Observation at my ward party…

[danimal]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I can understand that, as I went to school in New York. When I first got to school, I did care what people thought about me being from Utah, but a teammate of mine finally got it through my head after my first year that if people had a problem with me because of where I was from, or my religious beliefs, or anything like that, it was their problem, not mine. It works and only makes those who would have preconceived notions of me look like fools.

You're right, it is others' problem if they have weird biases about Utah. However, the issue isn't so much whose problem it is or isn't, it's a matter of social pleasantness; interactions are generally more enjoyable without them. But in either case, I agree that we shouldn't get our panties in a ruffle about what others' preconceived notions are.

[non sequitur]

It's not just a Utah thing. I remember last year I had to spend about 3 weeks in the Little Rock, Arkansas area for business. I had all kinds of preconceived notions about what Arkansas was like. I expected a lot of trailer parks and Jethro Bodine types, but it was a great place. Granted, there were an inordinate number of restaurants specializing in catfish, but other than that it was one of the nicest places I have visited in the last several years.

[jwf]

I'm overweight so shut the hell up. Have a good day.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It's not just a Utah thing. I remember last year I had to spend about 3 weeks in the Little Rock, Arkansas area for business. I had all kinds of preconceived notions about what Arkansas was like. I expected a lot of trailer parks and Jethro Bodine types, but it was a great place. Granted, there were an inordinate number of restaurants specializing in catfish, but other than that it was one of the nicest places I have visited in the last several years.

Yes, it's possible to unfairly generalize even about a place like Arkansas. But there are plenty of rusted out trailer parks and Jethro Bodien types in Arkansas. Though if, for example, you were in Bentonville, Arkansas, where Wal-Mart makes its hearquarters, there would be fewer of them. I bet your business trip didn't take you into the rural hinterlands. It gets pretty grim out there in the rural hinterlands. Paradoxically (now this circles back to the original theme of this thread), alcohol is banned in many of the grimmest counties in the Deep South, and you can see a steeple on almost every rise.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't know why it ought to matter to any member of the church whether things forbidden by the WOW are healthy for you or not. That is not a response to what you said, I was just thinking as I read your post why anyone would want to argue for or against this or that study in support of the WOW.

The WOW is a set of dietary restrictions that LDS observe to show our obedience and devotion to God. It is the same reason Amish don't do electricity and why orthodox Jews don't do pork. Whether these things in the final analysis are great for your or terrible for you is beside the point.

We might just as well argue about the relative merits of paying tithing vs giving the money to the poor instead. The bottom line is that we are commanded to pay tithing.

What I think this is all about is (and I have NEVER understood it) the deep seated need of LDS to have the approval of the outside world. Whether it is archealogical "proofs" of the BOM, scientists who say the WOW is right or that LDS live longer, the emails from famous people praising LDS or TV shows or news stories that cast us in a positive light (or the ones that don't), famous people rumored to be members of the church (or their parents met at BYU); right down to obsession with what the eastern media and the pollsters and publications think about BYU sports.

All of these things (and there are probably a dozen other examples I could name) are examples of us wanting to have acceptance, praise and "proof" of the correctness what we think and do from those who are not LDS. I mean we as a people are literally obsessed with this, complete with a fully developed pusecution complex that bursts out whenever anyone does anything other than sing our highest praises.

It may be human nature, but for a people who assert that we have a living prophet, relatively untampered with scriptures and the priesthood why in the blue hell should it matter to any of us what the "world" thinks? There is no intellectual defense for such an obsession in the context of the restored church, and yet there is it.

I'm just ranting now and this has little to do with your post, it is just one of my pet peeves. Why why why why why does anyone care?

I don't think this is so far off the point of my post. I did suggest that if I were going to start a religion I wouldn't ban alcohol and coffee. I think I called it silly.

I do understand what you're saying. But I happen to believe that these tenets prohibiting certain foods (such as we find in Leviticus 11), pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex,etc. originally were rooted in very pratical imperatives. Some of them are no longer so imperative with the advent of certain technologies such as refrigerators and birth control.

I understand obedience as an end to itself is an important part of Judeo-Christian theology, but some of us have a hard enough time with any kind of authority, let alone authority whose mandates are not rooted in logic and practical considerations.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I understand obedience as an end to itself is an important part of Judeo-Christian theology, but some of us have a hard enough time with any kind of authority, let alone authority whose mandates are not rooted in logic and practical considerations.

Thus this discussioon returns, at least in my mind, to faith, which is where the justification for religious observance must begin and end, as we have discussed in other threads before.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Thus this discussioon returns, at least in my mind, to faith, which is where the justification for religious observance must begin and end, as we have discussed in other threads before.

This logic is very circuitous.

Why certain things are done? Reasons are given and then another such as Seattle pontificates why they might done, in strawman fashion, knocks them down and then states since the sole logical reasons are gone, it's illogical.

Nobody agreed with his reasons. And his reasons are by no means exlcusive of reasons why lines of demarcation are set in the sand.

There are logical reasons apart from pregnancy, including disease transmission, as well as potential sociological reasons, for chastity outside marriage.

And it's not just a faith issue.

Seattle basically argues, if the ubiquitous "everybody" does it, that makes it right. He is king of normative law, whatever a large body of persons says, so long as the terminology is couched in terms of ethnocentric thought, is right. It's logical and anybody else is a ninny. Talk about groupthink, or clusterfuck.

That's not argument by formal logic or premises. It sounds akin to the argument my teenage daughters make when I argue why they should wear skanky clothing making them look like two bit hookers. "All the good girls are doing it Dad," and with prophylactics, there should be no concern.

