Referring to your comment about "You bind these people down with your ordinances" and how he would have had enough of an understanding of it that he likely used to keep those ordinances at some point. We see this today. It's no different. The most vocal voices of opposition often come from those who once were of our fold. It seems to be they are possessed by a real spirit of contention and rebellion for the light they once knew or once held. That is Satan's same behaviour. We need to be vigilant of the spirit that we allow to possess us. Who do we give the stage to? God and light? Or Satan and dark? It really can be that simple. If the light we each harbour was a literal candle. How vigilant would we be in protecting that candle from extinguishing? There is so much that can diminish a candle. Wind or satans whirlwinds. Rain, someone else blowing it out. Us just not caring and letting it go out. If we held that same urgency to keep our own light shining bright, it wouldn't allow for those seeking to destroy Christ to affect us. Especially when we do keep ordinances, make covenants and worship God. Because then we build our relationship with God strong and shore up our walls, gird our loins put on the whole armour of God. It's our only protection from those hellbent on destroying our own faith.
Alma 24:30 And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.
My biggest issue with this segment is that i dont feel like critical theory was actually ever defined. I sat through it, trying to understand and walked away confused. I googled it and did some reading on it, but I still don't know the exact definition. My recommendation is to define it first and then apply scripture to it.
No matter what the world does or says it is still up to me to choose the right by seeking through study faith and the Holy Spirit or else I am going to be left without excuse
I think there is a timeless tendency to genuinely see ourselves as oppressed and powerless. Maybe it's a sign of lacking faith, or maybe it's a fruit of sin. Whenever something in our lives or our environment or our (or someone else's behavior) goes wrong, it's so much easier to feel like we're the only victims of the situation and to assume the worst of someone else...rather than sharing the blame out between the two people or just shouldering that I have a problem I can't solve yet. Then parents raise children in that pattern (knowingly and unknowingly) and the problem just gets bigger. Think of Isaac and Ishmael and the rancor between those two beautiful sets of people (their descendants) today. 😢
Yes - noticing my own tendency to point fingers and closely clutch a victim identity to my heart, and consequently seeking to be free of that has shown me a pathway of repentance I’m glad I found. 🙏
You read the Book of Mormon and all the things they were struggling with then reflect the same things we are going through and struggling with today. Names and terms of some of the things are different than what we call them today but they are the same kinds of things. You think about that and than remember that Mormon took from the plates or records they had stored and supposedly chose the few that he did from the many because it is said that he saw our day and compiled and chose specific plates with the intention of helping us deal with the challenges and problems we would be confronted with today if we were wise enough to study the book and take it as our guide. But apparently the Book of Mormon isn’t a real record and was written by Joseph and others just to screw with people so it’s all a pretty crazy coincidence that so much of it just so happens to mirror today.
So, we're not supposed to interpret "inequity" when we read "iniquity" when we see it in The Book of Mormon. Let's suppose you're correct on this point. If that is the case, then how am I supposed to interpret the word "equity" in verses like 2 Ne. 21:4; Alma 9:26; Hel. 3:20, 37; and 3 Ne. 6:4; among others? Asked another way, if we focus on repenting of our iniquity, aren't we automatically exercising more equity?
The difference is in how equity is defined when the Book was translated in the 1830's vs the new definition that is coming out of critical race theory.
The word equity has been appropriated by Marxism. In the scriptures and the past equity has meant “just.” you are giving the perfect example of how words and literature are redefined and given a new worldview.
@musicredsubaru you are incorrect. The definition has been changing for several decades. Do a simple Google search for "DEI" or "social equity" and you will find dozens of definitions from agencies and corporations similar to the one below from NACE: "The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from bias or systemic structures." Or this one from George Washington University - Milken Institute Scool of Public Health: "Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. " The 1828 Websters Dictionary, encourages distributing justice impartially, but there is no reference to proactively correcting imbalances in order to achieve equality of outcome: EQ'UITY, noun [Latin oequitas, from oequus, equal, even, level.] 1. Justice; right. In practice, equity is the impartial distribution of justice, or the doing that to another which the laws of God and man, and of reason, give him a right to claim. It is the treating of a person according to justice and reason. So, while the formal definitions now and in the past seem to be similar. The informal definition that is taking shape amongst Universities, Corporations and Organizations is fundamentally different.
