or productive, and they still need to have children or the whole diseased pyramid falls apart...
Yet, unfortunately, in a state in which the state is trying to cut away its own root, religion should be the traditional defender to chastise its ways and call it to repent or perish. The Catholics have been doing admirably at calling out symptoms... but policy agreement with Mormons doesn't really get at the core of what is going on here.
As far as I know, the Mormons are the only group that by-definiton can't compromise on this point - that resolutely refuses to have the family attacked in any way. That still actively promotes, encourages, nurtures, teaches, and protects the family.
Ignore the top-down perspective for a moment:
When a young husband and wife are struggling financially and emotionally with raising children, with being good parents, with staying together no matter what - what is to protect and keep them?
A moral duty may be sufficient for some, but apparently not most, the behavior of society at large and most denominations at large attests to this.
The Mormons are the only group that directly links family (which is absolutely, bar-none, the most critical aspect of a nation and society's health) with sacred.
That is, the only denominations that family duty really and totally is spiritual duty - not just a reflection, analogy, or whatever - but absolutely and totally. The everyday, mundane, beautiful things are elevated to the most important spiritual things. One is actively living out everyday a spiritual existence when providing for ones family, raising children, loving them.
No one else does that. No one defends the family as such. No one protects and supports civilization and society as a whole as such.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Mormons: The Only Fatherly Denomination
In most traditional societies, such as pagan Rome and Japan, the father had a duel role of priest and provider. That is, he planned and provided for both his family's spiritual and temporal success and survival. It makes sense, doesn't it? Just as Christ is the Shepherd of His Church, so the father is to be the shepherd of his family in following Christ.
Most people still recognize the fatherly role as protector and provider, and so also pray to God generally asking for both spiritual and temporal assistance as protector and provider. It's interesting that Mormons also literally consider the father a priest, along with expecting him to provide for his family. Assuming the priest-hood duty is a coming-of-age rite that teaches the future father to assume responsibility - it's beautiful, and connects temporal duty with spiritual duty.
As far as I know, Mormons are the only group that actively prepare for all their members long-term temporal well-being along with spiritual well-being. I know of no other denomination that teaches and seems to care for its members in this way. The advice is rather simple - such as making sure you have 3-months worth of food, to pay off your mortgage, to practice self-reliance - but it is also critically important advice because it is almost entirely lacking in mainstream practice and common sense.
https://www.lds.org/topics/food-storage?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/emergency-preparedness?lang=eng
http://providentliving.org/self-reliance/health?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-finances
This is exactly the sort of thing people really need today. It would greatly help poor people, but more than that actually provides real assistance the the main body of the church - young, middle-class families - the exact demographic that is absolutely crucial, yet largely ignored by and mostly deserting most mainstream denominations.
It is the sort of help and education one would hope to receive from a father. It's both entirely practical and useful, but also an indicator that the church truly loves and wants to look after its members.
Most people still recognize the fatherly role as protector and provider, and so also pray to God generally asking for both spiritual and temporal assistance as protector and provider. It's interesting that Mormons also literally consider the father a priest, along with expecting him to provide for his family. Assuming the priest-hood duty is a coming-of-age rite that teaches the future father to assume responsibility - it's beautiful, and connects temporal duty with spiritual duty.
As far as I know, Mormons are the only group that actively prepare for all their members long-term temporal well-being along with spiritual well-being. I know of no other denomination that teaches and seems to care for its members in this way. The advice is rather simple - such as making sure you have 3-months worth of food, to pay off your mortgage, to practice self-reliance - but it is also critically important advice because it is almost entirely lacking in mainstream practice and common sense.
https://www.lds.org/topics/food-storage?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/emergency-preparedness?lang=eng
http://providentliving.org/self-reliance/health?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-finances
This is exactly the sort of thing people really need today. It would greatly help poor people, but more than that actually provides real assistance the the main body of the church - young, middle-class families - the exact demographic that is absolutely crucial, yet largely ignored by and mostly deserting most mainstream denominations.
It is the sort of help and education one would hope to receive from a father. It's both entirely practical and useful, but also an indicator that the church truly loves and wants to look after its members.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Family Focus
I found my experience with Catholicism's view of the family a bit demotivating. I know it's not intended to, and this may be a personal flaw, but I'm big into trying to understand the top-down metaphysical view of something.
That is, in an ultimate sense, under Catholicism family isn't really necessary. It is in a biological sense, but an the ultimate eternity it may not even exist (depending on who you read, it doesn't exist) and even if it does exist, it isn't of some ultimate importance - it is primarily a temporal expedient.