There are fringes where faith relies upon more than logic, on the fringes, is assinine. Faith requires considerable logic and discipline.

Those that pretent they rely upon the arm of logic, alone, are lying to themselves. Logic is a tool, not a end just a means. It is a tool of a disciplined mind, but not the end itself. It too relies upon basic faith in premises accepted as its Gospel.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This logic is very circuitous.

Why certain things are done? Reasons are given and then another such as Seattle pontificates why they might done, in strawman fashion, knocks them down and then states since the sole logical reasons are gone, it's illogical.

Nobody agreed with his reasons. And his reasons are by no means exlcusive of reasons why lines of demarcation are set in the sand.

There are logical reasons apart from pregnancy, including disease transmission, as well as potential sociological reasons, for chastity outside marriage.

And it's not just a faith issue.

Seattle basically argues, if the ubiquitous "everybody" does it, that makes it right. He is king of normative law, whatever a large body of persons says, so long as the terminology is couched in terms of ethnocentric thought, is right. It's logical and anybody else is a ninny. Talk about groupthink, or clusterfuck.

That's not argument by formal logic or premises. It sounds akin to the argument my teenage daughters make when I argue why they should wear skanky clothing making them look like two bit hookers. "All the good girls are doing it Dad," and with prophylactics, there should be no concern.

There are fringes where faith relies upon more than logic, on the fringes, is assinine. Faith requires considerable logic and discipline.

Those that pretent they rely upon the arm of logic, alone, are lying to themselves. Logic is a tool, not a end just a means. It is a tool of a disciplined mind, but not the end itself. It too relies upon basic faith in premises accepted as its Gospel.

Not sure where you are going with this. My logic is circular only in the sense that I said it begins and ends with faith. Seattle's point is purely secular, as he sees the original purpose of religious restrictions to have disappeared thereby justifying their replacement by the popular acceptance of alternative acts. He then speculates about a religion and its possible restrictions assuming only that those restrictions with a rational and empirical purpose (or at least those that he doesn't find silly) should be used. My point in response is that begining and ending with this type of analysis is pointless, as religious observance is fundamentally an act of faith (e.g. testimony) and if the observance is otherwise, such as an act of social acceptance, or of physical advantage or of empirical benefit, then it may have a purpose, and it may be useful but it is not religious and to consider and evaluate personal adherence to religions by a system that starts with something other than faith (and I am using this term very broadly, so as to include the sense of religious conversion or testimony) is ultimately useful only to the person(s) studying the religion, but not the person that must decide to accept the religion.

This does not mean, of course, that religious observance must EXCLUDE the application of logic or critical thinking, but where critical thinking bumps up against religious observance, the factor that determines the road taken is not empirical result or level of social acceptance, but faith with the individual. I think.

So are we having an argument or not?

[realtall]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Yes, it's possible to unfairly generalize even about a place like Arkansas. But there are plenty of rusted out trailer parks and Jethro Bodien types in Arkansas. Though if, for example, you were in Bentonville, Arkansas, where Wal-Mart makes its hearquarters, there would be fewer of them. I bet your business trip didn't take you into the rural hinterlands. It gets pretty grim out there in the rural hinterlands. Paradoxically (now this circles back to the original theme of this thread), alcohol is banned in many of the grimmest counties in the Deep South, and you can see a steeple on almost every rise.

Having grown up in Arkansas I can attest that the state has its fair share of trailers, although the trailer parks that I encountered(and hometaught in) were more 'clusters(8-10 trailers)' than anything, along with the many solo ones stuck out in the middle of the woods.

I didn't encouter many hillbillies but rednecks were a dime a dozen.

The county that I grew up in was dry. In retrospect that was a very nice environment to be in. It didn't solve all annebriated vehicular activity but it seemed to cut it way down(as opposed to the neighboring wet counties).

I've lived in Texas for 11 years now and I can attest that there are much, much, much, more of the above here than Arkansas ever thought about having. The difference being that there wasn't nearly the host of socioeconomic strata that there is in Texas to balance it all out.

It is interesting, though, that most of the population of Arkansas is in the LR area but most of the attention goes to the scattered hillbillies in the woods of north Arkansas. The late-night comedians had a field day with that during the Clinton years. Of course my friends, knowing that I was from Arkansas, repeated each and every joke to me.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't think this is so far off the point of my post. I did suggest that if I were going to start a religion I wouldn't ban alcohol and coffee. I think I called it silly.

I do understand what you're saying. But I happen to believe that these tenets prohibiting certain foods (such as we find in Leviticus 11), pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex,etc. originally were rooted in very pratical imperatives. Some of them are no longer so imperative with the advent of certain technologies such as refrigerators and birth control.

I understand obedience as an end to itself is an important part of Judeo-Christian theology, but some of us have a hard enough time with any kind of authority, let alone authority whose mandates are not rooted in logic and practical considerations.

You know, when I was on my mission, people would be surprised when I told them that the Word of Wisdom prohibited Coffee and Tea. They'd ask me why, and I'd tell them it was because they were addictive. No other argument, to my surprise, was ever necessary-- they understood completely, and most agreed that it was a good standard to live by. One Cuban family even told me about a Cuban dictim: Cars run on Gas, and Cubans run on Coffee.

There are no complaints from me on the Word of Wisdom's prohibitions.

In fact, your statement that food prohibitions that seem silly to us were "originally were rooted in very pratical imperatives" is very telling. That is the whole purpose of the Word of Wisdom-- not to say that the substances themselves are inherently evil, as many Mormons seem to want to prove (Jesus drank GRAPE juice!!!), but that as a saftey precaution specific to this day and age, one should avoid those substances.