Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[Dr. Jones]

Fully believe it-- completely just teasin. There's nothing quite like road-tripping with a big family. The 5 of us (parents, two brothers) drove about 7000km in a Peugeot station wagon last summer in Europe, and it'll probably be one of my fondest memories until the day my life ceases. Big families are always fun families, especially if they're loud (like we are).

I know this about you and your fam. It's awesome and why I decided to depart from my internet-persona-norm so we could get real. Y'all r good peeps. my peeps, I hope.

 

[Deleted member 848]

This is a false dichotomy. Whatever "structure" you want to give society (or cultural backdrops) is that which sediments from a mass of practice (religious, economic, philosophic, etc)

False. While religions do immerse themselves into existing cultures and come out as something novel, it is very possible to trace culture-defining characteristics that would exist regardless of the choice of faith (whether polytheistic, or monotheistic).

Here's an example that I can relate to-- compare the Muslims of Kosovo and Bosnia to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia. There are very fundamental characteristics of Albanian culture that have been introduced by the advent of Islam, however there are characteristics in which that we practice our faith that are characteristics that are cornerstones to the culture of my ancestry long before the Ottomans made their way over into the Balkan peninsula. Long story short, the Islam of southeast europe is far, far different from the Islam of the Middle East. Pretty much all of that is due to the cultural backdrop of the region prior to the introduction of Islam.

Monotheisms aren't the only drivers toward suffocating models of capital-T Truth, but history suggests that they are the most forceful drivers in that direction.

It's because modern history has been dominated by nations that have just happened to be practicers of Monotheism. It's a skewed perception.

Also, I had three personal messages from posters inviting me back to GD. So, I'll take the friendly words over the cacophony of the #Queens.

Do as you wish.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I know this about you and your fam. It's awesome and why I decided to depart from my internet-persona-norm so we could get real. Y'all r good peeps. my peeps, I hope.

Y'all too obvs. By the way if all goes to plan over the next month (prayers) I should be free from April pretty much onwards. I'm basically 95% certain I'm gonna visit Utah in May if we make the playoffs.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Y'all too obvs. By the way if all goes to plan over the next month (prayers) I should be free from April pretty much onwards. I'm basically 95% certain I'm gonna visit Utah in May if we make the playoffs.

best reason ever for us to make the playoffs??

lol, I'll take it.

 

[Deleted member 848]

best reason ever for us to make the playoffs??

lol, I'll take it.

If we don't make the playoffs (we ****ing better) then I'll try to come over for an April game. I really feel like we're gonna make the playoffs though. Barring injury. SO keep that guest casa of yours open around April to May, ya heard? We'll have to pull UGLI into the Jeezy as well.

 

[Dr. Jones]

If we don't make the playoffs (we ****ing better) then I'll try to come over for an April game. I really feel like we're gonna make the playoffs though. Barring injury. SO keep that guest casa of yours open around April to May, ya heard? We'll have to pull UGLI into the Jeezy as well.

We can get UGLI. He's always down for coll shet.

 

[NAOS]

False. While religions to immerse themselves into existing cultures and come out as something novel, it is very possible to trace culture-defining characteristics that would exist regardless of the choice of faith (whether polytheistic, or monotheistic).

Here's an example that I can relate to-- compare the Muslims of Kosovo and Bosnia to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia. There are very fundamental characteristics of Albanian culture that have been introduced by the advent of Islam, however there are characteristics in which that we practice our faith that are characteristics that are cornerstones to the culture of my ancestry long before the Ottomans made their way over into the Balkan peninsula. Long story short, the Islam of southeast europe is far, far different from the Islam of the Middle East. Pretty much all of that is due to the cultural backdrop of the region prior to the introduction of Islam.



It's because modern history has been dominated by nations that have just happened to be practicers of Monotheism. It's a skewed perception.



Do as you wish.

