[annatar1914]

@Verv :


Great to talk to you, this is important, more important than perhaps either of us realize.

Very well said, Annater... I am not familiar with what a 'Sovok' is?

A " Sovok" is a term for a person who basically thinks that the USSR was a paradise, everything was great, and that we need to go back to exactly that....

When i say that i'm a Soviet instead, the context is the historical " Sobor" of the people, councils united. The horizontal that by no means is a denial of the vertical, hence my adaptation of the Mladorossi " Tsar and Soviets" catchphrase.

I would also clarify that the context of a people is very important to the ideological solutions that one would put forward for that people, and this does not just have to do with their economic or current political situations or crisis, but even has to do with their collective heritage. That is why I am also always shy to prescribe anything about a society that I am not a member of...

I guess that is better than being crucified between two nations as some can be.

Even societies which are significantly like my own, such as Canada or Australia, have their own unique circumstances and histories and a political and economic heritage that is 100% relevant to their context that I just don't have a lot of access to.

At some point it could well be though that the " Anglosphere" could start to cohere together again at some point. What do you think?

But I think it is the case that if I did extensive interviews with Canadians and Australians and also read dozens of books specifically on their history, politics, and economy, I could probably formulate opinions and policies for them that were quite agreeable and sensitive to their concerns, which is why so many foreigners commenting on American politics is always welcome. It is frequently the case that there are foreigners who are better informed than Americans on these things...

Very frequently. But less so legacy Americans in their perspective, some might say. Or i should clarify, that the root stock descendants of the British American colonists have a pretty good idea of the " original intent" of the American Revolutionaries, while others would comprehend less than they in general.

[

i]Yet,[/i] an American's relationship with something like the 2nd Amendment is quite unique. A British person who has never owned a firearm or grown up with one in their home may not be able to relate, and a Norwegian who has never walked through a poor neighborhood in Chicago's southside would likewise have difficulties understanding both the desire for self-protection and the exact nature that American poverty can take on...

But Liberals are universally judgemental precisely because of their one dimensional view of humanity.

Specifically regarding the Second Amendment, i'd say it does have Revolutionary as well as Rebellious potential ( recall my distinction between the two) but resembles too the ancient and medieval Levy of troops of commoners for wars, a Militia or Fyrd for a country and not just a republican one. There is continuity.

So, until I get citizenship in Korea, I will balk to be overly prescriptive... and, even when I do, I must admit that on many issues I will still have to defer to those who are Koreans by birth & nature, particularly those within the very typical lifestyles.

It's a wise idea i think. But then, Korea is a Nation, whereas the liberal vision of the United States is that it is an Idea, a " Melting Pot" with " Magic Dirt" that turns everyone who lives there automatically into Jeffersonian democrats

I would also suggest that most academics would agree with this...

There are non-Buddhists that have read far more sutras and far more Buddhist philosophy than laypeople, and they have even perhaps attended a greater variety of Buddhist services, even maybe meditated longer, than the 50 year old auntie from northern Thailand who is a devout Buddhist...

But the auntie is only a Buddhist, has only ever been a Buddhist, and has been a Thai Buddhist doing Thai Buddhist things in the Thai language and Thai context, and it may even be that her general ignorance of different forms of Buddhism and her completely non-academic understanding of it provides a very special insight into Thai Buddhism that an academic can never give... And thus she is the resource for the academic as much as an academic is a resource for her...

And the worst thing that a very learned outsider can do is tell an insider how to be an insider.

From the Korean girlfriend i had decades ago, i was under the distinct impression from her that the terms " Buddha" and " God" were essentially identical in her heart; that " Cosmic Buddha" and " Buddha" were connected but distinct. Reincarnation/Metempsychosis is a real troublesome doctrine that does not lessen the personal confusion.

In any case, i can almost guarantee that your example of a Thai Buddhist grandmother with her Eastern sensibilities could better suss out the Eastern truths of Christianity than others perhaps in a more Modernist secular environment, maybe.

For a very long time i made a study of the Vedas and Vedic Mythology/Culture, for certain reasons. I made a particular reading of Vedic scholar Bal Tilak in my research;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arc ... _the_Vedas

https://archive.org/details/b24864882

The West has nothing to say to me. The East even when wrong still hits closer to the mark.

[Deutschmania]

Been thinking about this story;

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/army ... nazi-group

Satanist Fascism striving to break the remnant of Christian feeling and humanism in the West by aiding Islamist terror. Reminded somehow of this guy, the model for ''Klingsor'';

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landulf_II_of_Capua

I generally try to read in the news, if anything, stories that aren't getting front page coverage by the media that are more interesting and/or important than the overly political and propagandized ones we all love getting hysterical about. Civilizational treason isn't always on the ''Left'', it's on the ''Right'' too.