@musicredsubaru you are incorrect. The definition has been changing for several decades. Do a simple Google search for "DEI" or "social equity" and you will find dozens of definitions from agencies and corporations similar to the one below from NACE: "The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from bias or systemic structures." Or this one from George Washington University - Milken Institute School of Public Health: "Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. " The 1828 Websters Dictionary, encourages distributing justice impartially, but there is no reference to proactively correcting imbalances in order to achieve equality of outcome: EQ'UITY, noun [Latin oequitas, from oequus, equal, even, level.] 1. Justice; right. In practice, equity is the impartial distribution of justice, or the doing that to another which the laws of God and man, and of reason, give him a right to claim. It is the treating of a person according to justice and reason. So, while the formal definitions now and in the past seem to be similar. The informal definition that is taking shape amongst Universities, Corporations and Organizations is fundamentally different.
If the antichrist were a person who knew that they were the antichrist...wouldn't they do everything opposite to what they could read about what's prophesied about them in order to prevent more people from believing in the bible? 🙏 all Glory to God
The Bible ID's the anti Christ. The Protestant Reformers ID'd the anti Christ system. Even though that system is clearly identified, most people are under.
It perfectly good example of how these secret combination teachings are administered onto the people and they don't even see it Just like in the book of Mormon times.
Beware: this is only half a teaching. Look at the legitimate oppression of the people of Alma by the Amulonites. Although the people of Alma were by definition victims, they did not demand that the Amulonites had to change. By enduring their unfair circumstances, they were able to overcome. Now the other teaching: when the children of those priests of Noah heard about what their fathers had done, they desired to no longer be called by the names of their fathers. It is absolutely possible that our ancestors were wicked, and unless we can identify and disavow that wickedness, we will surely continue doing those same unrighteous things. The narrow path has two edges. It is safer to accept unfairness and change our ways for people who say we are oppressing them - even if they are wrong, since the alternative is to risk continuing in the false traditions of our fathers, or worse, claiming that we are victims to the oppression of critical theory.
1 Nephi chapter 1 tells us who our enemy is. Same enemy that tried to kill Lehi and rejected the truth. Also the same enemy who created Critical Theory at the Frankfurt School.
Trying to overlay CT/CRT with learning the BoM is a minefield and shouldn't be used when trying to understand it, period. I think this is more of a US thing (obviously) than for those members outside the US. The Lamanites weren't 'repressed' by a superior power or colonizer but by their own choices. If anything they ultimately were the 'oppressors' if you can call it that when the Nephite state began to fail and were swept away.
I think Critical Theories can be boiled down to: who has the right to rule and what legitimizes that right or delegitimizes that right. Whoever is in power gets to control the flow of resources and money. That's what Laman and Lemuel wanted. They wanted the right to rule over Nephi. In New Zealand, this same idea is being pushed into our national discussion. Should we go back to the indigenous/native ways of doing things or keep our european style system? But from the Book of Mormon we learn that what is currently happening world wide is just the secret combinations trying to take power. I think as members our decision should be to create communities of Zion centred around the temple so that we can be protected by the Lord and avoid the inevitable conflict.
"Critical" is the key word. Negative. Questioning. Complaining. Victimhood. Lamanites were always Victims. Nephites "ALWAYS" wronged them; from Lehi to Mormon. "Who are you to tell US we will be destroyed for our sins?" "Who are you to be our ruler?" Always critical and wronged. The antithesis of Christ's beattitudes.