Now, when you're constitutionally lazy like myself, this isn't exactly the most motivating view. Maybe I'd have been better off in a monastery contemplating God, and not getting side-tracked by the real, everyday difficulty of earning money, getting along with a wife, raising children, etc.
That said, I do really enjoy my family. I love them greatly and find enjoy our relationships and time spent together... but I feel really bothered if what I'm doing isn't important, or not ultimately important. That is, I'm always asking "what is the purpose of this all, what should I be doing?"
I feel a constant nagging to do the most important thing. So maybe playing ball with the kid isn't that important, even though its enjoyable, but in the ultimate sense isn't it just a waste of time - an empty distraction? I mean, it feels in some sense important, and I think I should be here in the moment... but maybe that's just self deception and I should actually be off doing-something-more-important.
I found this sort of nagging and these sort of questions very hard to deal with.
As far as I know, Mormonism is the only religion where what I love doing most and what is most-important in an ultimate sense coincide: spending time with my family. Maybe the everyday joys of reading a book and playing ball are the most important in a very substantial, real, and eternal sense.
That is, I might hope to be with my family eternally, and in an eternal sense to continue to enjoy loving relationships as an ultimate joy and purpose. That what seems like difficult or tedious labor isn't so bad, because it isn't merely a temporal expedient and essentially meaningless, but has in itself ultimate purpose and is very important, both now and unto eternity.
That is incredibly beautiful to contemplate. Those thoughts are also incredibly motivating to me.
That is, in an ultimate sense, under Catholicism family isn't really necessary. It is in a biological sense, but an the ultimate eternity it may not even exist (depending on who you read, it doesn't exist) and even if it does exist, it isn't of some ultimate importance - it is primarily a temporal expedient.
Now, when you're constitutionally lazy like myself, this isn't exactly the most motivating view. Maybe I'd have been better off in a monastery contemplating God, and not getting side-tracked by the real, everyday difficulty of earning money, getting along with a wife, raising children, etc.
That said, I do really enjoy my family. I love them greatly and find enjoy our relationships and time spent together... but I feel really bothered if what I'm doing isn't important, or not ultimately important. That is, I'm always asking "what is the purpose of this all, what should I be doing?"
I feel a constant nagging to do the most important thing. So maybe playing ball with the kid isn't that important, even though its enjoyable, but in the ultimate sense isn't it just a waste of time - an empty distraction? I mean, it feels in some sense important, and I think I should be here in the moment... but maybe that's just self deception and I should actually be off doing-something-more-important.
I found this sort of nagging and these sort of questions very hard to deal with.
As far as I know, Mormonism is the only religion where what I love doing most and what is most-important in an ultimate sense coincide: spending time with my family. Maybe the everyday joys of reading a book and playing ball are the most important in a very substantial, real, and eternal sense.
That is, I might hope to be with my family eternally, and in an eternal sense to continue to enjoy loving relationships as an ultimate joy and purpose. That what seems like difficult or tedious labor isn't so bad, because it isn't merely a temporal expedient and essentially meaningless, but has in itself ultimate purpose and is very important, both now and unto eternity.
That is incredibly beautiful to contemplate. Those thoughts are also incredibly motivating to me.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Why Mormons and not Amish?
Looking strictly at fertility rates among Christian groups, the Amish look pretty impressive. They are in my prayers and have my full support, but to protect their good they have fully isolated themselves from the world. They may serve as an example, but they don't try to "recruit" or spread their message.
By contract, the Mormons have around 88,000 fully active missionairies. They have managed to preserve and grow their good while participating in large corporations, politics, higher education, etc.
That is, instead of turning inward (defensive), they are actively looking outward (offensive). They are available so that people - like myself - might consider joining and participating in the good they have to offer.
Even if Amish, say, started actively inviting me in, going door-to-door asking people... I imagine they would be almost entirely unsuccessful. To disconnect fully from society (effectively career, family, friends, etc.) would certainly be too much to overcome - while a Mormon convert can still be fully integrated into the same life, while "merely" changing things like place of worship and habits.
Yet the crucial part, is they can still step away from the evil pervasive in modern society and mass media - the kind of "subtle" evil that utterly disconnects people from reality, that turns them into self-hating, destructive, pleasure seekers - without giving up technology, career, etc.
By contract, the Mormons have around 88,000 fully active missionairies. They have managed to preserve and grow their good while participating in large corporations, politics, higher education, etc.
