quote:We don't get to decide what is good for other people as long as their good isn't demonstrably harmful.
kmboots, your choice of words is very interesting. The implication is that those who "judge others" decide what is good for the people they're judging.
From my point of view, Mormons don't "decide" what is good or evil; that decision was made by God. My decision is to help or not help people come to Him by teaching them the commandments He has passed on to us.
I think we're still getting caught up on the word 'judge;' there are too many negative implications to the word that make it difficult to discuss. I wish I knew a better one. I can judge actions-- I can say, authoritatively, two teenagers who are have sexual relationships, that they are sinning.
I cannot tell whether or not they are wicked. I can say that God is displeased with their actions; I cannot say that God will send them to Hell for their actions.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I can't authoritatively say any of that. Nor would it be right for me to say that. If two teenagers were hurting each other or other people, that would be different. Or if the teenagers were not competent to decide for themselves - say thirteen rather than seventeen (though those line are fuzzy). I'm pretty certain about hurting other people being wrong. Beyond that, though, I don't get to decide for other people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I cannot tell whether or not they are wicked. I can say that God is displeased with their actions; I cannot say that God will send them to Hell for their actions."
An interesting tack, there, Scott. What if the two teenagers in question lived 7,000 years ago in New Zealand? Are the still sinning? How about 7,000 years ago in Peru, or 120,000 years ago on the coast of present day Kenya?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if the two teenagers in question lived 7,000 years ago in New Zealand? Are the still sinning? How about 7,000 years ago in Peru, or 120,000 years ago on the coast of present day Kenya?
If they're living 7000 years ago, or even 120000 years ago-- I wouldn't likely be talking to them. I don't believe in reincarnation, and frankly, a 7000 year old teenager would invalidate a LOT of our scientific and religious principles.
I mean, the question of whether pre-marital sex is wrong or not would be completely moot at that point.
To answer your question seriously, I don't know. It's possible that at some point in history, pre-marital sexual relations were not sinful.
posted
"To answer your question seriously, I don't know. It's possible that at some point in history, pre-marital sexual relations were not sinful.
But I don't live at that time."
Yesm but there are a number of groups of humans who are so far removed from the rest of the world that they have likely never met or seen a white person. There are places in Western China like this, if I understand correctly.
It goes without saying that plenty of these people have
A. Never heard of the Bible
B. do not practice anything like your version of sexual morality.
posted
So, basically, when you show up with the Book of Mormon in BFE and start preaching it to people who've never heard it before, you're essentially telling them that, since you showed up and started telling them about God, they're now wrong to continue their old ways?
Gee, I think I'd run and hide if I saw you coming.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: From my point of view, Mormons don't "decide" what is good or evil; that decision was made by God.
That's very interesting. If your god decided that it was good to eat babies with green Jello, would you still follow it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: So, basically, when you show up with the Book of Mormon in BFE and start preaching it to people who've never heard it before, you're essentially telling them that, since you showed up and started telling them about God, they're now wrong to continue their old ways?
Gee, I think I'd run and hide if I saw you coming.
Why not take into account the many GOOD things Scott would also be offering were he to tell people about God.
You might as well argue that were you to walk into a room with your fly open, and somebody points it out to you in a descreet way that you would rebuke them for not letting you blunder in ignorance.
For most people the highlite of finding God and the gospel is not obtaining guidelines for judging other's conduct. At least for me the closeness to God and the clarifying of many questions I had concerning him were infinitely more important.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "For most people the highlite of finding God and the gospel is not obtaining guidelines for judging other's conduct."
I see you've never met my friend, the late Reverend Jerry Falwell.
Strange you chose him as a friend. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Jerry and me were best friends. I used to write the dude's sermons for Sunday morning service. He officiated at my wedding. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that humanity's track record of discernment regarding other people's actions and belief being displeasing to God that, where there is no demonstarble harm, am content to limit my judgement to my own actions and beliefs. Things that do cause demonstarble harm tend to happen when we do that. And monitoring my own behavior is sufficient to keep me occupied.
Though I understand the temptation to mess with the mote in somebody else's eye. It is way more fun, considerably easier and one gets the bonus of feeling smug and superior. That is far to close to temptation for me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much like the bad Muslims hide in amongst the non-violent ones, the bad Catholics hide in amongst the kmbbootses.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, to be fair, I can see how, in some cases, the sexual morality rules of Christianity were useful, since, if the white man was going to show up with his many STDs anyway, it was good to get everybody being monogamous.
In some cases. Maybe.
Not in all cases.
That's all you'll get from me.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Much like the bad Muslims hide in amongst the non-violent ones, the bad Catholics hide in amongst the kmbbootses.