@@nillad12 When it comes to ruling as per the BoM we know that eventually greed and power corrupt the hearts of men, it didn't matter which *nite or side it was. Yes there were exceptions but they were in the minority. The secret combinations already have power, lets get that straight. So its not a question of when, they're here now. I'm a native of NZ and a believer in the treaty but thats a discussion for another time. The questions society need to ask are: Q1 Is capitalism the best system there is? Q2 What system will the Saviour implement during the millennium? Looking at the USA, I'd say yeah nah. Sure, its the promised land but its in need of some big transformation before its even close to that. Is socialism/communism the answer? Nope. But can we take a combination of different systems, take the best from each? Yes. As for native/european systems are they perfect? No, but we can do a hell of alot better than what we have currently. But all will pale in comparison to what the Saviour brings.
@@paultpaki that's super cool. I was thinking you might be tied to the pacific with a username like that. I'm a believer in the treaty as well. For me it just comes down to changing hearts. If all our hearts are joined with Christ it won't matter what system we get because we will have complete trust that Christ has our best interests at heart. Just like you say, what Christ has in store, which is what the temple is about, will surpass all the philosophies of men.
@@nillad12 All good bro. I agree with what you say. We need to emulate Christ and put him first. Its always in the details, line upon line - gradual improvement. Perfection isn't happening in this life but we need to be on the right path, holding the iron rod and pressing forward.
An Anti-Christ is not anti-religious. They are very religious, but their god is not Jesus Christ. 1 John defines the Anti-Christ is anyone (not one person) who religiously does not believe in Jesus as the Christ.
You are correct. The Frankfort began even a tad earlier in the 1920s. Many of its members fled to the US after the Nazi's assumed power in 1933. Matsen errs in being overly board in his use of Marxism and critical theory. His thesis is forced and comes off as ad hoc, as I explain in my response to his reaction to my original comment noted below.
@@CwicShow I can't speak to Teddy-tx7wb's comment specifically other than I assume he may be referring to an anachronistic element. My comment is tied to an earlier post I made on the overly broad use of Marxism and critical theory. I stated: "What is the definition of Marxism being used? Is the position Marxism can be applied, but void of dialectical materialism, historical materialism, determinism, and a revolutionary praxis? How is it then Marxist? Is the view that any model with an oppressor and oppressed narrative is thereby Marxist? Is a peasant tax revolt in the 14th century France Marxist? Is a Greek citizenry overthrowing a tyrant from a polis a Marxist action? Was the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831 Marxist? Liberation from a deemed oppressive status is not sufficient grounds to label something Marxist. Liberation theology arose in Latin American in response to Vatican Two in the 1960s, the Cold War (particularly Soviet influence in South America), and rabid/ poverty corruption. It remained and remains tied to a socio-economic model of liberation, but it's problematic to baldly assert it is full throated Marxism. Being influenced by an ideology is not the same as being that ideology. The same can be said of the Black Liberation movement. Further still, to claim liberation theology is critical theory does not work. Critical theory arose in the 1920s as a direct response among German (and Italian) Marxist academics in the wake of the failure of the proletariat revolution to take hold post 1917. It replaced the economic component of Marx for a cultural modeling to undercut capitalist society from within via ideological capture of core societal institutions: education, law etc. I don't understand the reference to ancient Judaism as Marxist at all. It's problematic to take a concept, remove it from its theoretical underpinnings, and still claim it is the same concept." The above was a reply to the attempt to conflate stated religious opposition group(s) in the Book of Mormon as examples of critical theory which doesn't work given critical theory is a cultural Marxism and Marxism is fundamentally atheistic. The attempted rebuttal to my original comment cited liberation theology and Black liberation as counters. The above was my reply.
@@CwicShow well my point was that you said that "Critical theory is a NEW world view coming out of academia." Other than that, I really enjoyed your analysis. I had not thought about it in those terms. but very true and a very good point. and now we have a society absolutely dominated by Secret combinations and constantly bombarded by critical theory. I hope the rapture comes soon.
This is exactly what the adversary (aka Satan) is teaching, his doctrin is that he was foold by Yahweh God, he is the true god and Yahweh God is the inposter.