That is, instead of turning inward (defensive), they are actively looking outward (offensive). They are available so that people - like myself - might consider joining and participating in the good they have to offer.
Even if Amish, say, started actively inviting me in, going door-to-door asking people... I imagine they would be almost entirely unsuccessful. To disconnect fully from society (effectively career, family, friends, etc.) would certainly be too much to overcome - while a Mormon convert can still be fully integrated into the same life, while "merely" changing things like place of worship and habits.
Yet the crucial part, is they can still step away from the evil pervasive in modern society and mass media - the kind of "subtle" evil that utterly disconnects people from reality, that turns them into self-hating, destructive, pleasure seekers - without giving up technology, career, etc.
Monday, May 11, 2015
My Impression of "Ex-Mormons"
I don't recommend this exercise. It left me feeling kind of dirty. Even though I pride myself in trying to analyze things at a distance, I think most people can't help being somewhat influenced by what they read - some more than others. That is why sometimes avoiding news and mass media can make such an absolutely startling positive experience in your life - avoiding all that negativity does make a big difference.
--
Obviously there's exceptions, and the forums and internet sites geared towards this-sort-of-thing are obviously biased, but I'll give my overall impression, without any intent to debate it:
Very bitter, angry, cynical, and depressed. It reminds me of dis-affected youth who are bitter at their parents because they believe everything they've been taught is a fraud, but instead of finding something else or moving on, they positively stew in it - as if it is their new purpose.
My guess is that the sort-of-people who fall into this trap are very impressionable, and somewhat gullible. I think they had too much esteem for their (sheltered?) perspective. They seem positively stunned that other Mormons might be human and have failings, or occasionally be hypocritical about something, or that a Bishop or other leader might error.
To me it's sort of strange, and I feel some pity. I think they do not realize that the whole world is like that, but generally much worse. For the most part, Mormons do a better job of being better people, but of course, like everyone, they fail and sin, are far from perfect, etc.
I think these people will become increasingly bitter as they realize the rest of the world is, for a large part, worse than what they abandoned for its perceived flaws. The reasoning seems somewhat secondary, as a lot of the arguments against the Book of Mormon etc. have arguments on both sides (e.g. FairMormon does a great job) and a lot of the anti-Mormon sites are actually very poorly done, they sort of look like "tin-foil-hat" sites where you find conspiracy theories, etc.
That last part is why I think these people may be, for the most part, too impressionable. They seem stunned to find that some people might disagree with what they believed before and are so swayed they depart. It's unfortunate they weren't better exposed or educated.
There also seems to be a connection to abandoning it in order to accept mainstream or liberal values, like on marriage, abortion, and the rest. They now want to attack the church from the outside instead of actually just abandoning it, walking away, or leaving it alone. It is a very destructive and negative attitude.
That said, in the end, (after, admittedly, a lot of questions, doubts, etc.) all the anti-Mormon stuff has strongly biased me more in favor of Mormonism and the CJCLDS.
--
Obviously there's exceptions, and the forums and internet sites geared towards this-sort-of-thing are obviously biased, but I'll give my overall impression, without any intent to debate it:
Very bitter, angry, cynical, and depressed. It reminds me of dis-affected youth who are bitter at their parents because they believe everything they've been taught is a fraud, but instead of finding something else or moving on, they positively stew in it - as if it is their new purpose.
My guess is that the sort-of-people who fall into this trap are very impressionable, and somewhat gullible. I think they had too much esteem for their (sheltered?) perspective. They seem positively stunned that other Mormons might be human and have failings, or occasionally be hypocritical about something, or that a Bishop or other leader might error.
To me it's sort of strange, and I feel some pity. I think they do not realize that the whole world is like that, but generally much worse. For the most part, Mormons do a better job of being better people, but of course, like everyone, they fail and sin, are far from perfect, etc.
I think these people will become increasingly bitter as they realize the rest of the world is, for a large part, worse than what they abandoned for its perceived flaws. The reasoning seems somewhat secondary, as a lot of the arguments against the Book of Mormon etc. have arguments on both sides (e.g. FairMormon does a great job) and a lot of the anti-Mormon sites are actually very poorly done, they sort of look like "tin-foil-hat" sites where you find conspiracy theories, etc.
That last part is why I think these people may be, for the most part, too impressionable. They seem stunned to find that some people might disagree with what they believed before and are so swayed they depart. It's unfortunate they weren't better exposed or educated.
There also seems to be a connection to abandoning it in order to accept mainstream or liberal values, like on marriage, abortion, and the rest. They now want to attack the church from the outside instead of actually just abandoning it, walking away, or leaving it alone. It is a very destructive and negative attitude.
