The comment was made:
"This topic related to Mormonism in regards to polygamy, our traditional marriage and morality views, and to a lesser extent to the the topic that cannont be mentioned here.
Newsweek has a story about polyamory -- multiple, mutually-consenting adult partners. Newsweek declares it to be the new sexual revolution.
Only You. And You. And You.
A few interesting quotes:
Quote
Terisa and Matt and Vera and Larry—along with Scott, who's also at this dinner—are not swingers, per se; they aren't pursuing casual sex. Nor are they polygamists of the sort portrayed on HBO's Big Love; they aren't religious, and they don't have multiple wives. But they do believe in "ethical nonmonogamy," or engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person—based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved. They are polyamorous, to use the term of art applied to multiple-partner families like theirs, and they wouldn't want to live any other way.
Quote
But they are beginning to show up on the radar screen of the religious right, some of whose leaders have publicly condemned polyamory as one of a host of deviant behaviors sure to become normalized if gay marriage wins federal sanction.
Quote
Conservatives are not alone in watching warily. Gay-marriage advocates have become leery of public association with the poly cause—lest it give their enemies ammunition. As Andrew Sullivan, the Atlantic columnist, wrote recently, "I believe that someone's sexual orientation is a deeper issue than the number of people they want to express that orientation with." In other words, polyamory is a choice; homosexuality is not.
One more milemarker on the road away from God-sanctioned traditional marriage.
Can you imagine the media coverage when the LDS Church comes out against legalized polyamorous marriages?"
To which one person responded:
"No one's arguing they can't choose. But they also need to be warned of their choices.
As long as we have had the power to choose, God has still commanded obedience to his standards. In the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve had their agency, God still gave them commandments. Agency still needs to be exercised in the manner God asks, or we one day face the consequences."
To which I responded:
I believe that, in general (with a few exceptions), God's commandments do not impose any greater restrictions on human beings than what objective morality dictates (taking at face value the book of Genesis, one example of such a restriction beyond what objective morality dictates would be God's commandment not to partake of the fruit of a particular tree). Because I believe that it is not inherently morally wrong for sane, mentally-normal adults to engage in consensual polygamy (including polyandry and polygyny), I also do not believe that God places a blanket prohibition on the practice. That being said, even consenting adults wishing to engage in polygamy have, in my view, a moral duty to attempt to minimize any potential negative impacts there may be on innocent parties, including children (for that matter, the same goes for monogamous adults as well). For example, you should choose a spouse who not only is likely to please you, but one who will be effective in raising children with love, nurturing, etc. We do not have a moral blank check to marry someone who will, for example, abuse or endanger our children.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Supposed Advice By Non-LDS To Not Pray About The Book Of Mormon
The comment was made:
"A friend tells me that he was out West once and saw a billboard that read¦
Don't Pray About the Book of Mormon¦ That's how they get you!
Has anyone else ever seen anything like this? Why would any "Christian" group tell someone not to pray? The scriptures tell us to pray always. How does one seek guidance from God if they do not pray? Unlike, what others may say, the Bible (nor any other book) does not have everything one needs to know. We live in a rapidly changing world; now more that ever we need the direction of the Holy Spirit!
The scriptures do not tell us who to marry¦ where to live¦ what job to take, etc. We cannot even know that Jesus is the Christ without the conformation of the Holy Spirit.
This may sound awful, but when I got out of the military I did not even pray to ask if it was the right decision because I did not want to receive an answer contrary to my desires. I knew that if God wanted me to remain, I would have. I wanted out so I got out. I loved the military but I wanted my children to have roots in one place. So when I hear someone say; don't pray, I consider them to be somewhat anti-Christ.
I believe that when Spirit speaks to spirit it is unmistakable."
To which I responded:
1. I am naturally skeptical of the account of the bilboard, but for now, I'll take it at face value.
2. Yes, we should pray, while at the same time recognizing that perceived spiritual experience is not a 100% reliable method of ascertaining the truth. One criterium people often use to gauge the authenticity of their spiritual experience, ironic as it seems, is how much the prompting or perceived revelation/answer to prayer differs from the answer that they would normally desire or expect. The logic behind this methodology seems to be that a spiritual experience which goes against our own desires or expectations is more likely to be authentic because we probably did not simply invent it through our own willpower and thought process. This in turn leads to a rather strange irony: those spiritual experiences which diverge more from our secular reasoning can have a tendancy to be more likely to be accepted as authentic true revelations. Consequently, people wind up accepting doctrines which tend to be rather far-fetched from an objective and logical standpoint. This is not to say that all spiritual experience is totally worthless, but rather that we have to (hard as it is to do) do our best to interpret and filter our spiritual experiences in a way which harmonizes with our logic, reason, and life experience. Even my suggested methodology is not foolproof, but we have to simply accept from the outset that we will occasionally draw erroneous conclusions no matter how hard we try not to. It is the quest to have all of the answers in black and white now which is often to blame for the perpetuation of false doctrines which people are afraid to abandon for fear of having anything less than perfect certainty.
3. Perhaps the people who are afraid about people obtaining convictions about the BoM through prayer are concerned that people can be led away by inauthentic, but perceived-to-be-true revelations. Viewed in this way, the "billboard" is perhaps not an admission of the truth of the BoM as a TBM might like to think at first glance, but rather it may be simply a recognition that there are false spiritual witnesses, and that people should be careful not to be led astray on a whim.
4. I personally believe that no one should be discouraged from praying, including praying about the BoM. But I also think it is proper to not give people the impression that even sincere prayer is a foolproof method of learning truth.
