Posted by: Loran Blood | January 31, 2015

An Enemy Hath Done This

Genghis Kahn is said to have quipped:

The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him.  To ride his horses and take away their possessions, to see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp the wives and daughters in his arms.

In a similar political and cultural sense, and equally as brutal, uncompromising, thorough, vengeful, and encompassing in its eradication of resistance and extermination of dissent, the diabolical influence and coalescence of Marx, Reich, Meade, Kinsey, Marcuse, Hefner, and the other major and minor prophets, seers, and sages of the sexual revolution came together at that precise, ungodly moment in the late sixties when a confluence of social, historical, intellectual, and social dynamics reached a kind of synchronous unity and forged a cultural revolution within and critical to the broader cultural revolution then underway in America and the West.

Although coalescing and taking deep root in the late sixties, the idea of the sexual revolution (or “free love” as it was once hailed) can be traced back well into the early 20th century and beyond, but its mature, culture-wide form took shape in the period around 1967, 1968, and 1969 and then fully matured during the 70s, becoming, over approximately a thirty year time period, what Mark Steyn has called “the default position of the culture”.

The movement for sexual “liberation” was always radically and systemically ideological, and always a central ideological project of the Left.  Its purpose for many was and is, indeed, to overturn and erase from human consciousness and memory any semblance of what the Judeo-Christian tradition and the restored church of Jesus Christ understand as “sexual morality” or “chastity” which, in a gospel context, is even more central to both the viability of human civilization and to the moral and spiritual viability of the human subject than it is in the broader Judeo-Christian tradition owing to the way in which restoration doctrine places marriage, family, and human sexuality at the center of the meaning and purpose, not only of the mortal human experience, but the entire eternal context of human existence beginning long before mortality and extending into infinity far beyond it.

The sexual revolution began as a revolution promoting promiscuous heterosexual indulgence, cohabitation, and a sense of unconstrained, consequence-free sexual hedonism that paralleled the rising drug culture and cult of material entitlement and of the inevitable liberation of humankind from the central restraints and limitations of the human condition.

This meant the desire and expectation, expressed in many ways and in many forms, that the perennial problems of the human condition, from war to hunger, poverty, racism and ethnic chauvinism etc., were, in the hands of the rising generation, near their final resolution.  With this also came the continuing cult of inevitable technological and material progress, a offshoot of which was that the central questions of morality and religion were seen as dependent upon what human beings could do instrumentally to circumvent the effects or consequences of various desired human behaviors, that which is moral coming under the umbrella, ultimately, of that which is under human technical control.

Hence, “the pill,” in allowing women the power to control their own fertility to a degree impossible in any other age, while, at the same time, removing from her the power to civilize and tame core male tendencies that militate again family formation and loyalty to home, hearth, and children through that very same fertility, was key in the ultimate unraveling of the the family, marriage, and humane sexuality that now characterize Western societies.  The sexual revolution was both broader and deeper, however, involving a concerted and aggressive ideological offensive against marriage, family, and sexual morality as legitimate concepts, including the romanticization of sexual promiscuity and adventurism, the idea that shame, guilt, and loss of self-esteem and self-respect that were traditionally associated with sexual promiscuity were unnatural, arbitrary, socially constructed impositions upon what would otherwise be a free, open, healthy personality and that sexual adventurism was itself positive, “natural,” and, indeed, necessary for a psychologically vibrant, balanced and healthy mental and emotional life, took hold.

By the end of the seventies and on into the nineties, the sexual revolution had become the pansexual revolution, with ever increasing forays of the pop culture, the entertainment industry, and increasing numbers of Westerners, reflecting an ennui and boredom with conventional sexual hedonism, into the outre, avant garde regions of human sexuality, with the sexual philia once known as homosexuality but now known euphemistically as “gay” and having graduated from the status of a sexual philia or perversion to that of a “sexual orientation, ” becoming, not only one among a number of “liberated” sexual practices and lifestyles, but a powerful and aggressive interest group movement.

At first, it was tolerance and being left alone to pursue their lifestyles as they wished without overt discrimination and bigotry that was sought, but by at least the middle of the eighties, this had been transformed into a demand for full acceptance of homosexuality as equal in moral and social terms with heterosexuality, and then, for the celebration of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle harboring distinct benefits, and even superior benefits, when contrasted with the traditional forms of marriage and family.