That said, in the end, (after, admittedly, a lot of questions, doubts, etc.) all the anti-Mormon stuff has strongly biased me more in favor of Mormonism and the CJCLDS.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Is "Abortion" Child Sacrifice?
The assertion is "controversial" but entirely serious. I also don't think it's in the least bit wacky, but something we should consider.
Let's analyze some definitions:
Abortion means to stop a process. In this context it means to "abort" a human life. The term is already politically imbued, the very term used to define what's-going-on is slanting the debate. It's assuming that what's being aborted isn't fully human, but is in process to becoming such.
Pro-Choice tries to take it one step further back. It doesn't even want people to think about the act of "abortion" (which, as we just mentioned, is tilting the debate in favor of such an action), but simply means "in favor of 'abortion'".
The thing is, these rather vomitrocious terms are extremely misleading. They're defining the entire debate on assumptions that go unquestioned - that is exactly why they're used and promoted by the media. No matter which "side" you're on, you're playing by an anti-Christian, liberal worldview.
The same terms could, quite realistic, be used to justify murdering almost any non-adult human. That is, the fetus is in a process of becoming a baby, the baby a child, the child an adolescent, the adolescent an adult... at anytime this process could be "aborted" before full adulthood is achieved. Of course, it's only legal to do so at this time before the human has left the womb - but this is entirely arbitrary. There is no reason, from a leftist viewpoint, that abortion couldn't occur at anytime.
Killing the unborn is also incorrect. Killing is often used to refer to justified death, such as in wartime, or self-defense, or towards a violent animal.
We are literally talking about murder. That is, murdering a human. By definition, murder applies to one who is innocent. I think every Christian must agree with this point. The media only escapes the argument by redefining terms, and playing a little dance to justify what has always been regarded as murder.
My real question though, is are we talking about sacrifice? Those horrible practices that, everyone agrees, only vicious backwards people used to practice... is that what society as a whole is doing, right now?
Well, historically people tended to sacrifice their children in the hopes of receiving some sort of this-worldly gain. To appease vengeful Gods, to stop the drought, etc. So are people today murdering their children for a this-worldly gain, because someone in authority (historically a priestly-like pretender) is telling them to?
Yes, people today are murdering their children, because people in authority are telling them to, to receive specific this worldly benefits - lower costs, more free time to pursue hedonistic activities, or career (again more money), or maybe to stop global warming (remember how those really stupid people thought they could stop drought? I'm sure they had a good "reason" too...)
So yes, indeed - people today are committing large scale child sacrifice. And I say, based it is absolutely abhorrent to God. I'm pretty sure child sacrifice was forbidden somewhere in the Bible, as if people need to be told explicitly that it is wrong - which apparently they do.
Let's analyze some definitions:
Abortion means to stop a process. In this context it means to "abort" a human life. The term is already politically imbued, the very term used to define what's-going-on is slanting the debate. It's assuming that what's being aborted isn't fully human, but is in process to becoming such.
Pro-Choice tries to take it one step further back. It doesn't even want people to think about the act of "abortion" (which, as we just mentioned, is tilting the debate in favor of such an action), but simply means "in favor of 'abortion'".
The thing is, these rather vomitrocious terms are extremely misleading. They're defining the entire debate on assumptions that go unquestioned - that is exactly why they're used and promoted by the media. No matter which "side" you're on, you're playing by an anti-Christian, liberal worldview.
The same terms could, quite realistic, be used to justify murdering almost any non-adult human. That is, the fetus is in a process of becoming a baby, the baby a child, the child an adolescent, the adolescent an adult... at anytime this process could be "aborted" before full adulthood is achieved. Of course, it's only legal to do so at this time before the human has left the womb - but this is entirely arbitrary. There is no reason, from a leftist viewpoint, that abortion couldn't occur at anytime.
Killing the unborn is also incorrect. Killing is often used to refer to justified death, such as in wartime, or self-defense, or towards a violent animal.
We are literally talking about murder. That is, murdering a human. By definition, murder applies to one who is innocent. I think every Christian must agree with this point. The media only escapes the argument by redefining terms, and playing a little dance to justify what has always been regarded as murder.
My real question though, is are we talking about sacrifice? Those horrible practices that, everyone agrees, only vicious backwards people used to practice... is that what society as a whole is doing, right now?