"A friend tells me that he was out West once and saw a billboard that read¦
Don't Pray About the Book of Mormon¦ That's how they get you!
Has anyone else ever seen anything like this? Why would any "Christian" group tell someone not to pray? The scriptures tell us to pray always. How does one seek guidance from God if they do not pray? Unlike, what others may say, the Bible (nor any other book) does not have everything one needs to know. We live in a rapidly changing world; now more that ever we need the direction of the Holy Spirit!
The scriptures do not tell us who to marry¦ where to live¦ what job to take, etc. We cannot even know that Jesus is the Christ without the conformation of the Holy Spirit.
This may sound awful, but when I got out of the military I did not even pray to ask if it was the right decision because I did not want to receive an answer contrary to my desires. I knew that if God wanted me to remain, I would have. I wanted out so I got out. I loved the military but I wanted my children to have roots in one place. So when I hear someone say; don't pray, I consider them to be somewhat anti-Christ.
I believe that when Spirit speaks to spirit it is unmistakable."
To which I responded:
1. I am naturally skeptical of the account of the bilboard, but for now, I'll take it at face value.
2. Yes, we should pray, while at the same time recognizing that perceived spiritual experience is not a 100% reliable method of ascertaining the truth. One criterium people often use to gauge the authenticity of their spiritual experience, ironic as it seems, is how much the prompting or perceived revelation/answer to prayer differs from the answer that they would normally desire or expect. The logic behind this methodology seems to be that a spiritual experience which goes against our own desires or expectations is more likely to be authentic because we probably did not simply invent it through our own willpower and thought process. This in turn leads to a rather strange irony: those spiritual experiences which diverge more from our secular reasoning can have a tendancy to be more likely to be accepted as authentic true revelations. Consequently, people wind up accepting doctrines which tend to be rather far-fetched from an objective and logical standpoint. This is not to say that all spiritual experience is totally worthless, but rather that we have to (hard as it is to do) do our best to interpret and filter our spiritual experiences in a way which harmonizes with our logic, reason, and life experience. Even my suggested methodology is not foolproof, but we have to simply accept from the outset that we will occasionally draw erroneous conclusions no matter how hard we try not to. It is the quest to have all of the answers in black and white now which is often to blame for the perpetuation of false doctrines which people are afraid to abandon for fear of having anything less than perfect certainty.
3. Perhaps the people who are afraid about people obtaining convictions about the BoM through prayer are concerned that people can be led away by inauthentic, but perceived-to-be-true revelations. Viewed in this way, the "billboard" is perhaps not an admission of the truth of the BoM as a TBM might like to think at first glance, but rather it may be simply a recognition that there are false spiritual witnesses, and that people should be careful not to be led astray on a whim.
4. I personally believe that no one should be discouraged from praying, including praying about the BoM. But I also think it is proper to not give people the impression that even sincere prayer is a foolproof method of learning truth.
Caffeinated Soft Drinks
A poll asked the following question:
What is your status and do you drink them?
I am active LDS and never drink caffeinated soft drinks. (23 votes [16.43%])
Percentage of vote: 16.43%
I am active LDS and sometimes drink caffeinated soft drinks. (47 votes [33.57%])
Percentage of vote: 33.57%
I am active LDS and regularly drink caffeinated soft drinks. (47 votes [33.57%])
Percentage of vote: 33.57%
I am not active LDS and never drink caffeinated soft drinks. (5 votes [3.57%])
Percentage of vote: 3.57%
I am not active LDS and sometimes drink caffeinated soft drinks. (6 votes [4.29%])
Percentage of vote: 4.29%
I am not active LDS and regularly drink caffeinated soft drinks. (12 votes [8.57%])
To which I responded:
I selected the first option. The only time I have knowingly eaten/drunk caffeine is chocolate/hot chocolate, or if something happens to be flavored with coffee (like coffee-flavored ice cream), which I'm not even sure has caffeine. In any event, I try to stay away from it as much as possible except in very small quantities where the benefits of the thing you are consuming (i.e., chocolate) outweigh the detriment of the caffeine. I feel like God did not generally create us with natural cravings for drugs that get us high, and they are harmful to us anyway, so it is not worth it to me.
What is your status and do you drink them?
I am active LDS and never drink caffeinated soft drinks. (23 votes [16.43%])
Percentage of vote: 16.43%
I am active LDS and sometimes drink caffeinated soft drinks. (47 votes [33.57%])
Percentage of vote: 33.57%
I am active LDS and regularly drink caffeinated soft drinks. (47 votes [33.57%])
Percentage of vote: 33.57%
I am not active LDS and never drink caffeinated soft drinks. (5 votes [3.57%])
Percentage of vote: 3.57%
I am not active LDS and sometimes drink caffeinated soft drinks. (6 votes [4.29%])
Percentage of vote: 4.29%
I am not active LDS and regularly drink caffeinated soft drinks. (12 votes [8.57%])
To which I responded:
I selected the first option. The only time I have knowingly eaten/drunk caffeine is chocolate/hot chocolate, or if something happens to be flavored with coffee (like coffee-flavored ice cream), which I'm not even sure has caffeine. In any event, I try to stay away from it as much as possible except in very small quantities where the benefits of the thing you are consuming (i.e., chocolate) outweigh the detriment of the caffeine. I feel like God did not generally create us with natural cravings for drugs that get us high, and they are harmful to us anyway, so it is not worth it to me.