Are you trying to imply that Catholics who disagree with kmbboots are bad Catholics? In that case, I'm glad I don't abide by your sense of good and bad.
Not that I think her position is "bad" by any means. In fact, she speaks for me on most matters of faith. I simply disagree on this point. I'll elaborate tomorrow, I'm too sleepy to write out a long post.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spanish Inquisition. I'm guessing there are a few Catholics who think it should be brought back. That's what I'm talking about. She made my point for me pretty well--when belief leads you to coercion of others, belief has gone too far, and needs a wake-up call.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. Catholics do have some history to overcome. In 2000 years, most organizations will have some history to overcome.
I'm reasonably confident that you will find that the vast majority of American Catholics are not in favour of a return of the Inquisition. And. really, we aren't nearly so enthusiastic about coercion as we were in the freakin' Middle Ages.
Look, for example at the voting record of Catholics in the Senate.
True. Judgement isn't coercion. I do think, though that one can and has lead to the other. When one becomes so sure that he or she has the corner on the "right way" to live, it sometimes seems "reasonable" to want everyone to follow that way.
It is something to guard against. Particularly when one has power. The intention can be well-meant; the results often aren't so good.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Though I understand the temptation to mess with the mote in somebody else's eye. It is way more fun considerably easier and one gets the bonus of feeling smug and superior.
Alas, this is not true. Or at least it isn't true for anyone who's actually adhering to the guidelines laid out in Matthew 7.
quote:When one becomes so sure that he or she has the corner on the "right way" to live, it sometimes seems "reasonable" to want everyone to follow that way.
Certainly. Even without the scare quotes.
If I've got the cure to polio, it's fairly evil of me to keep it to myself.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I've got the cure to polio, it's fairly evil of me to keep it to myself.
But would it be moral to force that cure on someone who refused it?
I'm not asking because I have an answer...I don't. I'm just curious how you (or anyone) stands on the clash between the good of a cure and the right of a person to choose or refuse that cure.
For me, offering someone a cure is fine. Teaching and informing them about it is fine. But I have a real problem of conscience when we talk about forcing a cure on someone.
Not saying you would, Scott, just to be clear.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't noticed Scott forcing, intending to force, or using the word force at all. The only instance of the use of the word has come from those who seem to be confusing holding a belief that something is a sin with forcing everyone to conform to that belief.
That's not a minor step - that's a major step, and it hasn't been proposed as an action. It isn't clear why it's being argued against.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I haven't noticed Scott forcing, intending to force, or using the word force at all. The only instance of the use of the word has come from those who seem to be confusing holding a belief that something is a sin with forcing everyone to conform to that belief.
That's not a minor step - that's a major step, and it hasn't been proposed as an action. It isn't clear why it's being argued against.
First, I wasn't trying to imply Scott, or anyone else here, would use force to impose themselves on others.
The reason I jump there, however, is because we live in a society where a lot of people in and out of the government, for example, want to ban a group of people from being able to marry eachother because doing so would be a sin.
That's why I don't think other sins being banned by force is that far a distance to jump. I know no one here has suggested it as an action, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conflating the two doesn't engender discussion - it muddies. It also definitely looks like you're saying that one equals the other. Treating them as if they were the same thing is both quite unfair to those who hold only one and also obfuscates any discussion. It's another discussion entirely.
It isn't true. They are not the same thing.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Conflating the two doesn't engender discussion - it muddies. It also definitely looks like you're saying that one equals the other. Treating them as if they were the same thing is both quite unfair to those who hold only one and also obfuscates any discussion. It's another discussion entirely.
It isn't true. They are not the same thing.
I'm more than happy to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong.
Would you care to explain how they aren't the same thing?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
If you believe you have the cure for an infectious disease, would it be wrong to require everyone in the country to submit to the cure? What if even one or two people who didn't submit could conceivably reinfect a future generation?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, are you honestly confused about the difference between believing something a sin and FORCING everyone else to follow that? It's the difference between being a vegetarian for moral reasons and criminalizing eating meat. The difference between getting your teeth cleaned at the dentist and locking up everyone who doesn't.
It's a gigantic leap. I can hardly believe you don't see that.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Javert, are you honestly confused about the difference between believing something a sin and FORCING everyone else to follow that? It's the difference between being a vegetarian for moral reasons and criminalizing eating meat. The difference between getting your teeth cleaned at the dentist and locking up everyone who doesn't.
It's a gigantic leap. I can hardly believe you don't see that.
Not what I thought you meant.
Yes, OF COURSE there's a leap between believing something is a sin and forcing others to follow that.
My point is only that I don't think it's as big a leap as you think. (Thus my SSM example.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Here's a question:
If you believe you have the cure for an infectious disease, would it be wrong to require everyone in the country to submit to the cure? What if even one or two people who didn't submit could conceivably reinfect a future generation?