Well, historically people tended to sacrifice their children in the hopes of receiving some sort of this-worldly gain. To appease vengeful Gods, to stop the drought, etc. So are people today murdering their children for a this-worldly gain, because someone in authority (historically a priestly-like pretender) is telling them to?
Yes, people today are murdering their children, because people in authority are telling them to, to receive specific this worldly benefits - lower costs, more free time to pursue hedonistic activities, or career (again more money), or maybe to stop global warming (remember how those really stupid people thought they could stop drought? I'm sure they had a good "reason" too...)
So yes, indeed - people today are committing large scale child sacrifice. And I say, based it is absolutely abhorrent to God. I'm pretty sure child sacrifice was forbidden somewhere in the Bible, as if people need to be told explicitly that it is wrong - which apparently they do.
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Guesswork: Joseph Smith's Translations Are "Dream Like"
Disclaimer: I'm not a Mormon.
I think that a possible explanation for much of Joseph Smith's translations are "dream like."
Based on my previous conclusions, I must accept as fact that Mormonism is somehow true (essentially, or at least mostly). That is, Joseph Smith's translations, revelations, and the products thereof are some how more real and more true than what most people accept as true (myself, most modern non-mormons).
However, a lot of startling elements or difficulties present themselves to the non-Mormon even when looking at the official accounts. Such as the instruments used to translate the plates, the direct word-for-word copying of official KJV passages, the fact that the translation is into King James english, the translation of Matthew, etc.
It seems evident that Joseph Smith's translation wasn't the same as what one usually thinks of as a scholarly translation. Even by Smith's own account, it was strictly by the power of God.
So it appears to me that his work and translations often have a dream-like quality, in that appear to be presenting a unique (or sacred) message, but communicated via Smith's personal experiences, knowledge, understanding of language. That is, in one sense, obvious that any translator will be conveying some degree of themselves into the work - but for Smith it seems more than that. I wonder if it wasn't like a sacred dream, where the imagery used is from Smith's own mind, but to convey a specific (divinely inspired?) message. It would explain to some degree why he used exact word-for-word KJV passages, apparently mixed up "biblically sounding" wording with 19th century anachronisms, etc.
--
Trying to use the historical accounts to figure out just what happened is difficult. There appears to be a lot of slander, politics, and so much he-said she-said. Certainly, the same issues we face today! Given the obviously problematic nature of reporting today (even with photography, video recordings, etc.) one is automatically making a faith-based choice on what and who to believe. It is a far from perfect comparison, but it seems clear enough that if Christ was born in our time, the media be producing a lot of slander and evidence against His claims - even any miracle would be twisted, slandered, etc. so that I doubt anyone would believe that anything had even occurred, even if many had personal experience of the miracles. Perhaps I'm being too cynical?
I think that a possible explanation for much of Joseph Smith's translations are "dream like."
Based on my previous conclusions, I must accept as fact that Mormonism is somehow true (essentially, or at least mostly). That is, Joseph Smith's translations, revelations, and the products thereof are some how more real and more true than what most people accept as true (myself, most modern non-mormons).
However, a lot of startling elements or difficulties present themselves to the non-Mormon even when looking at the official accounts. Such as the instruments used to translate the plates, the direct word-for-word copying of official KJV passages, the fact that the translation is into King James english, the translation of Matthew, etc.
It seems evident that Joseph Smith's translation wasn't the same as what one usually thinks of as a scholarly translation. Even by Smith's own account, it was strictly by the power of God.
So it appears to me that his work and translations often have a dream-like quality, in that appear to be presenting a unique (or sacred) message, but communicated via Smith's personal experiences, knowledge, understanding of language. That is, in one sense, obvious that any translator will be conveying some degree of themselves into the work - but for Smith it seems more than that. I wonder if it wasn't like a sacred dream, where the imagery used is from Smith's own mind, but to convey a specific (divinely inspired?) message. It would explain to some degree why he used exact word-for-word KJV passages, apparently mixed up "biblically sounding" wording with 19th century anachronisms, etc.
--
Trying to use the historical accounts to figure out just what happened is difficult. There appears to be a lot of slander, politics, and so much he-said she-said. Certainly, the same issues we face today! Given the obviously problematic nature of reporting today (even with photography, video recordings, etc.) one is automatically making a faith-based choice on what and who to believe. It is a far from perfect comparison, but it seems clear enough that if Christ was born in our time, the media be producing a lot of slander and evidence against His claims - even any miracle would be twisted, slandered, etc. so that I doubt anyone would believe that anything had even occurred, even if many had personal experience of the miracles. Perhaps I'm being too cynical?