On Members "Presuming To Correct The Lord's Annointed"
The comment was made:
"There is a new petition site for those who want to pressure the LDS Church on changing its position on (can't say it on this message board)...
Now, this is not a thread about (can't say it on this message board) it is a discussion about the concept of members advocating and telling the Church what it should do. The website is replete with quotes from (disaffected, angry LDS female poet) and (can't say it on this message board) suicide statistics from the state of Utah, and (can't say it on this message board) love stories.
Visit: LDSApology.org"
To which one person commented:
"Does anyone make arguments about the Church driving people to suicide for any of their other teachings? Are there people driven to suicide because they can't stop smoking and the Church teaches it's wrong, for instance? How about suicidal sabbath breakers?"
To which I responded:
Yes. People have made arguments about the Church's prohibition on masturbation as contributing to suicidal tendencies, and as far as I'm aware, there was even a major lawsuit about it a decade or two ago. In the case of smoking and sabbath breaking, those prohibitions are much less likely to contribute to suicides, for two main reasons: (1) the level of emphasis is much lower; and (2) the behavior is not as innate to the human condition. I can't remember the last time anyone stood up in church and gave a detailed fire-and-brimstone sermon about the evils of smoking. But I can certainly say there have been numerous talks (and private chats) on issues dealing with sexuality. A person's sexuality in most cases is part of the core of that person's being. Attacks on their sexuality can cause emotional trauma in ways that other criticisms could not. Just as I would expect a rape victim to have a much greater likelihood of lasting emotional trauma than the victim of a mere physical beating, so, too, I would expect people to be much more affected by attacks on their sexuality than by attacks against non-sexual vices they may have. If you truly reflect on the matter, you might realize how rare it is for any member of the church to publicly admit to sexual sin; yet it is quite common for members to jokingly admit to other behaviors as long as they have nothing to do with sex. I think there is a reason for that: the shame factor is much stronger when it comes to sex. One could expect little else in a Mormon culture which ranks sexual sin just below murder in the heirarchy of vices.
Do you know of any instances where a member was excommunicated for smoking? How about breaking the Sabbath? I don't know of any.
"There is a new petition site for those who want to pressure the LDS Church on changing its position on (can't say it on this message board)...
Now, this is not a thread about (can't say it on this message board) it is a discussion about the concept of members advocating and telling the Church what it should do. The website is replete with quotes from (disaffected, angry LDS female poet) and (can't say it on this message board) suicide statistics from the state of Utah, and (can't say it on this message board) love stories.
Visit: LDSApology.org"
To which one person commented:
"Does anyone make arguments about the Church driving people to suicide for any of their other teachings? Are there people driven to suicide because they can't stop smoking and the Church teaches it's wrong, for instance? How about suicidal sabbath breakers?"
To which I responded:
Yes. People have made arguments about the Church's prohibition on masturbation as contributing to suicidal tendencies, and as far as I'm aware, there was even a major lawsuit about it a decade or two ago. In the case of smoking and sabbath breaking, those prohibitions are much less likely to contribute to suicides, for two main reasons: (1) the level of emphasis is much lower; and (2) the behavior is not as innate to the human condition. I can't remember the last time anyone stood up in church and gave a detailed fire-and-brimstone sermon about the evils of smoking. But I can certainly say there have been numerous talks (and private chats) on issues dealing with sexuality. A person's sexuality in most cases is part of the core of that person's being. Attacks on their sexuality can cause emotional trauma in ways that other criticisms could not. Just as I would expect a rape victim to have a much greater likelihood of lasting emotional trauma than the victim of a mere physical beating, so, too, I would expect people to be much more affected by attacks on their sexuality than by attacks against non-sexual vices they may have. If you truly reflect on the matter, you might realize how rare it is for any member of the church to publicly admit to sexual sin; yet it is quite common for members to jokingly admit to other behaviors as long as they have nothing to do with sex. I think there is a reason for that: the shame factor is much stronger when it comes to sex. One could expect little else in a Mormon culture which ranks sexual sin just below murder in the heirarchy of vices.
Do you know of any instances where a member was excommunicated for smoking? How about breaking the Sabbath? I don't know of any.
Does The Church Cave Into Pressure From Man?
A poll asked the following questions:
Did the Church cave to pressure when it outlawed polygamy?
DId the Church cave to pressure when it allowed all men to have the Priesthood?
Are there Scriptures that support the banning of some races from the Priesthood?
And the author of the poll posed the question:
"Over the past week both sides of the Homosexual argument have talked about weather the church caves to pressure from the world. I personally don't believe that the church does. However, those for the SSA crowd site that the church caved to pressure on Bigamy and on giving all races the Priesthood.
I don't know if we are ever going to win the argument that the Church didn't cave to pressure on Polygamy. In my opinion that is the strongest argument that the church did cave in order for Utah to get statehood. That one I think you have to take on faith.
I'll admit I'm a young person, and was only 5 when all races were given the Priesthood. So I having grown up in an era where it was the norm, I've never looked for evidence to support the idea that some races should not be blessed with it. I am wondering for my own edification how this was justified.
Is there equal amounts of biblical evidence for the restriction on the Priesthood, as there is against Homosexuality?
It is my opinion that a revelation from God revoking his condemnation of Homosexuality would be a major conflict with the scripture, and therefore will never happen. However, if there is sufficient biblical evidence to support not giving all races the Priesthood, I am in a bit of a quandary."