So how does this relate in my mind to what I've said earlier? Recall that I originally saw a schism in the Western mind, with two cultures embedded in the West more or less uncomfortably cohabitating...The reborn Pagan and the dying ''Faustian''?

Oswald Spengler was wrong. They are the same in essence, Spengler not seeing it because he was too close to the political and philosophical movements in that direction himself. One engages in Titanic striving for a purpose, one that ultimately entails a rejection and negation of the Christian worldview.

Fascism/Nazism always was Satanic/Luciferian, issuing forth from esoteric and occult groups that shared an essentially Anti-Christian, Anti-Semitic, Heathen ethos, and always related more to the future Christ-denying Objectivism of Ayn Rand and the Libertarianism of a Ludwig von Mises than some might be prepared to admit.

The Post-Christian West cannot then be said to anything different in substance than what it was before Christ, operating on principles that are alien to those who have at the very least a vestigial mooring in Christian categories of thought and feeling. It's a different world now for some;

Same as an older world.

It would seem to me to be an example of a brown-green-red alliance against Western Civilization itself . I would say that such romantic , and nostalgic ,palingenetic ultra-nationalism has always in some way , and to some extent , characteristically been a component of fascist ideology . They wish to set out to revive a proverbial mythic golden age which they believe to have been lost to modernity , including in some cases the modernity of Christianity , as the prevailing cultural hegemony of the ruling elite establishment . And while polytheistic reconstructionism needn't be to be tied to a right-wing romantic nationalism , per se , it has seen a resurgence among a subset of modern day pagans . This then invites the question of what relationship can there be between the national culture of the present and the mythos of the past ? Can there possibly be fellowship between Ded Moroz and St. Nicholas , for example ? There has arguably even been a continuity between Dionysus and Jesus . And in relation to the classic , romantic mythos of the folk and their connection to the homeland , I have myself come to appreciate such songs as these , by the band Eluveitie . And as long as it doesn't devolve into an adversarial tribalism , I don't necessarily see anything wrong with invoking such mythic archetypes .

[annatar1914]

@Deutschmania , @Verv , @Tainari88 , @QatzelOk , @Potemkin :


I'm definitely doubling down on Mormonism as the Spenglerian " second religiousity" of the Western future Imperium. What is the " second religiousity"? What makes it different than real religious belief?

https://europeanconservative.com/articl ... ligiosity/

And i say its Mormonism because Faustian transhumanism and AI fit so nicely into its general doctrines and not just its Americanism. Indeed firstly, AI and Transhumanism are the end state of the Western Civilization, its Singularity, necessary to maintain itself;

https://youtube.com/shorts/UC7fYOOpIZA? ... kIFfmvG1dw

And they're right there theologically to justify this development:

https://www.transfigurism.org/library/p ... nshumanism

A quote:

Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.
We believe that humanity’s potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.
We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some ofthese scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded.
Policymaking ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future.
We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.
We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.

Section 3: Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation
We are disciples of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is to trust in, change toward, and fully immerse our bodies and minds in the role of Christ, to become compassionate creators as exemplified and invited by Jesus.
We understand the Gospel to be compatible with and complementary to many religions and philosophies, particularly those that provoke strenuous pursuit of compassionate and creative exaltation.
We seek the spiritual and physical exaltation of individuals and their anatomies, as well as communities and their environments, according to their wills, desires, and laws, to the extent they are not oppressive.
.
We feel a duty to use science and technology according to wisdom and inspiration, to identify and prepare for risks and responsibilities associated with future advances, and to persuade others to do likewise.
We practice our discipleship when we offer friendship, that all may be many in one; when we receive truth, let it come from whence it may; and when we send relief, consolation and healing, that raises each other together.

Certain emphasis in bold.


And they are the ones who positively embrace this future. Not i....

I can sense the " arsenic in the apple".

Am i wrong?

Discuss.

[Deutschmania]

@Deutschmania , @Verv , @Tainari88 , @QatzelOk , @Potemkin :


I'm definitely doubling down on Mormonism as the Spenglerian " second religiousity" of the Western future Imperium. What is the " second religiousity"? What makes it different than real religious belief?

https://europeanconservative.com/articl ... ligiosity/

And i say its Mormonism because Faustian transhumanism and AI fit so nicely into its general doctrines and not just its Americanism. Indeed firstly, AI and Transhumanism are the end state of the Western Civilization, its Singularity, necessary to maintain itself;

https://youtube.com/shorts/UC7fYOOpIZA? ... kIFfmvG1dw

And they're right there theologically to justify this development:

https://www.transfigurism.org/library/p ... nshumanism

A quote:




And they are the ones who positively embrace this future. Not i....

I can sense the " arsenic in the apple".

Am i wrong?

Discuss.

Once again this relates to the role play series "Cyberpunk" . Funny though , the real life Mormon church seems to be more receptive to such digital body modifications than that of the videogame . https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Your_God,_Your_Kiroshi

As for me , I feel cautiously optimistic . On the upside would be bionic accommodations .