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Why isn't everyone Mormon?
Restating my previous post another way (from the mainstream, mass media repeated viewpoint):
Mormons don't want to be deceived by reality, because they mistakingly think it's wonderful and fundamentally enjoy life - but they're stupid and kinda bad because they disagree with us.
Non-Mormons want to be deceived, distracted, entertained, and primarily seek short-term pleasures because they know the truth about reality is really meaningless and everything that seems good is false, and hopefully stupid religious people wake up soon and realize it.
Now, it seems the logical think for a non-religious nihilistic/atheist person to do would be to join anyway in order to participate in the obviously superior benefits to individual and group.
So why don't they, en mass? Well obviously - because they can't. First, they've convinced themselves (have their heads so far up their backsides) that what is obviously good is bad. Secondly, they can't participate in the benefits unless they honestly believe it is true. It's not like a consumer product where one can just buy the options one wants, it must either be genuinely lived or not at all.
Mormons don't want to be deceived by reality, because they mistakingly think it's wonderful and fundamentally enjoy life - but they're stupid and kinda bad because they disagree with us.
Non-Mormons want to be deceived, distracted, entertained, and primarily seek short-term pleasures because they know the truth about reality is really meaningless and everything that seems good is false, and hopefully stupid religious people wake up soon and realize it.
Now, it seems the logical think for a non-religious nihilistic/atheist person to do would be to join anyway in order to participate in the obviously superior benefits to individual and group.
So why don't they, en mass? Well obviously - because they can't. First, they've convinced themselves (have their heads so far up their backsides) that what is obviously good is bad. Secondly, they can't participate in the benefits unless they honestly believe it is true. It's not like a consumer product where one can just buy the options one wants, it must either be genuinely lived or not at all.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Non-Mormon Comparison
An interesting comparison. If you conclude Mormonism is false (which I don't agree with, though I'm not Mormon), one must say:
Mormons are deceived about religion and reality, though they think they have the truth, and it's wholly to their personal and group benefit.
Non-Mormon atheists (mass media people) aren't deceived about religion and reality, they don't think anything can really be true, and it's wholly to their personal and group detriment.
It's actually a bit more complicated than than. Mormons believe they understand reality as it really is, and make no attempt to purposely deceive themselves. Non-Mormon atheists claim they know the truth, but at the same time purposely and constantly deceive and distract themselves through an array of entertainment products (because the non-Mormon "truth" is extremely demotivating, and comfort/pleasure is the primary motivation they cling onto as individuals).
Mormons are deceived about religion and reality, though they think they have the truth, and it's wholly to their personal and group benefit.
Non-Mormon atheists (mass media people) aren't deceived about religion and reality, they don't think anything can really be true, and it's wholly to their personal and group detriment.
It's actually a bit more complicated than than. Mormons believe they understand reality as it really is, and make no attempt to purposely deceive themselves. Non-Mormon atheists claim they know the truth, but at the same time purposely and constantly deceive and distract themselves through an array of entertainment products (because the non-Mormon "truth" is extremely demotivating, and comfort/pleasure is the primary motivation they cling onto as individuals).
Sunday, May 3, 2015
The Importance of Fertility Rate
I suppose it should be kind of obvious, shouldn't it?
From a demographic standpoint, if a group has sub-replacement fertility, it's literally dying off. A group is either growing or dying, at potential variances around a "static" point that is never quite a real state of being.
As a whole though, and repeated daily, mainstream society has decided that there are too many people. As a whole, society has also shifted it's focal point away from family. Everything that is not reproductive is touted as a good: abortion, contraception, delayed marriage, same-sex "marriage (which, obviously, can't be reproductive).
The whole trend, for anyone who listens, is demographic suicide. Interestingly, the only people who do listen are those same people who are inundated by first-world mass media daily: mostly European and Asian-descended nations.
These same groups of people tend to have higher IQs, which is only controversial in the same sense that "it's okay to murder children in the womb" is controversial - it's only such because the mass media has decided it should be so.
That is, the only people committing demographic suicide are above average intelligence, above average education, and above average responsibility - they tend to plan for the future more (e.g. bothering to use contraception consistently). Now, there is work on "solutions" for those who are less-responsible - such as abortion. There is also work on long-term or somewhat permanent contraceptions (maybe it can be a sort of default medical procedure given around the time of puberty, like a vaccine) which would solve the discrepancy.
Yet, this is only a solution insofar that one accepts demographic suicide, as a whole, for everyone, is a good thing!