To which I responded:
Although the poll is certainly not worded perfectly, I selected "Yes," "Yes," and "Yes." But let me explain. There is overt caving in, and there is indirect caving in. Overt caving in would be something like the prophet saying to himself, "Boy, there sure are a lot of opponents of polygamy, and the opposition is threatening the well-being of the church. Therefore, whatever else I personally believe on the matter, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the church to ban polygamy to eliminate the opposition." But there is a much more subtle way of how the same result may be reached. The controversy about the issue could have prompted the prophet to do something he might not otherwise have done: seriously contemplate the subject, study it out, and sincerely ask God for an answer, casting out as much as possible the prejudices which the prophet may have previously held. And the prophet in considering everything might be more receptive to a true answer from God than he was in the absence of the controversy.
In the examples of both polygamy and priesthood ban, it was more likely this second variety of "caving in." From what I can tell, Spencer Kimball was very afraid that lifting the ban would be perceived as bowing down to the will of man, and he wanted to satisfy himself that the revelation to lift the ban was a genuine revelation from God.
There is a very notable common thread between the manifesto and Kimball's official declaration: both of them are worded in such a way as to imply that the former practice was God-inspired, and that God calculated the revelations to come at a specific point in time which was only coincidentally related to the associated controversy which formed the context of the "revelation." In my opinion, it is very misleading to imply that the context had nothing to do with it. I think it strains plausibility to assume that Woodruff or Kimball would have preached the same revelations if there had been no controversy on the two subjects. That is not to say that either Woodruff or Kimball lacked sincerity of belief that the revelations were genuine and from God; it is only to point out that the absence of public controversy can foster an environment in which critical though and fair consideration of issues languish.
One final thought: although I give Woodruff and Kimball the benefit of the doubt concerning their sincerity, I am disheartened that so many conservative LDS seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me when it comes to the conclusions I have reached concerning various LDS doctrines/policies/practices, accusing me instead of picking and choosing among doctrines depending upon my own self interest. I feel that the changes in my views are very similar to the circumstances which faced Woodruff and Kimball- it's not that I simply changed my views because it suited my own purpose; it's that the discord in my own life created by the doctrines prompted me to study, ponder, and pray, and consider the possibility that the assumptions I had previously embraced might be wrong. And I believe I have reached my conclusions in good faith with every bit of sincerity that Woodruff and Kimball had.
Did the Church cave to pressure when it outlawed polygamy?
DId the Church cave to pressure when it allowed all men to have the Priesthood?
Are there Scriptures that support the banning of some races from the Priesthood?
And the author of the poll posed the question:
"Over the past week both sides of the Homosexual argument have talked about weather the church caves to pressure from the world. I personally don't believe that the church does. However, those for the SSA crowd site that the church caved to pressure on Bigamy and on giving all races the Priesthood.
I don't know if we are ever going to win the argument that the Church didn't cave to pressure on Polygamy. In my opinion that is the strongest argument that the church did cave in order for Utah to get statehood. That one I think you have to take on faith.
I'll admit I'm a young person, and was only 5 when all races were given the Priesthood. So I having grown up in an era where it was the norm, I've never looked for evidence to support the idea that some races should not be blessed with it. I am wondering for my own edification how this was justified.
Is there equal amounts of biblical evidence for the restriction on the Priesthood, as there is against Homosexuality?
It is my opinion that a revelation from God revoking his condemnation of Homosexuality would be a major conflict with the scripture, and therefore will never happen. However, if there is sufficient biblical evidence to support not giving all races the Priesthood, I am in a bit of a quandary."
To which I responded:
Although the poll is certainly not worded perfectly, I selected "Yes," "Yes," and "Yes." But let me explain. There is overt caving in, and there is indirect caving in. Overt caving in would be something like the prophet saying to himself, "Boy, there sure are a lot of opponents of polygamy, and the opposition is threatening the well-being of the church. Therefore, whatever else I personally believe on the matter, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the church to ban polygamy to eliminate the opposition." But there is a much more subtle way of how the same result may be reached. The controversy about the issue could have prompted the prophet to do something he might not otherwise have done: seriously contemplate the subject, study it out, and sincerely ask God for an answer, casting out as much as possible the prejudices which the prophet may have previously held. And the prophet in considering everything might be more receptive to a true answer from God than he was in the absence of the controversy.
In the examples of both polygamy and priesthood ban, it was more likely this second variety of "caving in." From what I can tell, Spencer Kimball was very afraid that lifting the ban would be perceived as bowing down to the will of man, and he wanted to satisfy himself that the revelation to lift the ban was a genuine revelation from God.
There is a very notable common thread between the manifesto and Kimball's official declaration: both of them are worded in such a way as to imply that the former practice was God-inspired, and that God calculated the revelations to come at a specific point in time which was only coincidentally related to the associated controversy which formed the context of the "revelation." In my opinion, it is very misleading to imply that the context had nothing to do with it. I think it strains plausibility to assume that Woodruff or Kimball would have preached the same revelations if there had been no controversy on the two subjects. That is not to say that either Woodruff or Kimball lacked sincerity of belief that the revelations were genuine and from God; it is only to point out that the absence of public controversy can foster an environment in which critical though and fair consideration of issues languish.