So much hot air. Nothing actually said. You could have a point, but it’s just so much ego. “They’re antithetical” ok. Just show how. Seriously. It does no one any good to be so vague and zero details. “Read the Book of Mormon, in the light of critical theory” ok. And? This has all the same markers as someone protesting for an antifa rally too. No one know what they’re talking about they just use the nouns and social signifiers to make everyone feel cozy…. And really, never say anything.
The world's greatest evidence for the Book of Mormon is..... the Holy Ghost!! :>)
*only*
Absolutely.
The world's greatest (and only) evidence for the Bible is....the Book of Mormon.
That's very subjective
@@jasonvesmam7044 No... it's a fact. :>)
Referring to your comment about "You bind these people down with your ordinances" and how he would have had enough of an understanding of it that he likely used to keep those ordinances at some point. We see this today. It's no different. The most vocal voices of opposition often come from those who once were of our fold. It seems to be they are possessed by a real spirit of contention and rebellion for the light they once knew or once held. That is Satan's same behaviour. We need to be vigilant of the spirit that we allow to possess us. Who do we give the stage to? God and light? Or Satan and dark? It really can be that simple. If the light we each harbour was a literal candle. How vigilant would we be in protecting that candle from extinguishing? There is so much that can diminish a candle. Wind or satans whirlwinds. Rain, someone else blowing it out. Us just not caring and letting it go out. If we held that same urgency to keep our own light shining bright, it wouldn't allow for those seeking to destroy Christ to affect us. Especially when we do keep ordinances, make covenants and worship God. Because then we build our relationship with God strong and shore up our walls, gird our loins put on the whole armour of God. It's our only protection from those hellbent on destroying our own faith.
Alma 24:30
And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things.
Great segment! Love y'all and love Greg, too!
More of this please.
I wish I could go to the conference tomorrow and Saturday. I am bed bound . Wish it was taped to view .
Love what you guys are doing! Thanks
Great discussion. Thanks for uploading
My biggest issue with this segment is that i dont feel like critical theory was actually ever defined. I sat through it, trying to understand and walked away confused. I googled it and did some reading on it, but I still don't know the exact definition. My recommendation is to define it first and then apply scripture to it.
No matter what the world does or says it is still up to me to choose the right by seeking through study faith and the Holy Spirit or else I am going to be left without excuse
Q: When is the docuseries coming out? Is it on a streaming platform, or is it coming in the future on youtube? Just curious.
Nice job amen and a woot woot. Man Cwic has a great voice. Did he used to be an announcer for football or basketball or something?
So good thanks guys!
Based
I think there is a timeless tendency to genuinely see ourselves as oppressed and powerless. Maybe it's a sign of lacking faith, or maybe it's a fruit of sin. Whenever something in our lives or our environment or our (or someone else's behavior) goes wrong, it's so much easier to feel like we're the only victims of the situation and to assume the worst of someone else...rather than sharing the blame out between the two people or just shouldering that I have a problem I can't solve yet. Then parents raise children in that pattern (knowingly and unknowingly) and the problem just gets bigger. Think of Isaac and Ishmael and the rancor between those two beautiful sets of people (their descendants) today. 😢
Yes - noticing my own tendency to point fingers and closely clutch a victim identity to my heart, and consequently seeking to be free of that has shown me a pathway of repentance I’m glad I found. 🙏
Is any of this going to be on video?
I'd say the solution is logic and reason.
would be if college students were capable of logic and reason. but liberalism is all about emotion, and so are most people of college age.
Too much over thinking. Book of Mormon is a window to our times. Hold the line.🇦🇺🙏👍
Hey I’m curious what humanitarian trip you went on? I would like to find a good one for my daughter that is 20. Thanks :)
I just found out about this - how much advance noticed was there? I'd drive up but need to get the days off in advance...
Can we purchase tickets and attend on Zoom or UA-cam?
Where do I find the shirts?