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/brain-controlled-bionic-limbs-anatomics

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68368439

While a potential downside would be in regards to the use of RFID chips , whether in the form of a card , or even inserted subcutaneously , such as with pets , only for use in humans . If some sort of techno-totalitarian regime were to come to hold power , they could then use it to monitor and control financial activity , all in the name of national security . A Christian , of course , will note parallels to the " mark of the Beast" , mentioned in the Book of Revelations .


https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/venezuela-zte/

[Hakeer]

Once again this relates to the role play series "Cyberpunk" . Funny though , the real life Mormon church seems to be more receptive to such digital body modifications than that of the videogame . https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Your_God,_Your_Kiroshi

As for me , I feel cautiously optimistic . On the upside would be bionic accommodations .

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/brain-controlled-bionic-limbs-anatomics

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68368439

While a potential downside would be in regards to the use of RFID chips , whether in the form of a card , or even inserted subcutaneously , such as with pets , only for use in humans . If some sort of techno-totalitarian regime were to come to hold power , they could then use it to monitor and control financial activity , all in the name of national security . A Christian , of course , will note parallels to the " mark of the Beast" , mentioned in the Book of Revelations .


https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/venezuela-zte/

I was just watching a science fiction movie where they are building Human 2.0. He will have a completely synthetic body and the only biological part is a brain transplant.

That could definitely be coming, but they won’t want all the other crazy crap that comes along with the Mormon religion. My guess they will strip out all that and dominant philosophical orientation will be Scientific Humanism. That seems more compatible with the advancement of science and technology.

[annatar1914]

I was just watching a science fiction movie where they are building Human 2.0. He will have a completely synthetic body and the only biological part is a brain transplant.

That could definitely be coming, but they won’t want all the other crazy crap that comes along with the Mormon religion. My guess they will strip out all that and dominant philosophical orientation will be Scientific Humanism. That seems more compatible with the advancement of science and technology.

@Hakeer :

The problem with " scientific humanism" is that it's not particularly scientific and alas, not very human either. In effect its a stand in for liberal ideology and a whole chain of associative assumptions that go back all the way to the beginning of the Modern Era.

Which is why even manifestly false religions like Mormonism succeed where Liberalism fails. However, Mormonism and Liberalism are politically close cousins:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodemocracy

Theodemocracy is a theocratic political system proposed by Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. According to Smith, a theodemocracy is a fusion of traditional republican democratic principles under the US Constitution with theocratic rule.

Smith described it as a system under which God and the people held the power to rule in righteousness.[1] Smith believed that to be the form of government that would rule the world upon the Second Coming of Christ. The polity would constitute the "Kingdom of God," which was foretold by the prophet Daniel in the Old Testament. Theodemocratic principles played a minor role in the forming of the State of Deseret in the American Old West.

Political ideal
edit
Early Latter Day Saints were typically Jacksonian Democrats and were highly involved in representative republican political processes.[2] According to the historian Marvin S. Hill, "the Latter-day Saints saw the maelstrom of competing faiths and social institutions in the early 19th century as evidence of social upheaval and found confirmation in the rioting and violence that characterized Jacksonian America."[3] Smith wrote in 1842 that earthly governments "have failed in all their attempts to promote eternal peace and happiness.... [Even the United States] is rent, from center to circumference, with party strife, political intrigues, and sectional interest."[4]

Smith believed that only a government led by a deity could banish the destructiveness of unlimited factions and bring order and happiness to the earth. Church Apostle Orson Pratt stated in 1855 that the government of God "is a government of union."[5] Smith believed that a theodemocratic polity would be the literal fulfilment of Christ's prayer in the Gospel of Matthew: "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."[6]

Further, Smith taught that the Kingdom of God, which he called the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, would hold dominion in the last days over all other kingdoms, as foretold in the Book of Daniel.[7] Smith stated in May 1844, "I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the world.... It will not be by sword or gun that this kingdom will roll on: the power of truth is such that all nations will be under the necessity of obeying the Gospel."[8]

In 1859, Church President Brigham Young equated the terms "republican theocracy" and "democratic theocracy"[9] and expressed his understanding of them when he taught, "The kingdom that the Almighty will set up in the latter days will have its officers, and those officers will be peace. Every man that officiates in a public capacity will be filled with the Spirit of God, with the light of God, with the power of God, and will understand right from wrong, truth from error, light from darkness, that which tends to life and that which tends to death.... They will say... '[T]he Lord does not, neither will we control you in the least in exercising your agency. We place the principles of life before you. Do as you please, and we will protect you in your rights....'"[10]

The theodemocratic system was to be based on principles extant in the US Constitution and held sacred the will of the people and individual rights. Indeed, the United States and it's Constitution in particular were revered by Smith and his followers.[11][12]