One final thought: although I give Woodruff and Kimball the benefit of the doubt concerning their sincerity, I am disheartened that so many conservative LDS seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy to me when it comes to the conclusions I have reached concerning various LDS doctrines/policies/practices, accusing me instead of picking and choosing among doctrines depending upon my own self interest. I feel that the changes in my views are very similar to the circumstances which faced Woodruff and Kimball- it's not that I simply changed my views because it suited my own purpose; it's that the discord in my own life created by the doctrines prompted me to study, ponder, and pray, and consider the possibility that the assumptions I had previously embraced might be wrong. And I believe I have reached my conclusions in good faith with every bit of sincerity that Woodruff and Kimball had.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Irrational Fears About Accepting Homosexual Behavior
The comment was made:
"[One could accept homosexual behavior as normal and biologically caused] as long as the Homosexual committed accepts the argument for a biological causation for the following acts:
1) Incestual love and relationships. Love and attraction are after all a Biological and natural part of life. One can't help but fall in love with someone they find attractive and are a "companion".
2) Pedophile should no longer be called a disease because there is evidence that those who suffer pedophilia can't help themselves be attracted to their objects of affections.
3) Prostitution should be legalized. Why should we stigmatize Prostitutes???
4) People who steal food from a grocery store because they have no other means to acquire food should not be prosecuted - therefore in the case of stealing food, it is a biological necessity that a person must eat - or starve to death. Those who claim that a person steals food so that they could provide food for themselves and their family ought to be prosecuted are dehumanizing, and stigmatizing the poor.
When I mentioned these to some of the more aggressive and militant same-sex proponents, they laugh and mock saying that such things are not proof. When I provided the empirical evidence, they call me a homophobe. To which, I in turn describe them and their actions very heterophobic."
To which I responded:
Your apparent slippery-slope argument for why it would be dangerous for us to be accepting of homosexual behavior, in my opinion, uses some very false analogies which should be addressed. In my own opinion, we must strongly distinguish between behavior which in and of itself harmful or violative of others' rights, and behavior which is generally innocuous but simply deviant by religiously-based moral standards. Allow me to address your particular examples:
1) "Incestual love and relationships." Generally, these relationships involve a minor who is incapable of giving meaningful informed consent to a sexual encounter. To the extent that this is the case, then the "relationship" can fairly be viewed as coercive and invasive of the minor's rights and human dignity. As for the (I believe very rare) situations of incest between consenting and sane adults, there seem to be at least some rational secular bases for prohibiting such conduct, such as the increased likelihood of retardation and birth defects in offspring. I personally find any incestual relationship disgusting, but my own personal disgust is not a legitimate reason for its condemnation. Though I am no expert, I would venture to speculate that those consenting adults who knowingly engage in incestual relationships almost certainly have severe mental illnesses which would be diagnosable by any reasonably educated psychologist. I would also venture to speculate, though I am no expert, that such adults would generally be treatable and that their natural sexual attractions would be easily transferable to non-family members. If I am wrong, please cite some data or statistics if you can.
2) Pedophiles don't even belong in any anology of homosexuals at large. Pedophilia has VICTIMS, and is a non-consensual situation which bears no relationship to consensual adult homosexual relationships.
3) While I believe that adult prostitution should be legal and closely regulated to guard against coercion and abuse, prostitution is also not analogous to standard consenting-adult homosexual relationships. But before I explain that, let me make some comments on prostitution. Although I have no personal experience with it, my exposure to the subject matter leads me to believe that there are at least some women who are willing to do it in the absence of coercion. Historic condemnation of prostitution seems to be based, directly or indirectly, on several main factors, including the following: (1) the association of prostitutes with sexually transmitted diseases; (2) the oft-occuring coercion of prostitutes through violence, drug addiction, and oppression to force them to sell their bodies; (3) human and religiously based fears of erotic expression; (4) the association of prostitutes with poverty and the human legacy of treating poorer people with less respect than richer people; (5) the danger to society posed by violence and property crimes associated with circles in which prostitution takes place; (6) unwanted pregnancies and children born out of wedlock (which historically often received no inheritance or other rights from their fathers); (7) the perceived shame a wife would feel when her husband visited a prostitute because it implied that she was not performing her "womanly duties"; (8) more recently, concerns that prostitution destroys marital intimacy. Pragmatically speaking, even if one detests prostitution, one cannot realistically expect that it will disappear through mere illegality. In fact, as with many vices, making them illegal can actually cause more problems than it solves, and can drive the perpetrators and victims underground where they can scarcely avail themselves of the protection and support which society could otherwise offer. In the case of prostitution, I believe we are much better off keeping it legal so that we can best protect the people who are going to do it no matter what. As for the particular historic concerns I mentioned above, I believe legalization and close regulation can alleviate all of them but (3), (7), and (8), and as for those three concerns, we must leave it up to individuals to work out amongst themselves, but they are in any event an insufficient basis for making prostitution illegal. For my part, on a moral level, the only reason I can think of for a moral prohibition on consensual-adult, responsibly-practiced prostitution, is the loss of intimacy; I think that sexual intercourse crosses out of the acceptable realm of sexual fantasy into the dangerous realm of sexual promiscuity. I have never condoned, and do not condone, unbridled sexual passion. Now let's turn to the issue of homosexuality and its relationship with prostitution. I don't see any, except for the fact that there exists such a thing as a male prostitute who caters to a homosexual clientele. Since I don't believe non-coercive prostitution must be outlawed, I don't think it is a reasonable argument to say that accepting homosexual behavior will lead to the "undesirable result" of making prostitution legal.
4) Theft. I don't know about you, but if I am truly starving, and I have no money, and I cannot beg for food, I would rather steal than starve. And I could hardly imagine that God would condemn me for such an act, unless my situation was of my own making. If you are so cold that you would prosecute someone who had no option to survive other than to steal, then I fear for your soul. Now, that being said, in our modern and wealthy and generally just society in the U.S., I think it would be an extremely rare occurrence that a person would ever actually have to steal food to avoid starvation. We have welfare programs to give a safety net to people who fall on hard times or suffer from mental or physical disabilities which prevent them from fending for themselves. So I don't quite get how you make the quantum leap from (a) accepting homosexual behavior; to (b) mass societal chaos where anyone may steal with impunity and avoid prosecution. Your analogy is a very poor one because, whereas people generally are equipped with the means to fend for themselves and provide for their basic necessities through honest labor, gays don't have the option of just getting "therapy" or taking other measures to rid themselves of the extreme "hunger" for a same-sex partner.
One final note: in coming to accept consensual homosexual behavior, we need not conclude, as you imply, that a mere innate desire to do something (whether biologically caused or not) gives us the automatic moral right to do it. But from a moral standpoint, before we prohibit something, we must have a good reason. And that good reason will generally be one which is graspable by the general population and not one revealed to some select few religious zealots. There are many times when we feel a desire to do something and there are reasonable grounds for restraining ourselves. In the case of consensual homosexual adult behavior, responsibly practiced, the only reasons I have ever been given for its prohibition are religious ones which have no perceivable basis other than fear and bigotry. Perhaps if I were gay, I might have some more exposure to the subject and know of some legitimate secular reason for determining that homosexual behavior is unacceptable. But as a heterosexual, I can perceive none. Maybe you can help me out and tell me what "empirical evidence" you are referring to. Thanks.
"[One could accept homosexual behavior as normal and biologically caused] as long as the Homosexual committed accepts the argument for a biological causation for the following acts:
1) Incestual love and relationships. Love and attraction are after all a Biological and natural part of life. One can't help but fall in love with someone they find attractive and are a "companion".
2) Pedophile should no longer be called a disease because there is evidence that those who suffer pedophilia can't help themselves be attracted to their objects of affections.
3) Prostitution should be legalized. Why should we stigmatize Prostitutes???
4) People who steal food from a grocery store because they have no other means to acquire food should not be prosecuted - therefore in the case of stealing food, it is a biological necessity that a person must eat - or starve to death. Those who claim that a person steals food so that they could provide food for themselves and their family ought to be prosecuted are dehumanizing, and stigmatizing the poor.
When I mentioned these to some of the more aggressive and militant same-sex proponents, they laugh and mock saying that such things are not proof. When I provided the empirical evidence, they call me a homophobe. To which, I in turn describe them and their actions very heterophobic."
To which I responded:
Your apparent slippery-slope argument for why it would be dangerous for us to be accepting of homosexual behavior, in my opinion, uses some very false analogies which should be addressed. In my own opinion, we must strongly distinguish between behavior which in and of itself harmful or violative of others' rights, and behavior which is generally innocuous but simply deviant by religiously-based moral standards. Allow me to address your particular examples:
1) "Incestual love and relationships." Generally, these relationships involve a minor who is incapable of giving meaningful informed consent to a sexual encounter. To the extent that this is the case, then the "relationship" can fairly be viewed as coercive and invasive of the minor's rights and human dignity. As for the (I believe very rare) situations of incest between consenting and sane adults, there seem to be at least some rational secular bases for prohibiting such conduct, such as the increased likelihood of retardation and birth defects in offspring. I personally find any incestual relationship disgusting, but my own personal disgust is not a legitimate reason for its condemnation. Though I am no expert, I would venture to speculate that those consenting adults who knowingly engage in incestual relationships almost certainly have severe mental illnesses which would be diagnosable by any reasonably educated psychologist. I would also venture to speculate, though I am no expert, that such adults would generally be treatable and that their natural sexual attractions would be easily transferable to non-family members. If I am wrong, please cite some data or statistics if you can.
2) Pedophiles don't even belong in any anology of homosexuals at large. Pedophilia has VICTIMS, and is a non-consensual situation which bears no relationship to consensual adult homosexual relationships.
3) While I believe that adult prostitution should be legal and closely regulated to guard against coercion and abuse, prostitution is also not analogous to standard consenting-adult homosexual relationships. But before I explain that, let me make some comments on prostitution. Although I have no personal experience with it, my exposure to the subject matter leads me to believe that there are at least some women who are willing to do it in the absence of coercion. Historic condemnation of prostitution seems to be based, directly or indirectly, on several main factors, including the following: (1) the association of prostitutes with sexually transmitted diseases; (2) the oft-occuring coercion of prostitutes through violence, drug addiction, and oppression to force them to sell their bodies; (3) human and religiously based fears of erotic expression; (4) the association of prostitutes with poverty and the human legacy of treating poorer people with less respect than richer people; (5) the danger to society posed by violence and property crimes associated with circles in which prostitution takes place; (6) unwanted pregnancies and children born out of wedlock (which historically often received no inheritance or other rights from their fathers); (7) the perceived shame a wife would feel when her husband visited a prostitute because it implied that she was not performing her "womanly duties"; (8) more recently, concerns that prostitution destroys marital intimacy. Pragmatically speaking, even if one detests prostitution, one cannot realistically expect that it will disappear through mere illegality. In fact, as with many vices, making them illegal can actually cause more problems than it solves, and can drive the perpetrators and victims underground where they can scarcely avail themselves of the protection and support which society could otherwise offer. In the case of prostitution, I believe we are much better off keeping it legal so that we can best protect the people who are going to do it no matter what. As for the particular historic concerns I mentioned above, I believe legalization and close regulation can alleviate all of them but (3), (7), and (8), and as for those three concerns, we must leave it up to individuals to work out amongst themselves, but they are in any event an insufficient basis for making prostitution illegal. For my part, on a moral level, the only reason I can think of for a moral prohibition on consensual-adult, responsibly-practiced prostitution, is the loss of intimacy; I think that sexual intercourse crosses out of the acceptable realm of sexual fantasy into the dangerous realm of sexual promiscuity. I have never condoned, and do not condone, unbridled sexual passion. Now let's turn to the issue of homosexuality and its relationship with prostitution. I don't see any, except for the fact that there exists such a thing as a male prostitute who caters to a homosexual clientele. Since I don't believe non-coercive prostitution must be outlawed, I don't think it is a reasonable argument to say that accepting homosexual behavior will lead to the "undesirable result" of making prostitution legal.
4) Theft. I don't know about you, but if I am truly starving, and I have no money, and I cannot beg for food, I would rather steal than starve. And I could hardly imagine that God would condemn me for such an act, unless my situation was of my own making. If you are so cold that you would prosecute someone who had no option to survive other than to steal, then I fear for your soul. Now, that being said, in our modern and wealthy and generally just society in the U.S., I think it would be an extremely rare occurrence that a person would ever actually have to steal food to avoid starvation. We have welfare programs to give a safety net to people who fall on hard times or suffer from mental or physical disabilities which prevent them from fending for themselves. So I don't quite get how you make the quantum leap from (a) accepting homosexual behavior; to (b) mass societal chaos where anyone may steal with impunity and avoid prosecution. Your analogy is a very poor one because, whereas people generally are equipped with the means to fend for themselves and provide for their basic necessities through honest labor, gays don't have the option of just getting "therapy" or taking other measures to rid themselves of the extreme "hunger" for a same-sex partner.
One final note: in coming to accept consensual homosexual behavior, we need not conclude, as you imply, that a mere innate desire to do something (whether biologically caused or not) gives us the automatic moral right to do it. But from a moral standpoint, before we prohibit something, we must have a good reason. And that good reason will generally be one which is graspable by the general population and not one revealed to some select few religious zealots. There are many times when we feel a desire to do something and there are reasonable grounds for restraining ourselves. In the case of consensual homosexual adult behavior, responsibly practiced, the only reasons I have ever been given for its prohibition are religious ones which have no perceivable basis other than fear and bigotry. Perhaps if I were gay, I might have some more exposure to the subject and know of some legitimate secular reason for determining that homosexual behavior is unacceptable. But as a heterosexual, I can perceive none. Maybe you can help me out and tell me what "empirical evidence" you are referring to. Thanks.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
On Doubting The Sincerity Of Those Who Leave The LDS Faith
In response to survey results which found that atheists, agnostics, Jews, and Mormons scored highest on a religious knowledge survey, the comments were made:
"So, why do atheists take such a keen interest in religious knowledge?
LOL - just proves, you can leave the church, but you can't leave the church alone...
I mean, I don't believe in paganism, and therefore I don't read a whole lot about it, don't know much about their religious writings (except they believe in a female diety)... Why would anyone read about/study/know things about a subject that they claim they don't care about / don't believe in? .... o well."
To which one person replied:
"I know that it might go against the standard LDS response that those who leave the church do so because they just can't live up to the standards, but the truth is that many of us left the church after thoughtful study of the LDS church, specifically, and religion in general. If you had been born into paganism and taught throughout your youth that paganism was the only philospohy that held all the keys to truth and eternal bliss, then you might take more of an interest in studying and learning about paganism than you presently have done. Your study of paganism may even increase if you were to consider leaving that philosophy, despite the pleadings from your pagan parents, siblings, local pagan membership, etc. Many of us were heavily invested in the LDS church, and the decision to leave generally is not a light one, but done after much study of the facts, traditions, myths, stories, rituals and mysteries that surround the LDS faith.
If you were to leave the LDS church, would you do so without much study? Would that study be taken lightly given the consequences of the decision?"
To which the prior poster replied:
"I am a convert, am not following in the footsteps of my parents, and joined the church after meeting with / studying with many different religious groups from all over the world. Yes, many members grew up in the church, the premortal spirits are placed in families that they agree with, I needed the experience of life with and without the church, and that is what I got.
The difference for the LDS faith, is that the Spirit is real - members have spiritual experiences here, that is why I am a member, not through books/theological arguments - but because of a spiritual experience, and continued spiritual experiences....
I don't know that all members have had spiritual experiences, but for those who have, leaving is not about study - it's about going against what the Spirit testified to them is true because they disagree with God about something. There is a big difference between knowing something is true, and knowing where you fit into the big picture, ... difference between knowing God is real, and actually likeing/agreeing with God - knowing that He is loving... once someone has had a genuine spiritual experience, it's a whole new ballpark."
To which I responded:
There is, in my opinion, a great temptation for those who have perceived spiritual experiences to project that subjective experience on to others and assume that the only way others could come to a different conclusion is by sinning or lying to themselves. As your faith matures and you go through more of life, you will most likely realize at some point that your assumption is incorrect. In fact, were it possible to get all believers of all faiths to honestly communicate the spiritual experiences they have had, you would probably find stark irreconcilable conclusions about beliefs and doctrines, based upon equally strong sincerity and spiritual experiences/witnesses.
