ZION IS AS MUCH ADJECTIVE AS NOUN
by Michael Christenson
53032221
# 1. 5/19/09 1:31 AM by Michael - Las Vegas
To the person who didn't want his/her comment posted: Thank you, good luck with all that, and I did but she came to a different conclusion.
40843775
# 2. 5/19/09 3:52 AM by albert 1
I should also say baloney which ntw used to be coupmed with a mispronunciation of my last name (the "e" is silent) but I dont like the word should.
We have a difference of opinion on the common or contemporary use of the words "zionism" a noun or its use as an adjective. I agree though that both uses can be accurate.
Originally I encountered it as a major political movement and faction withinn the Jewish contemporary philosophy. It is the main description of the establishment of Isreal after WWII. The "Zionist faction" of contemporary Judism is not Albert's imagination or a product of my fears
I later in life discovered that the concept and philosophy of Zion also had a place in Christianity.
I have no objections when a people desire to create a Zion as was done early in the SouthWest U.S. That was done were no modern civilization existed so as a self contained society I consider it laudable.
Seeking a zion where the present culture contains a significant number who do not subscribe to it is another matter regardless of how much you subscribe to that statement about what law "should" reflect. It is correct as a pure democratic (small "d") philosophy but remains in my opinion a form of civilized gangsterism where 51% of a voting populace can legally control 49..
Its why I like the ACLU and I think you guys dont. The 49 or less percent have inalienable rights. Editor's Note: I've told you what "Zion" means to LDS. We are not beholden to your dictionary definition or the errors of others; the Lord has told us what it means and what to do about it. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with Him, not me. :)
The fact that the same word is used by the "Zionist faction" has no bearing on our objective.
The principles of Zion do not depend on a lack of "modern civilization."
Respect for the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property do not include a tyranny of the minority. In a true Zion the rights of all are perfectly safe because Zion is based on pure love. If it were not so, it would not be Zion.
57062895
# 3. 5/19/09 8:06 PM by mk
Thanks for posting this. Editor's Note: You're welcome. And thank you. ;)
49368184
# 4. 5/21/09 4:19 PM by Jay - OR
If you've been following our exchanges, you recognize that Albert and I have an understanding, mostly unwritten, to wit: We each state a position, let those positions grind on each other politely, and then go on with neither position apparently significantly changed. Naturally I believe I have some authority for mine that transcends mensa mutilated mechanics. Still, I find him expanding my understanding--my understanding of positions of men, unenlightened with a correct concept of Spirit.
He, and a huge number of others like him see through a lense that will not allow a more correct definition. They can't see Zion without seeing Zionism, and that as a political movement to establish and maintain a country, a state, a government (somewhat restrictive, at that) in the Middle East.
The word Zion--and you used and defined it brilliantly--was adopted and defined by revelation in the early 19th century, and far before it was more than a faint gleam in the eye of some Jews without a country. It would seem that the lense of Albert and those others will not allow that idea to be seen. What a shame, because the LDS concept of Zion is sublime in comparison with anything they can see; and they are missing out on something beautiful that could improve their lives.
They also attribute much to LDS Zion that is 180 degrees from its actuality. But, we have a duty to keep trying.
Thanks for sliding this post forward. Editor's Note: It's an easy trap to fall in to when your Webster's is more important than your Bible.
Thanks Jay.
40843775
# 5. 5/21/09 6:02 PM by albert1
This is in response to both of you LDS guys and denotes one of my core positions on the philosophy of communication.
We communicate in the American form of the English language here and until it changes contemporary meanings must be cooridnitaed otherwise we fail to communicate accurately.
Michael, it is not "my" distionary I refer to and you know it. I have no "Albert's edition" of a dictionary that I expect others to accept. I do have a standard unabridged on that is huge and fairly up to date.
If you choose to dispute word meanings then dont use the disputed words to communicate with. I reallyl could care less what some word may mean to an individual. When I hear or see the word I need to find a source of interpretation which in my case remains a standard dictionary.
One favorite tool of those attempting to advance an agenda is to create new meanings for words or function with a private glossary. Most of the people I respect are wise to this.
Ever read some of the novels like Brave New World or Farenheit 451? Causing the citizenry to accept alternate definitions is a favorite but fairly transparent mind control itrick.
There is a middle ground here. When a words meaning is in transition over the years the dictionary will list them in order of preference. I'm slightly cautious of this but will accept it in communication.
Michael, your attempt to have me accept a private definition of Theocracy flies in the face of its everyday usage in the news media.
Jay- you are or were an attorney. You of all people would be expected to appreciate common sources of reference in law. How about the rest of life?. I dont know if Michael has an unabridged dictionary but dollars to donuts you do.
If anyone wants to live in their own fantasy where words have other meanings they will be doing so under a handicap of poor communication.
I used to have much more of a problem with the words conservative and liberal but have recently accepted that they do have newer major meanings in standard reference works. I can live with that.
The meanings I was more comfortable with still exist but at a lower frequency of use in major dictionaries.. Editor's Note: Albert, your original posting on this subject begged (whether implicitly or explicitly) an explanation of the LDS understanding of "Zion," which you won't find in a secular dictionary. (Which, by the way, should be a comforting idea to you--it means Mormons haven't taken over the world quite yet.) I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. "The things of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God" which is in him (1 Cor. 2:14; I highly recommend reading that entire chapter).
I did get to read F451 in high school. Never had the pleasure of reading BNW but we did cover 1984, to which I understand BNW is thematically similar. So it's been a while. I understand totally the need for a common language (one reason I am opposed to bilingualism). Which is why I used common language to attempt to illustrate a concept peculiar to my faith, to disabuse your mind of its false precepts.
Personally as most of my writing is done online I find it most convenient to use dictionary.com to verify my usage of some fancy words I sprinkle in my writings from time to time, but I stick to language I already know from a lifetime of study and reading.
If I were to spout off on, say, the Hindu doctrine concerning reincarnation, I would hope that I'd be honest enough to consult a Hindu source rather than a standard dictionary whose authors may be ignorant of, or biased against, the particulars of that idea in that particular faith. Especially if the definitions given left me anxious and fearful of what my Hindu neighbors might be plotting against me.
Dictionaries have their place. So do scriptures. And when discussing doctrine peculiar to a sect it is best to consult the revealed definitions. Occasionally even in church you'll hear somebody start their talk by saying (for example) "the dictionary defines 'tithing' as..." That, in my opinion, is the least effective way to talk about gospel subjects and it sounds to me like the proverbial fingernails on slate. When the word is the Lord's, let's give Him the first crack at defining it, shall we, before attempting to apply the faulty wisdom of men?
50039467
# 6. 5/22/09 1:52 AM by Markham
I can read through theological/political arguments and keep even blood pressure, but when language itself is mutilated, no argument, no logic is tenable. And no truth can be expressed.
I refer to this fatuous comment: "We communicate in the American form of the English language here and until it changes contemporary meanings must be cooridnitaed [sic] otherwise we fail to communicate accurately," given in hubris by the writer with the most impenetrable English I have seen on the site. (And reading the representation of Jay's comment which he renders in his open letter casts great doubt on his ability to penetrate the normal parlance of the rest of the English-speakers on the site.)
I am NOT taking this chance to devalue Albert's political and theological ideas. I AM using this as a call to repentance: respect the language which frames your arguments or forfeit respect for your arguments. Editor's Note: That's ironic. Thanks Markham.
|