However, in a theodemocratic system, God was to be the ultimate power and would give law to the people, who would be free to accept or reject, presumably based on republican principles. Somewhat analogous to a federal system within a theodemocracy, sovereignty would reside jointly with both the people with God. Some natural tensions still exist in the framework, such as how humans could resist the laws of an all-knowing God or implement them to varying degrees or how citizens receive assurance regarding declarations of principle that they represent the wisdom of God, rather than human interpretations, and so on, but tensions of at least this gravity exist under all other systems of government. Christ would be the "king of kings" and "lord of lords" but will only intermittently reside on Earth, and the government will largely be left in the hands of mortal men to govern themselves according to His teachings.[13]

Young explained that a theodemocracy would consist of "many officers and branches... as there are now to that of the United States."[14] It is known that the Council of Fifty, which Smith organized in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1844, was meant to be the central municipal body within such a system. The Council was led by Smith and included many members of the church's central leadership. However, it also included several prominent non-members. Full consensus was required for the Council to pass any measures, and each participant was commanded to fully speak their minds on all issues brought before the body. The debate would continue until a consensus could be reached. However, if consensus could not be reached, Smith would "seek the will of the Lord" and break the deadlock through divine revelation.

On the day of the council's organization, John Taylor, Willard Richards, William W. Phelps, and Parley P. Pratt were appointed to a committee to "draft a constitution which should be perfect, and embrace those principles which the constitution of the United States lacked." Smith and other council members criticized the US Constitution for not protecting liberty with enough vigour. After the council's committee reported its constitution draft, Smith instructed the board to "let the constitution alone." He then dictated a revelation: "Verily thus saith the Lord, ye are my constitution, and I am your God, and ye are my spokesmen. From henceforth, do as I shall command you. Saith the Lord."[15]


Daniel the Prophet. "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." Daniel 2:44
Although theodemocracy was envisioned as a unifying force that would minimize faction, it should not be viewed as a repudiation of the individualistic principles underlying American liberalism. According to James T. McHugh, church theology was "comfortable... with [the] human-centric vision of both the Protestant Reformation and the liberal Enlightenment...."[16] Smith's political ideal still held sacred church beliefs in the immutability of individual moral agency, which required, most importantly, religious freedom and other basic liberties for all people.

Therefore, such a government was never meant to be imposed on the unwilling or to be monoreligious. Instead, Smith believed that theodemocracy would be freely chosen by all, whether or not they were Latter Day Saints.[17] That would be especially true when secular governments had dissolved and given way to universal anarchy and violence in the days preceding the Millennium. Smith and his successors believed that in the religiously-pluralistic society that would continue even after Christ's return, theodemocracy demanded the representation of non-members by non-members.[13]

Theodemocracy is a separate concept from the ideal Latter Day Saint community of Zion, which was not itself a political system but rather an association of the righteous. Theodemocracy, in turn, was not a religious organization but a governmental system that would potentially include people of many religious denominations and be institutionally separate from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Even in a government led by God, Smith seemed to support separation of function between church and state. Civil and ecclesiastical governments were meant to retain their individual and divided spheres of power in a theodemocratic system, but leaders of the Church would have important and even dominant secular roles within the political superstructure.

History
edit

Joseph Smith coined the term "theodemocracy" and organized the Council of Fifty in 1844.
Smith first coined the term "theodemocracy" while he was running for President of the United States in 1844.[1] It is also clear that the concept lay behind his organization of the Council of Fifty that same year, but it is uncertain whether Smith believed that he could or should form a functioning theodemocratic government before the advent of the Second Coming and the destruction of worldly political systems.

Once formed, the Council of Fifty had little actual power and was more symbolic of preparation for God's future kingdom than a functioning political body.[18] The town of Nauvoo, where Smith organized the Council, was governed according to a corporate charter received from the state of Illinois in 1841. The Nauvoo Charter granted a wide measure of home rule, but the municipality that it created was strictly republican in organization. Such an arrangement may reflect the Mormon history of persecution, with the form of the Nauvoo government developing as a practical self-defense mechanism, rather than as an absolute theological preference.

However, later critics labeled the town a "theocracy," mostly because of the position of many church leaders, including Smith, as elected city officials. That was a serious charge, as in Jacksonian America, anyone accused of theocratic rule was immediately suspect and deemed an antirepublican threat to the country. Suspicions about Mormon rule in Nauvoo, combined with misunderstandings about the role of the Council of Fifty, resulted in hyperbolic rumors about Smith's "theocratic kingdom." That, in turn, added to the growing furor against the Latter Day Saints in Illinois and eventually led to Smith's assassination in June 1844 and the Mormons' expulsion from the state in early 1846.[19]