I think it is extremely rare that people knowingly "disagree with god." But people do reach conclusions that purportedly true revelations and doctrines are actually false and stem from the ignorance and prejudices of mankind (even church presidents). Most people who have been raised in the church have had it beaten into their heads from early on that any information or idea which tends to undermine church doctrine is suspect. They are, in effect, bred with an instinct to second-guess themselves if they find themselves starting to think that church teachings may not be true. For anyone who is sincere and intellectually honest in considering whether to leave the church, we can expect nothing less than that they would leave the church only after intense study and scrutiny of the church and its teachings, to satisfy themselves that they are not going astray by leaving. In fact, I think it is fair to say that those who merely "wish to sin" will generally go and do it; no study is necessary.
Aside from all of the above, you may want to take a step back and consider how offensive it is to insinuate, by using the oft-quoted phrase, "You can leave the church, but you can't leave it alone," that everyone who leaves is lying to themselves or is just looking for an excuse to sin, or has some personal vendetta against the church. If nothing else motivates you, perhaps you can at least appreciate that it would be much more difficult to persuade someone to return to church if you begin with the premise that they lack sincerity and intellectual honesty.
As for my own self, I have not chosen to leave the church, even though after much study, prayer, and contemplation, I have concluded that there are some very serious errors in current teachings. The main thing that keeps me holding on is the hope that some day, whether by the prophet's own initiative, or by the promptings of science, the discontented membership, and even the criticism of outsiders, the leadership will ask God the questions which heretofore have never been seriously asked, and will be open to the answers which for decades have been staring them in the face, with ever greater sternness and obviousness (as was the case in the history of discriminating against blacks).
"So, why do atheists take such a keen interest in religious knowledge?
LOL - just proves, you can leave the church, but you can't leave the church alone...
I mean, I don't believe in paganism, and therefore I don't read a whole lot about it, don't know much about their religious writings (except they believe in a female diety)... Why would anyone read about/study/know things about a subject that they claim they don't care about / don't believe in? .... o well."
To which one person replied:
"I know that it might go against the standard LDS response that those who leave the church do so because they just can't live up to the standards, but the truth is that many of us left the church after thoughtful study of the LDS church, specifically, and religion in general. If you had been born into paganism and taught throughout your youth that paganism was the only philospohy that held all the keys to truth and eternal bliss, then you might take more of an interest in studying and learning about paganism than you presently have done. Your study of paganism may even increase if you were to consider leaving that philosophy, despite the pleadings from your pagan parents, siblings, local pagan membership, etc. Many of us were heavily invested in the LDS church, and the decision to leave generally is not a light one, but done after much study of the facts, traditions, myths, stories, rituals and mysteries that surround the LDS faith.
If you were to leave the LDS church, would you do so without much study? Would that study be taken lightly given the consequences of the decision?"
To which the prior poster replied:
"I am a convert, am not following in the footsteps of my parents, and joined the church after meeting with / studying with many different religious groups from all over the world. Yes, many members grew up in the church, the premortal spirits are placed in families that they agree with, I needed the experience of life with and without the church, and that is what I got.
The difference for the LDS faith, is that the Spirit is real - members have spiritual experiences here, that is why I am a member, not through books/theological arguments - but because of a spiritual experience, and continued spiritual experiences....
I don't know that all members have had spiritual experiences, but for those who have, leaving is not about study - it's about going against what the Spirit testified to them is true because they disagree with God about something. There is a big difference between knowing something is true, and knowing where you fit into the big picture, ... difference between knowing God is real, and actually likeing/agreeing with God - knowing that He is loving... once someone has had a genuine spiritual experience, it's a whole new ballpark."
To which I responded:
There is, in my opinion, a great temptation for those who have perceived spiritual experiences to project that subjective experience on to others and assume that the only way others could come to a different conclusion is by sinning or lying to themselves. As your faith matures and you go through more of life, you will most likely realize at some point that your assumption is incorrect. In fact, were it possible to get all believers of all faiths to honestly communicate the spiritual experiences they have had, you would probably find stark irreconcilable conclusions about beliefs and doctrines, based upon equally strong sincerity and spiritual experiences/witnesses.
I think it is extremely rare that people knowingly "disagree with god." But people do reach conclusions that purportedly true revelations and doctrines are actually false and stem from the ignorance and prejudices of mankind (even church presidents). Most people who have been raised in the church have had it beaten into their heads from early on that any information or idea which tends to undermine church doctrine is suspect. They are, in effect, bred with an instinct to second-guess themselves if they find themselves starting to think that church teachings may not be true. For anyone who is sincere and intellectually honest in considering whether to leave the church, we can expect nothing less than that they would leave the church only after intense study and scrutiny of the church and its teachings, to satisfy themselves that they are not going astray by leaving. In fact, I think it is fair to say that those who merely "wish to sin" will generally go and do it; no study is necessary.
Aside from all of the above, you may want to take a step back and consider how offensive it is to insinuate, by using the oft-quoted phrase, "You can leave the church, but you can't leave it alone," that everyone who leaves is lying to themselves or is just looking for an excuse to sin, or has some personal vendetta against the church. If nothing else motivates you, perhaps you can at least appreciate that it would be much more difficult to persuade someone to return to church if you begin with the premise that they lack sincerity and intellectual honesty.
As for my own self, I have not chosen to leave the church, even though after much study, prayer, and contemplation, I have concluded that there are some very serious errors in current teachings. The main thing that keeps me holding on is the hope that some day, whether by the prophet's own initiative, or by the promptings of science, the discontented membership, and even the criticism of outsiders, the leadership will ask God the questions which heretofore have never been seriously asked, and will be open to the answers which for decades have been staring them in the face, with ever greater sternness and obviousness (as was the case in the history of discriminating against blacks).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