For me, it would depend on the consequences of the disease. Are we talking chickenpox, or smallpox?
If it's smallpox, then I don't think it's wrong to force everyone to get vaccinated. We keep people from doing things that they want to do, if those things are harmful to the good of those around them. Seems like the precedent's there.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disease is a demonstrable harm. Sex between consenting adults is not.
And believing something is a sin is a big leap to forcing other people to conform to that belief. It is, however, a leap that humanity tends to make. And has made. Countless times. Mttthew 7 is a warning to be taken seriously. For myself, I am better off avoiding judging entirely. Trying to do it "righteously" gives me too much leeway.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Disease is a demonstrable harm. Sex between consenting adults is not.
Sex completely unchecked by any cultural standards can have a lot of negative consequences. Sex isn't an unmitigated good. It potentially has a lot of awesome consequences, and a lot of painful or harmful ones. How we pursue sex, and the choices we make surrounding it, determine to a great extent what set of consequences we reap.
One of the best things we can do for our children as they become sexually mature is to channel them into sexual behavior that will have all of the best benefits and none of the downsides. One of the worries that Mormons like me have is that the mainstream culture glorifies a lot of behaviors that do the opposite, and it can be politically impossible to try and rein those excesses in without being labeled judgmental.
For the record, by the way, not all Mormons have doctrinal problems with teenagers living 7,000 years ago.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: One of the best things we can do for our children as they become sexually mature is to channel them into sexual behavior that will have all of the best benefits and none of the downsides.
posted
I agree. I think that "none of the downsides" is optimistic, though, even for sex within marriage. There can be plenty of downsides to that, too.
I am a,, for responsible behavior. I just don't agree (as we have previously noted) that marriage is the only way to accomplish that.
I think that mainstream culture has a lot wrong with it. I think some of that is a reaction to being "reined in". Teaching responsibility rather than enforcing rules strikes me as a better way to address the excesses.
And what you consider excessive is not universally acknowledged.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with "reining in" those desires by telling people "God said it's wrong, check the Bible" is that you end up with a bunch of people wanting to convert traditional groups who aren't hurting themselves or anybody else away from their old ways, for no good reason.
Making people very aware of the dangers of STDs and pregnancy, as well as the emotional costs of casual sex, has no more negative consequence than "God said it, so do it, punk"(IMHO), and doesn't cause people to try to convert rural tribes to Bible-based sexual beliefs.
Again, IMHO.
Seriously though, you don't tell your kids that getting vaccinations is commanded by God, right? You do it because you hope to avoid epidemics, or to keep your child from catching a disease.
The same thing applies to casual sex, with pregnancy and emotional trauma as added issues.
I don't see the point of discarding parts of the New Testament like "women should keep their heads covered" but keeping the sexual mores. You're picking and choosing. If there's picking and choosing going on, then I think my own judgment is good enough to let me do most of my own, for myself. Why is your picking and choosing better than mine? Give me an answer that is directly based in demonstrable harm.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously though, you don't tell your kids that getting vaccinations is commanded by God, right? You do it because you hope to avoid epidemics, or to keep your child from catching a disease.
I actually WILL say something along the lines of, "Getting vaccinations is important as it safeguards you against types of sickness. God also wants us to do all that is reasonably in our power to protect ourselves and others."
quote: I don't see the point of discarding parts of the New Testament like "women should keep their heads covered" but keeping the sexual mores. You're picking and choosing. If there's picking and choosing going on, then I think my own judgment is good enough to let me do most of my own, for myself. Why is your picking and choosing better than mine? Give me an answer that is directly based in demonstrable harm.
Oh look, another question about judgement. This IMO has nothing to do with cherry picking your Bible. There may not be a universal rule of modesty as far as God is concerned, but he does expect us to look at the culture and times we live in and make decisions that are not categorically righteous, but very situationally correct.
It is up to the individual to read the Bible with discernment and learn God's mind concerning matters of modesty today and how they compare with other times.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"t is up to the individual to read the Bible with discernment and learn God's mind concerning matters of modesty today and how they compare with other times."
Missionaries all over the world have basically forced Western-style clothing on traditional tribes, for no good reason that I can see. Are you telling me that LDS missionaries have never or would never have done this?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Missionaries all over the world have basically forced Western-style clothing on traditional tribes, for no good reason that I can see. Are you telling me that LDS missionaries have never or would never have done this?
I can hardly speak for every missionary, I personally was not told, "Get them in suits and dresses."