Liberty Jail, Missouri. Joseph Smith was jailed here during the winter of 1838-1839 on charges of "treason" that stemmed from the Mormon War of 1838 but were also due to Smith's belief in a political Kingdom of God.
Even before coining the term "theodemocracy," Smith's teachings about a political Kingdom of God had caused friction with non-Mormons, even before the Nauvoo period. As early as 1831, Smith recorded a revelatory prayer, which stated that "the keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth.... Wherefore, may the kingdom of God go forth, that the kingdom of heaven may come...."[20]

Smith believed that it was necessary for the Mormons at least to lay the foundations for the Kingdom of God before the Second Coming could occur. It remains unclear what he felt that those foundations must entail. Unfortunately, a lack of precise definitions sometimes exacerbate confusion on the issue. For instance, in another 1831 revelation, the "Kingdom" seems to be synonymous with the "Church."[21] However, many LDS leaders went to great lengths to distinguish between the "Church of God," which was a spiritual organization that included both social and economic programs, and the "Kingdom of God,"/which was fully political and had yet to be fully organized.

In an 1874 sermon, Brigham Young taught that what the Mormons commonly called the "Kingdom of God" actually implied two structures. The first was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had been restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. The second was the political kingdom described by Daniel, a theodemocratic polity that would one day be fully organized and, once initiated, would "protect every person, every sect, and all people upon the face of the whole earth, in their legal rights."[22]

Nevertheless, the very concept of political power enforced by God through any human agency was rejected as obnoxious and highly dangerous by contemporary society. When Smith was arrested in connection with the Mormon War of 1838, he was closely questioned by the presiding judge on whether he believed in the kingdom that would subdue all others as described in the Book of Daniel. Smith's attorney, Alexander Doniphan, announced that if belief in such teachings were treasonous, the Bible must be considered a treasonable publication.

The development of theodemocracy was continued along with the development of Smith's community. Nauvoo was governed by a combination of church leaders and friendly non-Mormons who had been elected to serve in civil office might mark the city as a theodemocracy in embryo. Furthermore, Smith had anticipated that the Mormons would move west long before his murder, and he may have believed that he could create a theodemocratic polity somewhere outside of the United States in anticipation of Christ's return to earth. Smith's "last charge" to the Council of Fifty before his death was to "bear... off the Kingdom of God to all the world."[23][failed verification]


Brigham Young governed Utah influenced by theodemocratic principles
After Smith's death, the banner of theodemocracy was carried by his successor Brigham Young to Utah in 1847. Young's early conception of the State of Deseret was no doubt based on theodemocratic principles, but its practical application was severely hampered after Utah was made a territory in 1850 and was further eroded when Young was replaced as territorial governor after the Utah War of 1857–1858. However, even at an early stage, the Utah government never fully implemented Smith's theodemocratic vision. Like in Nauvoo, theodemocratic principles were mainly expressed by the election of church leadership to territorial office through republican processes. As before, the Council of Fifty remained essentially a "government in exile" with little real power. In 1855, one LDS Apostle explained that a "nucleus" of God's political kingdom had been formed, but that in no way challenged their loyalty to the government of the United States.[24]

Mormon belief in an imminent Second Coming continued throughout the 19th century, and the expectation of the violent self-destruction of governments seemed to be confirmed by such events as the American Civil War. Orson Pratt taught that "not withstanding that it has been sanctioned by the Lord... the day will come when the United States government, and all others, will be uprooted, and the kingdoms of this world will be united in one, and the kingdom of our God will govern the whole earth... If the Bible be true, and we know it to be true."[5] Thus, the LDS sincerely proclaimed in loyalty to the United States throughout the period but also expected its unavoidable collapse, along with other worldly governments. That, in turn, would require the Latter-day Saints to bring order to the resultant chaos and to "save the Constitution" by implementation of a true theodemocracy.

By the turn of the 20th century, Mormon expectations of an imminent Apocalypse had largely dissipated, and Utah's admission to the Union in 1896 required the removal of the last vestiges of theodemocracy from the local government. The Council of Fifty had not met since the 1880s, and it was technically extinguished when its last surviving member, Heber J. Grant, died in 1945. Thus, theodemocracy within the LDS church has slowly receded in importance. Mormons still believe that the Kingdom of God maintains the bifurcated definition espoused by Brigham Young, with both church and millennial government, but its political implications are now rarely alluded to. Rather, the kingdom predicted by the Prophet Daniel is commonly identified simply with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[25] Theodemocracy has become a principle that, when discussed at all, is relegated to an indefinite future on which secular governments have already fully collapsed in the turbulent times before the Second Coming. Until then, injunctions within the church to "build up the Kingdom of God" refer purely to spiritual matters such as missionary work, and Joseph Smith's political ideal bears little weight in contemporary LDS political theory or objectives.

Real people are motivated by spiritual principles, some good and some bad but never motivated by strictly secular ideals; those are all ossified remnants of theological beliefs in their origin.