We're destined to reach a point where we have a categorical disconnect. Part of the problem with discussing these kinds of cultural transformations is that 'religion' comes in as a discrete sort of variable to be measured, along with 'state-crafting', along with 'economics', etc. In truth, none of these are discrete things, and we shouldn't produce a theory of change using categorical thinking. I shouldn't have followed you even >< far into that line of thinking, so I'll back up to my original point: history suggests that monotheisms are very concerned with limited and highly politicized theories of truth.

Islam and Christianity have similar models of truth (they're both outgrowths of a Semitic culture on the margins of a Roman empire), so your example isn't as neat as you'd like to think (i.e. some categorically foreign religion plopped into a categorically different cultural backdrop). Anyway, dude, I don't really feel like talking to you anyway, tbh. You've been a massive douche lately.

 

[Deleted member 848]

We're destined to reach a point where we have a categorical disconnect. Part of the problem with discussing these kinds of cultural transformations is that 'religion' comes in as a discrete sort of variable to be measured, along with 'state-crafting', along with 'economics', etc. In truth, none of these are discrete things, and we shouldn't produce a theory of change using categorical thinking.

Completely agreed. But this doesn't necessarily support your point as monotheistic faiths having a more intrinsic rigidity with regards to truth (imo).

I shouldn't have followed you even >< far into that line of thinking, so I'll back up to my original point: history suggests that monotheisms are very concerned with limited and highly politicized theories of truth.

Islam and Christianity have similar models of truth (they're both outgrowths of a Semitic culture on the margins of a Roman empire), so your example isn't as neat as you'd like to think (i.e. some categorically foreign religion plopped into a categorically different cultural backdrop). Anyway, dude, I don't really feel like talking to you anyway, tbh. You've been a massive douche lately.

Sure. I'll lay off.

 

[fishonjazz]

If we don't make the playoffs (we ****ing better) then I'll try to come over for an April game. I really feel like we're gonna make the playoffs though. Barring injury. SO keep that guest casa of yours open around April to May, ya heard? We'll have to pull UGLI into the Jeezy as well.

I'm in too

 

[colton]

An excellent point. It does say "God-breathed" as in, God spoke those words. Now we know that God is inerrant, thus His words are inerrant.

That's just your interpretation of what that phrase means. The Bible itself doesn't say it's inerrant. As I said.

 

[bigb]

If you were cool, you'd grab one of these:

Also next time don't have 5 kids. Moron.

Hey! **** you!

 

[bigb]

Fully believe it-- completely just teasin. There's nothing quite like road-tripping with a big family. The 5 of us (parents, two brothers) drove about 7000km in a Peugeot station wagon last summer in Europe, and it'll probably be one of my fondest memories until the day my life ceases. Big families are always fun families, especially if they're loud (like we are).

5 people? That's not a big family. Go big or go home!

 

[Stoked]

5 people? That's not a big family. Go big or go home!

7 in mine. Wife, 4 girls (17, 12, 8, 2), infant son and I.

 

[RandyForRubio]

My wife wants 6 kids...and that was after I pushed her down from 8. "Compromise"

 

[bigb]

7 in mine. Wife, 4 girls (17, 12, 8, 2), infant son and I.

Yeah, I've got five kids as well. My youngest turns one today and my oldest turns 11 next week. Wife wants one more, but I was done two kids ago.

 

[NAOS]

Completely agreed. But this doesn't necessarily support your point as monotheistic faiths having a more intrinsic rigidity with regards to truth (imo).

That wasn't an attempt to support that point. As a move, it was a backing up, followed by a re-iteration of my initial claim. I realize that I haven't provided evidence; I've only gestured that there's a mound of historical evidence over there to support my claim. Maybe I'll give it another go....

Nothing polices the boundaries of meaning and truth like Gods. And nothing narrows the catchment of meanings further than ONE GOD. (My favorite example of this is the oft-repeated Islamic tautology "There is no God but God!").