In the present this movement, one movement, but a critical one, among a larger sexual revolution that is still in process of development and maturation, has now extended its reach, through anti-discrimination law and the academic doctrine of multiculturalism, to K-12 education and the private property of every business, church-owned edifice or facility, and soon, yes, soon, every church in American and the West, primarily through the courts, in a continuing struggle to impose on private business owners and private citizens in their churches and church-owned properties by force what decades of relentless indoctrination within the public schools, academia, film, television, and the mainstream news media have successfully accomplished, but not yet at levels that will bring the long march through marriage and the family to its conclusion.

Today, and increasingly and alarmingly, in the restored Church, the cause of the legitimation, not, it must be said, of tolerance and compassion for those with what we now term SSA (Same-Sex Attraction), or of the idea that homosexuality is, in most cases, not a direct, conscious choice that was made at a specific time on a specific day (which few if any have actually ever claimed), but of homosexual sex, sexual practices, and relationships; of homosexuality itself as a self-identity and way of life, including its variety of sexual expressions and sub-identities, has grown to the point that it has become what could only be termed a kind of social, political, and media-driven obsession.

Many people, including increasing numbers within the church, appear to be, not just concerned with the subject, or with the issues surrounding the appropriate ways the church and individual saints should approach homosexuals and the critical issues attending Same-Sex Attraction, but intoxicated by the political and social aspects of the issue, to the degree that even members of the church, including some prominent intellectuals, have entered that heady realm of “political correctness” in which one’s moral and spiritual legitimacy as a a Latter-day Saint, a Christian, and as a human being become predicated on whether one supports “marriage equality” and “social justice” for homosexuals and further, upon whether one wishes to become morally complicit in the disproportionate social pathologies – including suicide – of homosexuals by withholding one’s consent and support of homosexual marriage and the moral legitimacy of gay culture and sexual relationships.

This moral oneupmanship, long a key attribute of the cultural and political Left across a vast spectrum of social, economic, and political issues, has now invaded even the church in the first decades of the 21st century, and the moral mau mauing one may encounter from its proponents, both without the church and within – even as one unwaveringly stands their ground in defense of, well, morality, i.e., the law of chastity as revealed since the beginning by the Lord’s servants, the prophets, from Adam to the present moment – is as frustrating and consternating as it is intellectually gaseous.

Indeed, the sheer obsessiveness, pervasiveness, and saturation of contemporary political, academic, educational, and media discourse by the subject of homosexual marriage (and, by extension, the moral, cultural, and ontological legitimacy of the entire LGBTQ etc. brood of sexual identities) and of, perhaps even more saliently, of homosexual sexuality per se, is difficult to understand outside of a gospel frame of reference.

Gay “liberation” could have stopped with tolerance and an end to gay-bashing and overt, arbitrary discrimination, but the sexual revolution, of which homosexual meta-rights are only one aspect, was never about stopping.  It was never about tolerance save as a means of using the pawns to slowly but surely surround and trap the king.  It was never only about freedom from restraint but about freedom to forcibly alter and transform the culture in its own image.  The sexual revolution also is, was, and will be a movement of the Left, and the Left is not about stopping, tolerance, or freedom to pursue its own aims and goals without molestation.

The Left is about power, and it is also ultimately, and to the exclusion of any remaining particle of dissent or alternative perspective, about a relentless concentration, focus, and condensing of political power and ideological conformity in those institutions of society which generate, interpret, and disseminate opinion and perception.  All of this, however, while it appears in the human, mortal, political and intellectual world as of purely human origin, is, in reality, far more than that.

We have been warned in scripture and by countless teachings of the special witnesses of Christ in our age that Satan will, in the last days, rage in the hearts of the the children of men; that he will be involved in a pitiless war of destruction, desolation, and attrition against God’s children and, with particular vehemence, against the saints and the Lord’s latter-day kingdom.  It is my contention that, while fallen humans are capable of enough evil in their own right, their intoxication with the inordinate fascination with homosexual marriage and with the feelings, attitudes, and opinions of homosexuals about the nature of opposition to the legitimation and acceptance of thier lifestyles, is more than a mere human psychological and intellectual contrivance.

There is a terrible, insidious, spiritual pressure at work as well, unseen and unperceived by most as it may be (“I am no devil, for there is none”), that cannot be ignored when attempting to understand the manner in which concern about overt discrimination has been transformed, in a few short decades, into a drunken cultural bacchanal of moral relativism and intellectual cowardice.

An enemy hath done this.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: