Signs of the Times

[tooblue]

I don't find the end of the world talk all that interesting. People have been predicting it with varying levels of breathlessness throughout history and we can probably safely infer pre-history as well.

What is interesting to me is something that underlies it that Packer, among others, mentioned in the last conference. The idea that the world is less moral and more degraded than it has ever been. I have been trying to imagine what is meant by that. No woman, person of color or LGBT person in their right mind would want to go back to the 1950s era norms that some seem to be longing for. The progress that as been made on the social justice front, while having far to go, has been breathtaking in the last 50-60 years.

I think the only way it makes sense to say the world is less moral is if when you say "moral" you are referring to sexual norms. That is perhaps a component of morality, but I think you have to dramatically overstate how much those norms have changed and how much that matters to see the world as in severe decline. It is not the idyllic world for white males that the 50s was, for sure. But it is, to me, an infinitely better world.

"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond
words." - Hesiod, 8th century BC

I have never found it terribly interesting either, except the analysis of why people become so paranoid and irrational about it. Especially considering we do live in an infinitely better world. And, it's not just Christians. Society at large is obsessed with the end of the world and I tend to agree more with Drum that it has a lot to do with being obsessed with the beginning.

[UtahDan]

I don't know...I mean, I think that a natural interest in the end comes from believing in the beginning...whether that was via creation or big bang, something caused all of us to be here, something got this whole thing started...so, it stands to reason that it will someday end. And, we weren't there for the beginning, so there is at least a chance, albeit slim, that we would be around for the end. Either via a second coming/religious end of the world type scenario, or, through the natural distruction of the earth by its inhabitants or itself (see TerreNova!).

I think that is a fair point. We all have a beginning and an end (at least we can all agree a temporal one) so we are creatures who think in those terms. And, of course, the world is going to end eventually.

[UtahDan]

I have never found it terribly interesting either, except the analysis of why people become so paranoid and irrational about it. Especially considering we do live in an infinitely better world. And, it's not just Christians. Society at large is obsessed with the end of the world and I tend to agree more with Drum that it has a lot to do with being obsessed with the beginning.

In that sense I think you can be appreciative of Packers remarks that the world is not ending soon. It is going to calm a few people down for a while.

[taekwondave]

TooBlue, I think most people here appreciate your view as a full-on believer. But if you look back through the thread you made insinuations about others' intelligence and character and they are now responding to that by punching back. I know you probably think it is you who is on the defensive, but the first insinuations about other people's motives/character were made by you.

First, you suggested that the only reason this thread was brought up was because of a bias or hatred for Boyd K. Packer of the original poster. When people jumped to his defense, they did so without making any insinuation about you in return. You then called them naive. Boom. First punch. I then entered the conversation and you called me the anti-Christ, Korihor.

You then made more insinuations, referring to the "hubris" of another post.

Woot was the first to hit back, only he did not do so with his first post. Just be aware that he did not throw the first punch; neither did the person who started this thread. Woot is sensitive to stuff like that I've noticed. And when he comes at you, I have been learning it's a pretty good idea to go back and check for any insinuations or claims I have made before proceeding. It usually turns out that I was in the wrong first. He may seem to come at you from out of nowhere, but he really doesn't.

[tooblue]

In that sense I think you can be appreciative of Packers remarks that the world is not ending soon. It is going to calm a few people down for a while.

That's why I found his remarks astute. Speaking as a college teacher and dealing with this particular generation of student — not to mention having teenage sons, soon to leave high school — their biggest challenge is over coming their anxieties. They are a Lego kit generation that has been spoon fed their entire lives. It's not possible to ask for something more than what is illustrated on the box and that does not reference popular culture.

By nature we tend to be linear thinking creatures (see: Woot). Such thinking serves us well when our only concern is survival. However, when, as individuals and as societies, we improvise on the script we truly become innovative. Western culture is both complacent and apprehensive. This is reflected in our religiosity as much as it is reflected in our culture and economics. I consider Elder Packer's thoughts prophetic in their substance and timeliness.

I liked your quote and have been trying to find it in context ... where or, what larger work did you pull it from?

[tooblue]

TooBlue, I think most people here appreciate your view as a full-on believer. But if you look back through the thread you made insinuations about others' intelligence and character and they are now responding to that by punching back. I know you probably think it is you who is on the defensive, but the first insinuations about other people's motives/character were made by you.

First, you suggested that the only reason this thread was brought up was because of a bias or hatred for Boyd K. Packer of the original poster. When people jumped to his defense, they did so without making any insinuation about you in return. You then called them naive. Boom. First punch. I then entered the conversation and you called me the anti-Christ, Korihor.

You then made more insinuations, referring to the "hubris" of another post.

Woot was the first to hit back, only he did not do so with his first post. Just be aware that he did not throw the first punch; neither did the person who started this thread. Woot is sensitive to stuff like that I've noticed. And when he comes at you, I have been learning it's a pretty good idea to go back and check for any insinuations or claims I have made before proceeding. It usually turns out that I was in the wrong first. He may seem to come at you from out of nowhere, but he really doesn't.