The early Roman empire was polytheistic, and, generally speaking, policed the boundary between public and private more than it did the boundary between True and False. You could publicly worship whatever god you wanted, ascribe to it whatever demonstrable forces and signs you saw fit, but common sense dictated that approval from that god depended on accurate observance of rituals. This, at minimum, required that the god have an image and a public alter or temple. Requests/prayers were presented to the god in terms of a trade. A priestly cast emerged to oversee these things, which were very much a part of the State, and gave those trades the force of contract/law. Historians agree that, relative to the way we think about things today, the view of religion was very practical: if you asked the gods for something, and it happened, then you owed a debt (food, wine, animal sacrifice, etc). On the private side, you had the power of the paterfamilias, which, by today's standards, had an extreme grip on the expression of family life. The father oversaw private worship, and the public judiciaries had no power to intervene. Families were microcosms of the State. Theoretically the father had the power to execute family members.

You'd be correct in pointing out that the seeds of fascism are everywhere in this "cultural backdrop"; the insistence on publicity did narrow the catchment of possible practices and thus possible meanings/truths. But, vis-a-vis monotheism, people nevertheless had much more conceptual latitude for framing the essences of humanity and nature. Every single judicial history of a monotheistic State backs that point up. In early Rome, as long as you "registered" your meaning, then everything was cool (one of the most subversive things about early Christianity was it's insistence on meeting in private, and for not playing the game of images).

EDIT (TO CLARIFY): In terms of freedom/persecution, Roman questions about religion and meaning were dominated by the hows of worship. In monotheisms, the questions are dominated by the hows, whys, and whats. You can feel the difference.

 

[Deleted member 848]

That wasn't an attempt to support that point. As a move, it was a backing up, followed by a re-iteration of my initial claim. I realize that I haven't provided evidence; I've only gestured that there's a mound of historical evidence over there to support my claim. Maybe I'll give it another go....

Nothing polices the boundaries of meaning and truth like Gods. And nothing narrows the catchment of meanings further than ONE GOD. (My favorite example of this is the oft-repeated Islamic tautology "There is no God but God!").

The early Roman empire was polytheistic, and, generally speaking, policed the boundary between public and private more than it did the boundary between True and False. You could publicly worship whatever god you wanted, ascribe to it whatever demonstrable forces and signs you saw fit, but common sense dictated that approval from that god depended on accurate observance of rituals. This, at minimum, required that the god have an image and a public alter or temple. Requests/prayers were presented to the god in terms of a trade. A priestly cast emerged to oversee these things, which were very much a part of the State, and gave those trades the force of contract/law. Historians agree that, relative to the way we think about things today, the view of religion was very practical: if you asked the gods for something, and it happened, then you owed a debt (food, wine, animal sacrifice, etc). On the private side, you had the power of the paterfamilias, which, by today's standards, had an extreme grip on the expression of family life. The father oversaw private worship, and the public judiciaries had no power to intervene. Families were microcosms of the State. Theoretically the father had the power to execute family members.

You'd be correct in pointing out that the seeds of fascism are everywhere in this "cultural backdrop"; the insistence on publicity did narrow the catchment of possible practices and thus possible meanings/truths. But, vis-a-vis monotheism, people nevertheless had much more conceptual latitude for framing the essences of humanity and nature. Every single judicial history of a monotheistic State backs that point up. In early Rome, as long as you "registered" your meaning, then everything was cool (one of the most subversive things about early Christianity was it's insistence on meeting in private, and for not playing the game of images).

EDIT (TO CLARIFY): In terms of freedom/persecution, Roman questions about religion and meaning were dominated by the hows of worship. In monotheisms, the questions are dominated by the hows, whys, and whats. You can feel the difference.

Good points, and a good example to boot. However, I think that euro-Middle Eastern polytheism is a bit different from Asian polytheism. For example, Hinduism is certainly different than fragmented polytheistic pre-Abrahamic pagan belief. Something like Hinduism would be much, much for focused on the whats, whys, and hows. Maybe it's just a symptom of whenever a religious movement becomes canonized and a source of identity-- and it's something that can happen to all faiths, regardless of the nature of the diety. That's where I think I stand.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Just out of curiosity I want to ask some questions to get input from whoever is interested by it.

