When Words Mean Their Opposite

A favorite game of our modern age is to keep words intact, but actually mean the opposite by them.

It started pretty early on with the sodomy movement, by use the term "gay" to mean sodomite, despite higher incidences of disease, suicide, sever depression, mental problems, and histories of physical and emotional child abuse. Doesn't sound very happy to me.

Now "marriage" means a contract to engage in any conceivable sexual act between any consenting adults - yet the contract is meaningless anyway. It's just a phantom triumph to attack people who understand the family is society, without which all crumbles. That is, it once meant a very specific necessary for society, but it now means absolutely nothing.

Post-marriage triumph we now see the words "man" and "woman" have also apparently become meaningless, because it might be offensive (maybe even a hate crime soon) to use them as actual representatives of truth.

One of the justices who used his position of power to enforce sexual sin on a nation is called a Catholic. So again we see the meaning of a word completely undermined, or redefined. A Catholic should be someone who consents to the moral teachings of the church, even in its modern and more liberal form. To agree to a common worldview, to believe in the God of the Bible, etc.

Now though, it seems many people who call themselves Catholic mean it in the same way as crossdressing men call themselves a woman - a mask to throw on or off as one wills. So the definition of Catholic for some is in reality the opposite of what it used apparently means - not a love of God and His will, but a focus on self and what "I" will.

Because this is so widespread in our society, it seems one should not trust any words or labels to be what they claim. Just as some Catholic priests openly engage in sexual relations, it might be wise to doubt a Bishop, Cardinal, or other authority actually represents anything similar to the title in any organization tolerating deceit. We are left to knowing individuals as individuals, to get at their actual beliefs, practices, and behavior - it may be they are speaking a foreign language and we have to interpret the truth based on observations of reality.

We should expect to deal with lies and deceit on a daily basis. I think the only exceptions might be small homogenous communities where a common belief overrides the mainstream culture (maybe your family, a particular monastery or smaller religious society, very active and temple-going Mormons, etc.).

Judging Organizations by "Fruits"

I think one way to aptly judge how far an organization has succumbed to evil is to understand that evil does not create - but corrupts, mocks, and deforms.

That is, evil is parastic. It is dependent on the contributions of the good or ignorant to maintain its existence. Like a cancer, the organization only survives so long as the evil does not actually take over wholly the source of its support.

This is supported biblically:

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

What brought to mind this thought is looking at the decline of vocations in Catholicism since the Vatican II "reforms" whose "new spirit" was intent on oriented itself in accord with modernism.

See: Priestly Crisis

Therefore, we may, unfortunately, conclude that the church hierarchy has largely, more or less, fallen.

That is not, of course, to say there are not wholy just and faithful people in the Catholic hierarchy (as evidenced, I think, by Pope Benedict). Also, this is not to judge the Catholic people either.

We merely see the "fruits" of a church undermining itself to adapt to the world, are - suprise, suprise - harmful to the church!

We must also consider the stated intent of the reforms. They were stated to increase church-going, membership, zeal, etc. They have, as now long evidenced, done the opposite! This is typical of evil policy, with numerous examples in mainstream liberal programs, that hurt the exact groups it claims to be assisting - along with others.

What is to be done?

Well, evil being primarily destructive, good people must always focus on building, on sub-creating in the spirit of love of God. As part of this, they must withdrawal support of organizations that have soccumbed to evil. This means not supporting the church, as a whole, but being very careful and discerning in supporting very specific good people, efforts, or individual churches.

One must also be careful that your effort isn't simply undermined, stolen, or turned to evil, so support of a specific church or priest must be done in such a way that a leftist superior or Bishop wont instantly undo it.

Those with discernment have always been called to support good and not participate in evil wherever they find it, and all men expect Christ are sinners. So a charitable Catholic or Christian of any group should not assume their group is automatically immune! The Catholic church has a long history of saints who worked hard to correct sin and folly where they found it in their beloved church.

--

(Because of this, the only Catholic organization I am able to support with a good conscience is the Society of Saint Pius X, which is overtly and specifically anti-leftist.

Per Charlton's Second law, any organization that isn't specific anti-leftist eventually falls to leftism.)

The "Secular Right" Solution is Too Easy

Coming out of the mainstream media "box," the first reaction is often to simply start believing what one observes with ones own eyes. This often leads to acceptance of human bio-diversity, but also generally a rejection of rampant and apparent error and hypocrisy.

It often stops there though, and simply rests on an anger at the obvious deceit. It is too easy to simply observe and state the obvious and to go no further. It's a trap.

It's like the ol' Plato's Cave analogy: one only makes it so far out of the cave. The secular rightest is the one pointing out that the shadows on the wall are rather poorly done, the descriptions aren't too accurate, and that he can do much better ones!

That is, it doesn't actually take him outside the cave.

To get outside the cave requires religion, namely Christianity. Yet this problem is setup in such a way that by taking that first step to secular rightism, one may permanently reject Christianity because they fail to understand what it is. Mainstream culture has thoroughly hijacked and corrupted the Christian name so that most "Christian" institutions are entirely secular leftist, with a thin sprinkling of Christian vocabulary and ritual.

So many secular right are "out of the frying pan and into the fire" so-to-speak. They are stuck in a state that has a propensity to increase anger, hostility, and bitterness at the total "hypocrisy" of society and its "stupid" or "ignorant" behavior - the idea that, if simply shown the reality of the situation, they can build a new or better society correctly on secular values.

The problem is, of course, that secular leftism isn't merely ignorant or misinformed! It isn't just making stupid mistake after stupid mistake, but it is primarily anti-Christian. It oppose the way, the truth, and the life. It purposefully inverts the good, the beautiful, and the truth. That is, it is evil - and until/if the secular right recognizes the spiritual dimension, that is the true root of the problem, their efforts will always be fruitless and misdirected (and even, quite possibly, harmful to their souls).

Christianity Corrupted by Denying Sin

The core issue, or crux of Christianity's present state of corruption, is rooted in the widespread denial (therefore, total acceptance) of sin.

It is important to understand how this utterly corrupts Christianity: By ignoring the dichotomy between good and evil (e.g. even the conservative Catholic church removed many references to Satan and the prayer to the Archangel Michael in the post Vatican II reforms), and denying various sins - especially the total societal acceptance and enforcement of sexual sin - the idea of God's love is perverted.

That is, instead of understanding our need to repent and reform, to follow the good, beautiful, and true, the message is inverted so that evil becomes good, ugly becomes beautiful, and lies become true. That is, modern corrupt liberal Christianity teaches the idea that sin is good, and the God who calls us to repent and love Him is evil!

Therefore they retain the name of Christianity (i.e. wolf in sheep "clothing"), but lead many souls astray and unto evil ends.

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Problems in the Church

Modern liberals see all problems as fixable with more progress. Christian liberals look at their church and decide progressive reforms are required (e.g. Vatican II, or acceptance of divorce, etc.). This is true whatever Christian grouping or denomination.

Conservatives see problems as caused by man's own sin and folly. That is, failure to love and follow God. The solution then is not a revolution, or a "reformation" of God's law so it better adhere's to human folly, but to call man to repent and strive to return to God.

The Importance of Priesthood

Both Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) and Mormonism believe that having a valid priesthood is vitally important. Both denominations also recognize the importance of lineage, and that the priesthood must necessarily be conferred by direct decent.

Europe, traditionally, viewed descent and lineage as vitally important. So too did the Jewish world, as the importance of Jesus' direct descent from David was considered critical in acknowledging His validity as Messiah and King of Israel.

The modern world has largely attacked this notion, as the essentially materialistic and communist notions underlying the present worldview are anti-hierarchical, egalitarian, and opposed to any notion of nobility or aristocracy - therefore acknowledging the importance of lineage is mostly viewed as forbidden.

Catholicism recognizes an individual priest's authority as deriving in a direct lineage from Christ, through Peter.  Mormonism recognizes an individual priesthood holder's authority as coming directly from Christ through the Apostles Peter, James, and John conferred directly on Joseph Smith during the restoration.

There are many differences from this point on, but the unity in emphasis is impressive. Having a valid, royal, prophetic priesthood is important.

My impression from this is that, for a large organization to be properly stable long-term and oriented towards God, it must have valid priesthood.

So, for example, while individual Christians without access to a priest may be real Christians - and they may even meet together and praise God in a real, vital way - for the organization itself to be ensured longevity and validity, it must have a valid priesthood.