Dave, their's a long history here with Cardiac et al. Furthermore, Woot is seemingly still throwing punches from fights started long before you arrived at this particular corner on the interwebs. I'm not out of bounds and my thoughts were not a thrown punch. If I insulted anyone it was you, but it was mostly in fun

[Jeff Lebowski]

TooBlue, I think most people here appreciate your view as a full-on believer. But if you look back through the thread you made insinuations about others' intelligence and character and they are now responding to that by punching back. I know you probably think it is you who is on the defensive, but the first insinuations about other people's motives/character were made by you.

First, you suggested that the only reason this thread was brought up was because of a bias or hatred for Boyd K. Packer of the original poster. When people jumped to his defense, they did so without making any insinuation about you in return. You then called them naive. Boom. First punch. I then entered the conversation and you called me the anti-Christ, Korihor.

You then made more insinuations, referring to the "hubris" of another post.

Woot was the first to hit back, only he did not do so with his first post. Just be aware that he did not throw the first punch; neither did the person who started this thread. Woot is sensitive to stuff like that I've noticed. And when he comes at you, I have been learning it's a pretty good idea to go back and check for any insinuations or claims I have made before proceeding. It usually turns out that I was in the wrong first. He may seem to come at you from out of nowhere, but he really doesn't.

That is a perfectly rational and sensible appraisal of the posts in this thread. Unfortunately, it represents linear thinking so you are wasting your time with tooblue.

[tooblue]

That is a perfectly rational and sensible appraisal of the posts in this thread. Unfortunately, it represents linear thinking so you are wasting your time with tooblue.

And enters Lebowski in defense of the board culture. lol where are we now in the script? Line? Line?

[Jeff Lebowski]

And enters Lebowski in defense of the board culture. lol where are we now in the script? Line? Line?

I think this is where you claim that you no longer post on CUF because of SU.

[UtahDan]

I liked your quote and have been trying to find it in context ... where or, what larger work did you pull it from?

I saw it as someone's Facebook status and thought it was interesting. In looking for the source, however, I see some indication that it has been misattributed. Did you find the same thing?

[tooblue]

I think this is where you claim that you no longer post on CUF because of SU.

It's true, I post infrequently primarily because my cyber-stalk ... er SU proved himself untrustworthy and I asked to be removed from the secret forum because I am genuinely worried about what he might do with my personal info in his possession ... along with a few others that are in there. That doesn't include Woot. My ideas may not jive with his linear thinking but, he strikes me as too intelligent to get involved in such antics. Besides, he's not a lawyer.

Of course, there is the issue of your jerkitude but oh well ... while we're on the subject, have you guys voted on Taekwondave yet? Has he been admitted into the Speak Easy?

[tooblue]

I saw it as someone's Facebook status and thought it was interesting. In looking for the source, however, I see some indication that it has been misattributed. Did you find the same thing?

Yes. I'll look in our college library unless Solon can chime in with a source.

[SeattleUte]

It's true, I post infrequently primarily because my cyber-stalk ... er SU proved himself untrustworthy and I asked to be removed from the secret forum because I am genuinely worried about what he might do with my personal info in his possession ... along with a few others that are in there. That doesn't include Woot. My ideas may not jive with his linear thinking but, he strikes me as too intelligent to get involved in such antics. Besides, he's not a lawyer.

Of course, there is the issue of your jerkitude but oh well ... while we're on the subject, have you guys voted on Taekwondave yet? Has he been admitted into the Speak Easy?

You're not only devoutly religious, you're dishonest, a hypocrit. You stopped posting for a long time and have substantially reduced posting since I called you out for using a racial slur in explaining your opposition to gay civil rights. I have many witnesses here and in the secret forum that I have never shown the slightest interest in your personal life or done anything to investigate it. Indeed, I generally ignore you because I think you've got a screw loose, and this thread is a good example why I am concerned about that.

[TripletDaddy]

It's true, I post infrequently primarily because my cyber-stalk ... er SU proved himself untrustworthy and I asked to be removed from the secret forum because I am genuinely worried about what he might do with my personal info in his possession ... along with a few others that are in there. That doesn't include Woot. My ideas may not jive with his linear thinking but, he strikes me as too intelligent to get involved in such antics. Besides, he's not a lawyer.

Of course, there is the issue of your jerkitude but oh well ... while we're on the subject, have you guys voted on Taekwondave yet? Has he been admitted into the Speak Easy?

what would self-removal do to prevent misuse of personal information?

[TripletDaddy]

You're not only devoutly religious, you're dishonest, a hypocrit. You stopped posting for a long time and have substantially reduced posting since I called you out for using a racial slur in explaining your opposition to gay civil rights. I have many witnesses here and in the secret forum that I have never shown the slightest interest in your personal life or done anything to investigate it. Indeed, I generally ignore you because I think you've got a screw loose, and this thread is a good example why I am concerned about that.

You and mikewaters have investigated the personal lives of other board members in the past.

Sincerely,

DAB