[Potemkin]

@Hakeer :

The problem with " scientific humanism" is that it's not particularly scientific and alas, not very human either. In effect its a stand in for liberal ideology and a whole chain of associative assumptions that go back all the way to the beginning of the Modern Era.

Which is why even manifestly false religions like Mormonism succeed where Liberalism fails. However, Mormonism and Liberalism are politically close cousins:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodemocracy




Real people are motivated by spiritual principles, some good and some bad but never motivated by strictly secular ideals; those are all ossified remnants of theological beliefs in their origin.

Quoted for truth.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

The problem with " scientific humanism" is that it's not particularly scientific and alas, not very human either. In effect its a stand in for liberal ideology and a whole chain of associative assumptions that go back all the way to the beginning of the Modern Era.

Which is why even manifestly false religions like Mormonism succeed where Liberalism fails. However, Mormonism and Liberalism are politically close cousins:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodemocracy




Real people are motivated by spiritual principles, some good and some bad but never motivated by strictly secular ideals; those are all ossified remnants of theological beliefs in their origin.

This goes back to our discussion of fatalism. Scientific Humanism is based on the idea humans can have agency to affect future events and science and reason are the best tools to gain knowledge and solve problems.

For scientists, scientific discovery is inspirational and progress is motivational. In a way, Scientific Humanism is a legacy of the Enlightenment.

[annatar1914]

This goes back to our discussion of fatalism. Scientific Humanism is based on the idea humans can have agency to affect future events and science and reason are the best tools to gain knowledge and solve problems.

For scientists, scientific discovery is inspirational and progress is motivational. In a way, Scientific Humanism is a legacy of the Enlightenment.

@Hakeer :

What you are saying is rather proving my point: " Scientism" isn't Science, and " Humanism" isnt Human, but having what we fell from encoded into our very genes we take up issues of ultimate and universal concern and create ( or recieve...) systems that claim to provide answers to those issues.

These systems are called " Religions" because we are bound to them and/or we teach and bind others to these systems. " Secular Humanism/Liberalism" is a religion albeit a quite irrational and simultaneously deathly dull one.

What the Mormons have done is take this faith in science and technology, classical enlightenment liberalism and human progress and " divinized" it as a means ( in their narrative) of making man the infant child form of extraterrestrial gods, from whom we are told we must learn from to become extraterrestrial gods ourselves and seed the cosmos with our mortal children who renew this cycle forever. They were in fact the original " transhumanists" and the very extreme apex development of Western Civilization/American Exceptionalism

As i said before they're manifestly false but they are also the only real bearers of the Western culture as it truly is, and who know what they're really about and are motivated metaphysically by a vision of infinite progress as very real physical gods in the flesh.

Nobody else comes close to spiritually embracing and justifying Modernity ( transhumanism, space colonization, AI, and extraterrestrial life, etc...) and spinning it as a complex of positive goods, and with such zealous optimism i might add;

Note i oppose this with every fiber of my being

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

What you are saying is rather proving my point: "

Scientism" isn't Science, and " Humanism" isnt Human, but having what we fell from encoded into our very genes we take up issues of ultimate and universal concern and create ( or recieve...) systems that claim to provide answers to those issues.

These systems are called " Religions" because we are bound to them and/or we teach and bind others to these systems. " Secular Humanism/Liberalism" is a religion albeit a quite irrational and simultaneously deathly dull one.

What the Mormons have done is take this faith in science and technology, classical enlightenment liberalism and human progress and " divinized" it as a means ( in their narrative) of making man the infant child form of extraterrestrial gods, from whom we are told we must learn from to become extraterrestrial gods ourselves and seed the cosmos with our mortal children who renew this cycle forever. They were in fact the original " transhumanists" and the very extreme apex development of Western Civilization/American Exceptionalism

As i said before they're manifestly false but they are also the only real bearers of the Western culture as it truly is, and who know what they're really about and are motivated metaphysically by a vision of infinite progress as very real physical gods in the flesh.

Nobody else comes close to spiritually embracing and justifying Modernity ( transhumanism, space colonization, AI, and extraterrestrial life, etc...) and spinning it as a complex of positive goods, and with such zealous optimism i might add;

Note i oppose this with every fiber of my being

I am now thinking of Descartes. “Scientism” isn’t science. It is faith that the scientific community, as Peirce said, given an infinite time to investigate would eventually learn what is true. Epistemologically speaking, we can never know that with certainty, but we must assume it as the motivational basis to even begin an inquiry in the first place.

The humanism aspect is that science would have no practical use to affect our futures if every event is predetermined. I cannot scientifically disprove fatalism, but I find the notion depressing.

I feel zero affinity for Mormonism. I can envision Western culture trending more and more toward Scientific Humanism as science and technology progress from our roots in the Enlightenment, which was itself a reaction against superstitions such as Mormonism embraces.