You read the Book of Mormon and all the things they were struggling with then reflect the same things we are going through and struggling with today. Names and terms of some of the things are different than what we call them today but they are the same kinds of things. You think about that and than remember that Mormon took from the plates or records they had stored and supposedly chose the few that he did from the many because it is said that he saw our day and compiled and chose specific plates with the intention of helping us deal with the challenges and problems we would be confronted with today if we were wise enough to study the book and take it as our guide. But apparently the Book of Mormon isn’t a real record and was written by Joseph and others just to screw with people so it’s all a pretty crazy coincidence that so much of it just so happens to mirror today.
But, Greg, the Nephites were oppressors. Clearly the Mulekites and kingmen were victims just trying to claim their rights. 😅😅😅😅😂😂😂😂
Shhhhhh that doesnt fit their narrative!!!! Only faith (in nonsense) promoting dialogue here!!!!!
@@jacobdevitry1570Christian based nations have way more freedom than non christian nations.
So, we're not supposed to interpret "inequity" when we read "iniquity" when we see it in The Book of Mormon. Let's suppose you're correct on this point. If that is the case, then how am I supposed to interpret the word "equity" in verses like 2 Ne. 21:4; Alma 9:26; Hel. 3:20, 37; and 3 Ne. 6:4; among others? Asked another way, if we focus on repenting of our iniquity, aren't we automatically exercising more equity?
The difference is in how equity is defined when the Book was translated in the 1830's vs the new definition that is coming out of critical race theory.
@@seangrover140 Comparing the two, there's very little difference.
The word equity has been appropriated by Marxism. In the scriptures and the past equity has meant “just.” you are giving the perfect example of how words and literature are redefined and given a new worldview.
@musicredsubaru you are incorrect. The definition has been changing for several decades. Do a simple Google search for "DEI" or "social equity" and you will find dozens of definitions from agencies and corporations similar to the one below from NACE:
"The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from bias or systemic structures."
Or this one from George Washington University - Milken Institute Scool of Public Health:
"Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. "
The 1828 Websters Dictionary, encourages distributing justice impartially, but there is no reference to proactively correcting imbalances in order to achieve equality of outcome:
EQ'UITY, noun [Latin oequitas, from oequus, equal, even, level.]
1. Justice; right. In practice, equity is the impartial distribution of justice, or the doing that to another which the laws of God and man, and of reason, give him a right to claim. It is the treating of a person according to justice and reason.
So, while the formal definitions now and in the past seem to be similar. The informal definition that is taking shape amongst Universities, Corporations and Organizations is fundamentally different.
@musicredsubaru you are incorrect. The definition has been changing for several decades. Do a simple Google search for "DEI" or "social equity" and you will find dozens of definitions from agencies and corporations similar to the one below from NACE:
"The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from bias or systemic structures."
Or this one from George Washington University - Milken Institute School of Public Health:
"Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. "
The 1828 Websters Dictionary, encourages distributing justice impartially, but there is no reference to proactively correcting imbalances in order to achieve equality of outcome:
EQ'UITY, noun [Latin oequitas, from oequus, equal, even, level.]
1. Justice; right. In practice, equity is the impartial distribution of justice, or the doing that to another which the laws of God and man, and of reason, give him a right to claim. It is the treating of a person according to justice and reason.
So, while the formal definitions now and in the past seem to be similar. The informal definition that is taking shape amongst Universities, Corporations and Organizations is fundamentally different.
That is not why Abinadai was killed
Will the fireside be recorded?
And this is why the Lamanites were completely and utterly destroyed, while the Nephites were spared. Or was it the other way around?
New hair cut?? Perfectly said 😊..
If the antichrist were a person who knew that they were the antichrist...wouldn't they do everything opposite to what they could read about what's prophesied about them in order to prevent more people from believing in the bible?
🙏 all Glory to God
The Bible ID's the anti Christ. The Protestant Reformers ID'd the anti Christ system. Even though that system is clearly identified, most people are under.