That is, more specifically, the solution to the discrepancy is for the more intelligent groups, effectively committing slow suicide, will also force the less intelligent groups to commit slow suicide. Because the less intelligent groups, much to the dismay of the more intelligent, wouldn't willingly commit suicide ("voluntarily limit fertility rates") - one can't really call it suicide can they? Maybe "soft genocide" or "long-term, painless genocide" would be more appropriate terms. It's sort of akin to the modern death penalty, where instead of public hangings, we've made it a private, painless process.
Religion, in general, appears to be an anti-dote to this "solution" (read: poison) and, as such, generally coopted or hated by the mainstream media and society it engenders. Christianity is an example of this, which has slowly accepted practices like abortion despite historical opposition. Even Catholics, which officially oppose contraception and abortion, is currently committing voluntary society.
There are some minority groups, like the Amish, who don't participate in the slow mass suicide and child sacrifice trend. That is because they fully isolate themselves from mainstream society, both socially and technologically.
Interestingly though, there is one group, that is highly intelligent, highly educated, wealthy, and fully integrated into modern society and technology. That group stands almost completely alone in being fully integrated into first-world society, yet completely opposing these overwhelmingly evil trends: that is, the Mormons.
From a demographic standpoint, if a group has sub-replacement fertility, it's literally dying off. A group is either growing or dying, at potential variances around a "static" point that is never quite a real state of being.
As a whole though, and repeated daily, mainstream society has decided that there are too many people. As a whole, society has also shifted it's focal point away from family. Everything that is not reproductive is touted as a good: abortion, contraception, delayed marriage, same-sex "marriage (which, obviously, can't be reproductive).
The whole trend, for anyone who listens, is demographic suicide. Interestingly, the only people who do listen are those same people who are inundated by first-world mass media daily: mostly European and Asian-descended nations.
These same groups of people tend to have higher IQs, which is only controversial in the same sense that "it's okay to murder children in the womb" is controversial - it's only such because the mass media has decided it should be so.
That is, the only people committing demographic suicide are above average intelligence, above average education, and above average responsibility - they tend to plan for the future more (e.g. bothering to use contraception consistently). Now, there is work on "solutions" for those who are less-responsible - such as abortion. There is also work on long-term or somewhat permanent contraceptions (maybe it can be a sort of default medical procedure given around the time of puberty, like a vaccine) which would solve the discrepancy.
Yet, this is only a solution insofar that one accepts demographic suicide, as a whole, for everyone, is a good thing!
That is, more specifically, the solution to the discrepancy is for the more intelligent groups, effectively committing slow suicide, will also force the less intelligent groups to commit slow suicide. Because the less intelligent groups, much to the dismay of the more intelligent, wouldn't willingly commit suicide ("voluntarily limit fertility rates") - one can't really call it suicide can they? Maybe "soft genocide" or "long-term, painless genocide" would be more appropriate terms. It's sort of akin to the modern death penalty, where instead of public hangings, we've made it a private, painless process.
Religion, in general, appears to be an anti-dote to this "solution" (read: poison) and, as such, generally coopted or hated by the mainstream media and society it engenders. Christianity is an example of this, which has slowly accepted practices like abortion despite historical opposition. Even Catholics, which officially oppose contraception and abortion, is currently committing voluntary society.
There are some minority groups, like the Amish, who don't participate in the slow mass suicide and child sacrifice trend. That is because they fully isolate themselves from mainstream society, both socially and technologically.
Interestingly though, there is one group, that is highly intelligent, highly educated, wealthy, and fully integrated into modern society and technology. That group stands almost completely alone in being fully integrated into first-world society, yet completely opposing these overwhelmingly evil trends: that is, the Mormons.
Friday, May 1, 2015
Mormonism as True
Disclaimer: I'm not a Mormon, and my analysis here is strictly from the apparent real-world benefits that Mormonism provides to its believers. I think Mormons would believe these are the blessings of God, for obeying his word and will.
--
Based on my previous "conclusion", I feel compelled to personally believe that Mormonism (or the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter Day Saints) conforms to reality. My argument is strictly "top down" and ignores any "bottom up" approach and opinions on the historicity of the churches claims.
To elaborate: followers and believers of Mormonism have a quantitatively superior adaption to the challenges of modern life. That is especially evident to the relative behavior of other modern-adapted groups. So no matter how much one wants to attack the historicity Joseph Smith's translations and revelations, the political beliefs, or any other claim of Mormonism - somehow Mormonism is more real, more true than what most people believe (myself, most modern non-mormons).