[annatar1914]

@Hakeer , you replied:

I am now thinking of Descartes. “Scientism” isn’t science. It is faith that the scientific community, as Peirce said, given an infinite time to investigate would eventually learn what is true. Epistemologically speaking, we can never know that with certainty, but we must assume it as the motivational basis to even begin an inquiry in the first place.

I symbolize real scientists by the Magi who followed the Star of Bethlehem to where It would lead them, following a hypothesis which turned out to be entirely true. Without Faith which is a gift of God, pure Science is never pure and is led astray by human sin, fallen human nature.

The humanism aspect is that science would have no practical use to affect our futures if every event is predetermined. I cannot scientifically disprove fatalism, but I find the notion depressing.

Untrue, and let's be clear for any reader that your notion of " Fatalism" is that you believe an infinite all powerful and all knowing God having His own freedom and power to act and determine everything instead of us is what you call " fatalism". Curiously its the Mormons that you next claim zero affinity for that are in absolute theological agreement with you, almost uniquely, in everything you have written

I feel zero affinity for Mormonism. I can envision Western culture trending more and more toward Scientific Humanism as science and technology progress from our roots in the Enlightenment, which was itself a reaction against superstitions such as Mormonism embraces.

See above. Their superstitions are your superstitions and will lead to the same beliefs which they believe in ;

You believe in " progress", " science and technology"? So do they.

You believe in the "Enlightenment" and Democratic Liberalism in the Classical sense, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence? So do they, elevating those documents and beliefs literally to the level of Sacred Scripture.

You and they are in very close agreement. They and i are not.

[Potemkin]

I am now thinking of Descartes. “Scientism” isn’t science. It is faith that the scientific community, as Peirce said, given an infinite time to investigate would eventually learn what is true. Epistemologically speaking, we can never know that with certainty, but we must assume it as the motivational basis to even begin an inquiry in the first place.

The humanism aspect is that science would have no practical use to affect our futures if every event is predetermined. I cannot scientifically disprove fatalism, but I find the notion depressing.

I feel zero affinity for Mormonism. I can envision Western culture trending more and more toward Scientific Humanism as science and technology progress from our roots in the Enlightenment, which was itself a reaction against superstitions such as Mormonism embraces.

Superstitions are trivial to accept, @Hakeer. They cost nothing to believe, and they explain so much with so little effort. If the relevant authorities tell you it’s true, then why would you doubt them? I think @annatar1914 has a point - if even intelligent people like Mitt Romney can believe (or pretend to believe) this nonsense, then the majority of the American people will have no trouble with this at all. And the Mormon beliefs which actually matter - transhumanism, Modernism, American exceptionalism, etc - are in total conformity with American values.

[annatar1914]

Superstitions are trivial to accept, @Hakeer. They cost nothing to believe, and they explain so much with no little effort. If the relevant authorities tell you it’s true, then why would you doubt them? I think @annatar1914 has a point - if even intelligent people like Mitt Romney can believe (or pretend to believe) this nonsense, then the majority of the American people will have no trouble with this at all. And the Mormon beliefs which actually matter - transhumanism, Modernism, American exceptionalism, etc - are in total conformity with American values.

@Potemkin ,

Exactly so. Mormonism is a diabolically brilliant belief system in a number of ways, once the idea of the Book of Mormon itself as being true is accepted. And honestly most people in America and around the world, even quite intelligent people, dont have the critical thinking skills necessary to reject it.

So why havent they exploded in numbers and power if im right about them?

Its because they are wisely waiting until after the secular American regime reaches a critical point, at which time they believe that they will save the Constitution and American Republic. Their embrace of the " things that matter" as you put it, are the things that will allow them to take over.

[Deutschmania]

Superstitions are trivial to accept, @Hakeer. They cost nothing to believe, and they explain so much with so little effort. If the relevant authorities tell you it’s true, then why would you doubt them? I think @annatar1914 has a point - if even intelligent people like Mitt Romney can believe (or pretend to believe) this nonsense, then the majority of the American people will have no trouble with this at all. And the Mormon beliefs which actually matter - transhumanism, Modernism, American exceptionalism, etc - are in total conformity with American values.

All of which are nothing more than an organized , systematized, American civil religion more generally . The difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution , in this regard was that in the latter case there arose the Cult of the Supreme Being , and in the former merely an unofficial ceremonial deism .

[Hakeer]

Superstitions are trivial to accept, @Hakeer. They cost nothing to believe, and they explain so much with so little effort. If the relevant authorities tell you it’s true, then why would you doubt them? I think @annatar1914 has a point - if even intelligent people like Mitt Romney can believe (or pretend to believe) this nonsense, then the majority of the American people will have no trouble with this at all. And the Mormon beliefs which actually matter - transhumanism, Modernism, American exceptionalism, etc - are in total conformity with American values.