Korihor was the name you were looking for
I wonder in what ways they want to "kill" the prophets today? Does that have more literal or more symbolic weight in modern days?
Who killed Joseph Smith?
It perfectly good example of how these secret combination teachings are administered onto the people and they don't even see it Just like in the book of Mormon times.
Beware: this is only half a teaching.
Look at the legitimate oppression of the people of Alma by the Amulonites. Although the people of Alma were by definition victims, they did not demand that the Amulonites had to change. By enduring their unfair circumstances, they were able to overcome.
Now the other teaching: when the children of those priests of Noah heard about what their fathers had done, they desired to no longer be called by the names of their fathers. It is absolutely possible that our ancestors were wicked, and unless we can identify and disavow that wickedness, we will surely continue doing those same unrighteous things.
The narrow path has two edges. It is safer to accept unfairness and change our ways for people who say we are oppressing them - even if they are wrong, since the alternative is to risk continuing in the false traditions of our fathers, or worse, claiming that we are victims to the oppression of critical theory.
1 Nephi chapter 1 tells us who our enemy is. Same enemy that tried to kill Lehi and rejected the truth. Also the same enemy who created Critical Theory at the Frankfurt School.
Horrible.
Trying to overlay CT/CRT with learning the BoM is a minefield and shouldn't be used when trying to understand it, period. I think this is more of a US thing (obviously) than for those members outside the US. The Lamanites weren't 'repressed' by a superior power or colonizer but by their own choices. If anything they ultimately were the 'oppressors' if you can call it that when the Nephite state began to fail and were swept away.
I think Critical Theories can be boiled down to: who has the right to rule and what legitimizes that right or delegitimizes that right. Whoever is in power gets to control the flow of resources and money. That's what Laman and Lemuel wanted. They wanted the right to rule over Nephi. In New Zealand, this same idea is being pushed into our national discussion. Should we go back to the indigenous/native ways of doing things or keep our european style system? But from the Book of Mormon we learn that what is currently happening world wide is just the secret combinations trying to take power. I think as members our decision should be to create communities of Zion centred around the temple so that we can be protected by the Lord and avoid the inevitable conflict.
"Critical" is the key word. Negative. Questioning. Complaining. Victimhood.
Lamanites were always Victims. Nephites "ALWAYS" wronged them; from Lehi to Mormon.
"Who are you to tell US we will be destroyed for our sins?"
"Who are you to be our ruler?" Always critical and wronged.
The antithesis of Christ's beattitudes.
@@nillad12 When it comes to ruling as per the BoM we know that eventually greed and power corrupt the hearts of men, it didn't matter which *nite or side it was. Yes there were exceptions but they were in the minority. The secret combinations already have power, lets get that straight. So its not a question of when, they're here now. I'm a native of NZ and a believer in the treaty but thats a discussion for another time. The questions society need to ask are: Q1 Is capitalism the best system there is? Q2 What system will the Saviour implement during the millennium? Looking at the USA, I'd say yeah nah. Sure, its the promised land but its in need of some big transformation before its even close to that. Is socialism/communism the answer? Nope. But can we take a combination of different systems, take the best from each? Yes. As for native/european systems are they perfect? No, but we can do a hell of alot better than what we have currently. But all will pale in comparison to what the Saviour brings.
@@paultpaki that's super cool. I was thinking you might be tied to the pacific with a username like that. I'm a believer in the treaty as well. For me it just comes down to changing hearts. If all our hearts are joined with Christ it won't matter what system we get because we will have complete trust that Christ has our best interests at heart. Just like you say, what Christ has in store, which is what the temple is about, will surpass all the philosophies of men.
@@nillad12 All good bro. I agree with what you say. We need to emulate Christ and put him first. Its always in the details, line upon line - gradual improvement. Perfection isn't happening in this life but we need to be on the right path, holding the iron rod and pressing forward.
The world's greatest evidence: THE ROCK OF REVELATION
How are these apostates teaching apostasy at BYU? Where is the governance?