This is a bold claim, but the evidence supporting this conclusion is overwhelming. It is, indeed, so strong, that given only 8 generations Mormons would be the largest ethnically European group in the world.
Obviously this sort of thing is extremely problematic to extrapolate into the future, but given current trends - in 8 generations:
For this simple calculation we will ignore converts, apostasy, and demographic mixing. We'll also take the US population and its trend as a while (ignoring the relative Mormon element).
The US will be majority hispanic
Europe (almost all countries) will be majority Muslim
The European-descended population of the US is currently the largest such grouping in the world. It currently reported at 197 million as of 2012, with a birth rate of 1.76. That is, as each generation passes it is negatively compounding by approximately 16%. In 8 generations there would be about 48 million whites in America.
The European-descend population of "Mormonism" is believed to be approximately 13.2 million, with a birthrate of 2.77. That means it is compounding by approximately 32% per generation. That means in 8 generations there would be about 121 million whites Mormons.
It is becoming an increasingly popular liberal view that the "death" or demographic shrinking of whites is a good thing. While I don't want to address why suicide, or encouraging suicidal behavior, is bad here - from a strictly evolutionary perspective, Mormonism is vastly superior to whatever most Americans believe.
It's so superior, that simply given current demographic trends, someday the only European-descended people left in America would be Mormons. What's interesting, is Mormonism has absolutely no doctrine explicit or otherwise in direct support of this specific effect. This trend is also in the face of widespread societal criticism of Mormonism - everywhere you look society is anti-Mormon (but also, anti-family, hence society-wide demographic suicide tendencies).
From a non-Mormon Christian perspective, and given the Old Testament definition of being blessed by God, one feels absolutely compelled to believe that Mormonism is indeed somehow true, that Mormons are indeed obeying the word of God, and that indeed they are blessed by God (apparently, far more than any other large religious denomination - most of which are committing demographic suicide faster than the widespread societal trends!)
--
(Please message or contact with any suggested corrections)
--
Based on my previous "conclusion", I feel compelled to personally believe that Mormonism (or the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter Day Saints) conforms to reality. My argument is strictly "top down" and ignores any "bottom up" approach and opinions on the historicity of the churches claims.
To elaborate: followers and believers of Mormonism have a quantitatively superior adaption to the challenges of modern life. That is especially evident to the relative behavior of other modern-adapted groups. So no matter how much one wants to attack the historicity Joseph Smith's translations and revelations, the political beliefs, or any other claim of Mormonism - somehow Mormonism is more real, more true than what most people believe (myself, most modern non-mormons).
This is a bold claim, but the evidence supporting this conclusion is overwhelming. It is, indeed, so strong, that given only 8 generations Mormons would be the largest ethnically European group in the world.
Obviously this sort of thing is extremely problematic to extrapolate into the future, but given current trends - in 8 generations:
For this simple calculation we will ignore converts, apostasy, and demographic mixing. We'll also take the US population and its trend as a while (ignoring the relative Mormon element).
The US will be majority hispanic
Europe (almost all countries) will be majority Muslim
The European-descended population of the US is currently the largest such grouping in the world. It currently reported at 197 million as of 2012, with a birth rate of 1.76. That is, as each generation passes it is negatively compounding by approximately 16%. In 8 generations there would be about 48 million whites in America.
The European-descend population of "Mormonism" is believed to be approximately 13.2 million, with a birthrate of 2.77. That means it is compounding by approximately 32% per generation. That means in 8 generations there would be about 121 million whites Mormons.
It is becoming an increasingly popular liberal view that the "death" or demographic shrinking of whites is a good thing. While I don't want to address why suicide, or encouraging suicidal behavior, is bad here - from a strictly evolutionary perspective, Mormonism is vastly superior to whatever most Americans believe.
It's so superior, that simply given current demographic trends, someday the only European-descended people left in America would be Mormons. What's interesting, is Mormonism has absolutely no doctrine explicit or otherwise in direct support of this specific effect. This trend is also in the face of widespread societal criticism of Mormonism - everywhere you look society is anti-Mormon (but also, anti-family, hence society-wide demographic suicide tendencies).
From a non-Mormon Christian perspective, and given the Old Testament definition of being blessed by God, one feels absolutely compelled to believe that Mormonism is indeed somehow true, that Mormons are indeed obeying the word of God, and that indeed they are blessed by God (apparently, far more than any other large religious denomination - most of which are committing demographic suicide faster than the widespread societal trends!)
--
(Please message or contact with any suggested corrections)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)