There are some intelligent Mormons. One of them is a Superior Court judge in my county. I have worked with him for years. I will never understand how they believe all that shit, but the more of it you pile on top of standard Christianity, the harder it would be for people to believe it. Annatar1914 is himself a good example. Most Christians will tell you they don't believe any of that Mormon crap, because it is not in the Bible. For them, the Bible is the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth. That is my own family and most Christians I have ever known.

Second, I gave him the data on their membership. Their growth rate will hit zero in the 2030s and then decline, as the old one like Romney die off. He thinks this "transhumanism" is going to be a big draw. Not to me. And I am an example of a "Western liberal secular humanist" that he believes will be attracted to it.

[QatzelOk]

I am now thinking of Descartes. “Scientism” isn’t science. It is faith that the scientific community...

In French, there is a major difference between the words "scientiste" and the word "scientifique."

It is the second word - scientifique - that describes what "scientist" means in English.

The word "scientiste" in French, means someone who believes in the power of science to deliver humanity to some kind of "heaven."

A "scientiste" is to science what the Solar Temple were to their own private gods.

***

https://dictionnaire.lerobert.com/definition/scientiste

https://dictionnaire.lerobert.com/defin ... ientifique

[Hakeer]

In French, there is a major difference between the words "scientiste" and the word "scientifique."

It is the second word - scientifique - that describes what "scientist" means in English.

The word "scientiste" in French, means someone who believes in the power of science to deliver humanity to some kind of "heaven."

A "scientiste" is to science what the Solar Temple were to their own private gods.

***

https://dictionnaire.lerobert.com/definition/scientiste

https://dictionnaire.lerobert.com/defin ... ientifique

Not “heaven”. Just practical solutions to real problems right here on Earth. A lot of people burned out or flooded out of their homes by global warming will agree.

[Deutschmania]

@Hakeer , and @annatar1914 The key question regarding the science of transhumanism , as with any science , is for what purpose is this intended to serve ? For example , I know that with regards to scientific socialism , as I am sure that @Potemkin can attest to , it is based upon the social science of materialist dialectics, for the express purpose of eventually constructing a communist society , as guided by "The Moral Code for the Builder of Communism" . But for what intended purpose is transhumanism made to serve ? Is it to be democratic or libertarian in nature , or shall the worst fears of techno-totalitarianism be realized ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanist_politics


And another thing , in the event that the constitutional order were to be corrupted by some tyrannical usurper , such as when the Roman Republic was transformed into the Roman Empire , under the rule of Caesarism , what role then would such technology play in such a social system?

Like with all things , I do not think that anything is inherently good or bad , in and of itself . However , as Lord Acton once put it .




And so some devices , in my opinion , shouldn't exist , as the potential for harm , if they should fall into the wrong hands , would be too great . Two examples , taken from fantasy literature , would be the One Ring , and the Elder Wand .

I feel similar about existence of RFID microchips , used in such things as the Fatherland Card .

While I can understand the temptation that such a device might have for a head of state , as it carries with it the promise of preventing the financing of crime and terrorism , it also would entail that the government would be invulnerable to all would be resistance .

The right of revolution would thereby become an impossibility .

And so , who among us is so incorruptible that they may be trusted with such political power ?

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer , and @annatar1914 The key question regarding the science of transhumanism , as with any science , is for what purpose is this intended to serve ? For example , I know that with regards to scientific socialism , as I am sure that @Potemkin can attest to , it is based upon the social science of materialist dialectics, for the express purpose of eventually constructing a communist society , as guided by "The Moral Code for the Builder of Communism" . But for what intended purpose is transhumanism made to serve ? Is it to be democratic or libertarian in nature , or shall the worst fears of techno-totalitarianism be realized ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanist_politics


And another thing , in the event that the constitutional order were to be corrupted by some tyrannical usurper , such as when the Roman Republic was transformed into the Roman Empire , under the rule of Caesarism , what role then would such technology play in such a social system?

Like with all things , I do not think that anything is inherently good or bad , in and of itself . However , as Lord Acton once put it .




And so some devices , in my opinion , shouldn't exist , as the potential for harm , if they should fall into the wrong hands , would be too great . Two examples , taken from fantasy literature , would be the One Ring , and the Elder Wand .

I feel similar about existence of RFID microchips , used in such things as the Fatherland Card .

While I can understand the temptation that such a device might have for a head of state , as it carries with it the promise of preventing the financing of crime and terrorism , it also would entail that the government would be invulnerable to all would be resistance .

The right of revolution would thereby become an impossibility .

And so , who among us is so incorruptible that they may be trusted with such political power ?

We could do it if we had one world government. How can you ever get planetary nuclear disarmament unless every government agrees?

[Potemkin]

We could do it if we had one world government. How can you ever get planetary nuclear disarmament unless every government agrees?

By getting the agreement of every government, @Hakeer.