An Anti-Christ is not anti-religious. They are very religious, but their god is not Jesus Christ. 1 John defines the Anti-Christ is anyone (not one person) who religiously does not believe in Jesus as the Christ.
that was really good, except that Critical Theory has been around for almost a Century and was very prominent at the Frankfort School. in the 1930s.
You are correct. The Frankfort began even a tad earlier in the 1920s. Many of its members fled to the US after the Nazi's assumed power in 1933. Matsen errs in being overly board in his use of Marxism and critical theory. His thesis is forced and comes off as ad hoc, as I explain in my response to his reaction to my original comment noted below.
What does that have to do with the video? I speak on the Frankfurt School all the time.
@@CwicShow I can't speak to Teddy-tx7wb's comment specifically other than I assume he may be referring to an anachronistic element. My comment is tied to an earlier post I made on the overly broad use of Marxism and critical theory. I stated:
"What is the definition of Marxism being used? Is the position Marxism can be applied, but void of dialectical materialism, historical materialism, determinism, and a revolutionary praxis? How is it then Marxist? Is the view that any model with an oppressor and oppressed narrative is thereby Marxist? Is a peasant tax revolt in the 14th century France Marxist? Is a Greek citizenry overthrowing a tyrant from a polis a Marxist action? Was the Nat Turner rebellion in 1831 Marxist? Liberation from a deemed oppressive status is not sufficient grounds to label something Marxist.
Liberation theology arose in Latin American in response to Vatican Two in the 1960s, the Cold War (particularly Soviet influence in South America), and rabid/ poverty corruption. It remained and remains tied to a socio-economic model of liberation, but it's problematic to baldly assert it is full throated Marxism. Being influenced by an ideology is not the same as being that ideology. The same can be said of the Black Liberation movement. Further still, to claim liberation theology is critical theory does not work. Critical theory arose in the 1920s as a direct response among German (and Italian) Marxist academics in the wake of the failure of the proletariat revolution to take hold post 1917. It replaced the economic component of Marx for a cultural modeling to undercut capitalist society from within via ideological capture of core societal institutions: education, law etc.
I don't understand the reference to ancient Judaism as Marxist at all. It's problematic to take a concept, remove it from its theoretical underpinnings, and still claim it is the same concept."
The above was a reply to the attempt to conflate stated religious opposition group(s) in the Book of Mormon as examples of critical theory which doesn't work given critical theory is a cultural Marxism and Marxism is fundamentally atheistic. The attempted rebuttal to my original comment cited liberation theology and Black liberation as counters. The above was my reply.
@@CwicShow well my point was that you said that "Critical theory is a NEW world view coming out of academia."
Other than that, I really enjoyed your analysis. I had not thought about it in those terms. but very true and a very good point.
and now we have a society absolutely dominated by Secret combinations and constantly bombarded by critical theory. I hope the rapture comes soon.
This is exactly what the adversary (aka Satan) is teaching, his doctrin is that he was foold by Yahweh God, he is the true god and Yahweh God is the inposter.
I heard someone claim that Adam and Eve were prisoners in the garden of Eden, that Satan was freeing them from oppression.
So much hot air. Nothing actually said. You could have a point, but it’s just so much ego. “They’re antithetical” ok. Just show how. Seriously. It does no one any good to be so vague and zero details. “Read the Book of Mormon, in the light of critical theory” ok. And?
This has all the same markers as someone protesting for an antifa rally too. No one know what they’re talking about they just use the nouns and social signifiers to make everyone feel cozy….
And really, never say anything.
For reference, see Cwic media. This is simply a spotlight on a topic Greg has been covering for quite a while now.
@@dcarts5616 oh I know. I've watched hours of his channel too. Still nothing defined.
@@TheSandyStone Ok.
If you cannot see and hear you must obtain eyes to see and ears to hear.
@@fightingfortruth9806 the mantra of all cults
Is the thumbnail Garandthumb Jesus?
@garandthumb