Or at least, without one, it's missing something wonderful.

So then, my sense is that if an individual desires to join a church and submit to that church's authority in religious matters, they need make sure the church has valid priesthood holders who claim a direct, lineal descent from Christ.

--

For those living in the Western world then, their best options are likely Catholic or Mormon. Unfortunately, the post-consicular Catholic church is in a period of self-contradiction, confusion, and disunity. In its long history though, the Catholic church has had periods of trouble, with some very bad Popes, so focusing on tradition (perhaps more akin to how Orthodoxy ensures validity) might be necessary. 

A local priest I spoke to said that, even with all those problems, the core of the mass and validity of its sacrament are essentially the timeless essence of that faith. So largely ignoring the present "winds" and instead focusing on Mass (the traditional Latin ones, especially high-masses, are quite beautiful) and traditional teachings are probably the best option for someone who wants to remain Catholic.

Joseph Smith's Treasure

Matthew 6:19-21King James Version (KJV)

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

---

One common criticism of Joseph Smith is that he was a treasure hunter prior to becoming a Prophet.

A possible positive interpretation of this is that he was shown true treasure by God, by using Smith's preconceived notions of treasure hunting and the power of seer stones - which he eventually graduated beyond the need of using.

Why bother having kids?

• Despite their concern for the disappearing white population worldwide, the secular right doesn't seem to have large numbers of kids.

• The secular left is pretty happy about the disappearing white population.

• The Christian left thinks there's probably too many people, and maybe you'd be just better off adopting other peoples kids.

• Mormons, on the other hand, continue to have lots of their own kids because they realize it's part of God's divine plan. God never abrogated his command to multiply, and it's part of his divine plan that specific spirits should be embodied in your specific family (if possible). The more the better.

[I think natural biological instincts reflect the Mormon position, but it is good to have a spiritual position and meaning from which to argue against the persistent modern propaganda and corrupted instincts.]

How do judge Christian denominations?

This is a difficult question. Too easily do people seem prone to dismiss others negatively over rather nuanced definitions and understandings, or practices they don't understand...

Also, it seems a traditional belief that we should probably expect to not personally agree with everything our church says, and yet submit to it. That is, when the liberal says "I like this or that, but the church disagrees - they're wrong", from where does a conservative make the same rebuke?

For a conservative Catholic or Mormon, it's not so difficult. They may assert the infallibility on moral doctrines of the Pope or Prophet. For a non-denominational Christian though, this is problematic. I find myself wondering if the Pope is wrong about this or that, yet don't feel myself fit to judge.

Indeed, for many ex-Catholics and ex-Mormons, the second they question that firm pillar, it seems that everything falls apart and they simply "go with the flow" of the times and mostly ascribe to mainstream doctrines.

At this point though, I think it is easy enough to rule out some larger denominations as having fallen into error using a simple litmus test based on traditional Christian mores (that is, making the moral behavior as superior to doctrinal disputes, etc.)

This may be easily enough done using something as old as the 10 commandments. We could just pick a few for simplicity, with more or less relevant issues:

1) Does the denomination condemn murder?
2) Does the denomination condemn adultery?
3) Does the denomination condemn theft?
4) Does the denomination condemn lying?

I think most everyone who calls themselves Christian still frowns about stealing and lying. Yet with regard to murder, a large number of denominations now support abortion and out-of-wedlock sexual relations. This applies to now-legal same-sex legal marriages as well, because state recognition and God's law are distinct. Ideally the state follow God, though we see that is not always true.

So unfortunately that simple litmus rules out a lot of Christian denominations! If your denomination is doing something so obviously wrong as violating the abrogating some simple moral rules to "keep up with the times" it might be time to change. The Bible sort of details over and over again that societies often seem to stray from God's law, but it's the Christians duty to stay true to God's law despite changing winds of popularity.

The second check might to be see if members actually take the rules of their denomination seriously and attempt to live by them. It appears the membership numbers and fertility rate in those who publicly disobey are dropping anyway though!

---

It's interesting how Churches keep being told they need to keep up with the times to retain members, yet those who do slowly dissolve. If anyone suggests this, it's probably good to double-check their motivations and beliefs.