There are common story types/ themes throughout the various mythologies/beliefs out there.

Many have creation stories (stories may not be the correct term, but that's what I'm using here), flood stories, sacrifice stories, dying/coming to life again stories (dying God?), hero stories, world tree/joining of worlds stories, younger Gods and elder Gods, one supreme being/God, giant or titanic beings.

Do they all have a single origin and then branch out from there to the various versions?
Did all of the stories come on their own and just happen to have some similarities based on common questions about life and a need to explain it?

Thoughts?

 

[NAOS]

Good points, and a good example to boot. However, I think that euro-Middle Eastern polytheism is a bit different from Asian polytheism. For example, Hinduism is certainly different than fragmented polytheistic pre-Abrahamic pagan belief. Something like Hinduism would be much, much for focused on the whats, whys, and hows. Maybe it's just a symptom of whenever a religious movement becomes canonized and a source of identity-- and it's something that can happen to all faiths, regardless of the nature of the diety. That's where I think I stand.

It seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Of course they're different. Differences are everywhere. Equivalences are fictions. The question is whether they are significantly different vis-a-vis theories of truth.

This seems like a preposterous claim to me. "Hinduism" is a sloppy term coined by the English to refer to the dizzying diversity of "religious" practices performed by dem Hindus they were colonizing. The fact that there were over 300 dialects spoken on the subcontinent is evidence enough that the Meaning Police were of the soft-spoken variety. When you add the fact that the only homespun attempt to unite the entire subcontinent into a single empire was at the hands of a Buddhist-who-acted-like-a-monotheist, then your point becomes even more preposterous.

So, what's your point?

 

[Deleted member 848]

It seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
Of course they're different. Differences are everywhere. Equivalences are fictions. The question is whether they are significantly different vis-a-vis theories of truth.

I don't think I am, really.

This seems like a preposterous claim to me. "Hinduism" is a sloppy term coined by the English to refer to the dizzying diversity of "religious" practices performed by dem Hindus they were colonizing. The fact that there were over 300 dialects spoken on the subcontinent is evidence enough that the Meaning Police were of the soft-spoken variety. When you add the fact that the only homespun attempt to unite the entire subcontinent into a single empire was at the hands of a Buddhist-who-acted-like-a-monotheist, then your point becomes even more preposterous.

So, what's your point?

I don't want to argue because I don't think we're to far apart here, so I'l simplify.


Modern-day Hinduism is a polytheistic faith. On that, we agree.
Modern-day Hinduism is a polytheistic faith that has undergone nationalistic attempts to be homogenous and canonized primarily from British colonial efforts (for various reasons). You proposed this point, and I agree.


You suggest (from my understanding, and maybe I misunderstood) that monotheism intrinsically is a driver towards a monolithic conception of 'truth'. I disagreed here. Primarily because there have been many monotheistic faiths that have avoided our Western conflation of monolithic truths with Abrahamic faiths (think Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Baha'i)-- along with my belief that every religion is contoured and contorted and morphed into a unique interpretation based on the region and the cultural background/backdrop in which they live in.

You seem to be implying (from my understanding) that modern-day polytheism in nations such as India have become more preoccupied with a monolithic conception of truth, because they have been forced unto them by British Colonialism-- which uses this monolithic truth-conception of Christianity to force it onto other controllers. I argue that this monolithic pursuit of faith is characteristic of European monotheism as is presently constituted-- but that there isn't anything intrinsic to polytheistic, or monotheistic faiths that makes them more preoccupied with one single definition of truth, or multiple definitions of truth. This is my point that I'm trying to argue.

Those sorts of things are more representative of leaders trying to ascertain political control of expanding regions, as canonizing heterogenous religious identity into something monolithic will nurture an expanding group identity that rules can exploit. We see this certainly in Islam, a faith which started out very heterogenous but has grown to become growingly monolithic as powerful factions deem their interpretations as the only 'correct ones'