Member in Taiwan were encouraged to wear the best clothes they had to church. If somebody could only afford a t-shirt and shorts, that's what they came in. It was common for members to pool money however and purchase a new set of clothes for converts if they were from modest means.
More importantly however if they had chosen to wear traditional chinese clothing to church, no eye brows would have been raised. Sister missionaries as a matter of fact often purchased Chinese Qi Paos and wore them while proselyting or attending church.
Tongan Mormons can often be seen wearing tupenu, whereas a Malaysian Mormon could easily wear a sarong to church.
Certainly a convert from a third world country might opt to wear a suit and tie to church after converting as that might be part of them, "Becoming a new person." I certainly see no problem with people dressing up if the climate allows it.
Mormons however do try to stress the idea that all members of the church are a family, and steps taken to help folks recognize that we celebrate that unity of faith and togetherness are encouraged. The center of the church however is recognized as Salt Lake City Utah. Therefore when people visit from other countries to attend say general conference, they are encouraged to dress in the clothing that we in the US consider smart, professional and modest.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually WILL say something along the lines of, "Getting vaccinations is important as it safeguards you against types of sickness. God also wants us to do all that is reasonably in our power to protect ourselves and others."
Why add the last part about God? Why would you need God to tell you to do all that is reasonably within your power to protect yourself and others? I would like to think people would come to that conclusion on their own without the need for some all powerful being to tell them to do so.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think we've had this exact conversation before.
No, they're not sinning, as far as I know. You can't sin without knowledge of what God wants.
Another one of my sticking points about Christianity. If someone has had no information about God, they cannot reject God's teaching, so they cannot sin.
By introducing the knowledge to someone - someone who they KNOW, without a doubt, is flawed and will be unable to live a perfect life - missionaries are willfully bringing sin and the threat of damnation into people's lives.
These people were living a life free of care, able to do as they pleased without the consequences of sin (although, certainly most of them lived good, moral lives regardless) and suddenly they are given a box of vipers - with the best intentions I'm sure. Somewhere in the box is the anti-venom, but why give them the vipers in the first place?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually WILL say something along the lines of, "Getting vaccinations is important as it safeguards you against types of sickness. God also wants us to do all that is reasonably in our power to protect ourselves and others."
Why add the last part about God? Why would you need God to tell you to do all that is reasonably within your power to protect yourself and others? I would like to think people would come to that conclusion on their own without the need for some all powerful being to tell them to do so.
Because that is how I think things ACTUALLY are? People think its wrong to justify a course of action purely on, "Because God says so," so how is it any more wrong for me a believer in God to act like he has nothing to do with anything?
Sure there are plenty of things that human beings come up with on their own, (I do believe that human beings are given a very basic moral framework by God) but there are plenty of bad things that human beings try to pass as acceptable.
The fact we cannot agree on something as fundamental as judgment demonstrates to me that even less can be agreed on when it comes to actually deciding what is right and wrong.
I don't have qualms with allowing God to assist me with his infinite wisdom.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mighty Cow: I know this was not directed at me, apologies for the intrusion
quote: By introducing the knowledge to someone - someone who they KNOW, without a doubt, is flawed and will be unable to live a perfect life - missionaries are willfully bringing sin and the threat of damnation into people's lives.
These people were living a life free of care, able to do as they pleased without the consequences of sin (although, certainly most of them lived good, moral lives regardless) and suddenly they are given a box of vipers - with the best intentions I'm sure. Somewhere in the box is the anti-venom, but why give them the vipers in the first place?
Just because somebody does not know God does not mean they can do no wrong. It simply means the expectations they are given to live up to are lower. A person who knows no God, as has been argued MANY times on this forum, can make many reasonable and correct observations about morality. If people are all dishonest, society does not work. Work is required for things to run. Stealing what is not mine can cause harm to others. They can still be judged by God based on what they BELIEVED, even if those beliefs do not coincide completely with God's de facto system of morality.
If I TRULY believe that children need to learn the value of hard work, and I fail to teach them that because I am idle and lazy as a father God can certainly condemn me for that.
The gospel is not an obstacle course we are required to negotiate and then God judges us based on which stage we slipped up on. It's a set of tools that are meant to empower us to be able to negotiate life, which IS in fact an obstacle course.
Is it much harder to be an adult then a child? Sure is! Do many adults wish they could be children again? Sure are! I personally enjoy the empowerment that comes with being an adult, and I think life is qualitatively better as an adult compared to when I was a child.
The gospel to me makes people adults. edit: Figuretively.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think many adults who aren't Christian and have never heard the gospel might disagree.
I am not sure what you are saying. It seems like you skipped the whole post and then simply commented on the very last thing I said.
edit: Also if they have never heard of Christianity how can their opinions of the effects of Christianity even be valid?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
