The comment was made:
"I don't know if it is true, but word on the Internet is that Big Love is going to show a temple ceremony next episode. We'll see if it happens. If so, and depending on what it shows, I really think this is a bit over the line. We'll see."
To which I responded:
I agree that for anyone who considers themselves bound by a covenant to keep the temple ceremony secret, that person revealing it on a publicly broadcasted television series would be stepping over a line. But for a non-believer, it is simply free speech. As I would not advocate a law that would make it illegal to publicize a cartoon making fun of the prophet Muhammed, so I would also not advocate a law that would prevent someone from disclosing or depicting the LDS temple ceremony, especially if the purpose were to debate church doctrines. Respect for someone else's religious beliefs does not, in my opinion, require us to refrain from having a full and complete debate about those religious beliefs, including debate about any religious ceremonies or rituals, even if secret.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Civility Needed In Debate Concerning Gay Marriage
In reaction to purported emails by certain militant gay activists considering violence against Mormons because of their opposition to gay marriage, the comment was sarcastically made:
"Just remember the narrative, folks: It's the Mormons who are being intolerant."
To which I responded:
I find it very interesting that a religious conservative would attack gay civil unions on the ground that the only distinction between them and marriage legally is "in name only." If two heterosexuals shacked up and organized their relationship as a "parntership" with a contract that gave all the same rights as a marriage, and that was only different from marriage in its "name," religious conservatives would scream out "fornication!" The reality is that "marriage" carries with it the connotation of God's sanction, a notion which is inherently religious in nature. For that reason, I believe there is a sound basis for rejecting government-sponsored marriage, be it heterosexual or gay. Since it is religion which is behind the opposition to committed gay relationships, the best solution is for the government to simply get out of the marriage business altogether. Let private religions decide which relationships they will and will not sanction. The government should grant civil unions to all sane, mature, consenting, uncoerced, human adults.
One more thing: the fact that a few militants out there are willing to engage in violence against the LDS church does not transform the church into a tolerant entity. The church is largely intolerant and bigotted when it comes to homosexuals (although the doctrine and some movement among some leaders and members has given room for some tolerance). The church has a legal right under the First Amendment to have whatever doctrines and policies it wishes (so long as those doctrines and policies do not violate any laws or rights of individuals), and the fact that those doctrines and policies are unpopular does not give gay activists or anyone else the right to resort to violence. However, protests against the church are within the rights of the church's opponents under their First Amendment rights, and if the church wishes to persist in a view that gay people are committing grave sins by engaging in homosexual behavior, the church can expect nothing other than protests against the church.
Bottom line: pointing fingers at gay militants doesn't make you justified in fighting the gay agenda.
"Just remember the narrative, folks: It's the Mormons who are being intolerant."
To which I responded:
I find it very interesting that a religious conservative would attack gay civil unions on the ground that the only distinction between them and marriage legally is "in name only." If two heterosexuals shacked up and organized their relationship as a "parntership" with a contract that gave all the same rights as a marriage, and that was only different from marriage in its "name," religious conservatives would scream out "fornication!" The reality is that "marriage" carries with it the connotation of God's sanction, a notion which is inherently religious in nature. For that reason, I believe there is a sound basis for rejecting government-sponsored marriage, be it heterosexual or gay. Since it is religion which is behind the opposition to committed gay relationships, the best solution is for the government to simply get out of the marriage business altogether. Let private religions decide which relationships they will and will not sanction. The government should grant civil unions to all sane, mature, consenting, uncoerced, human adults.
One more thing: the fact that a few militants out there are willing to engage in violence against the LDS church does not transform the church into a tolerant entity. The church is largely intolerant and bigotted when it comes to homosexuals (although the doctrine and some movement among some leaders and members has given room for some tolerance). The church has a legal right under the First Amendment to have whatever doctrines and policies it wishes (so long as those doctrines and policies do not violate any laws or rights of individuals), and the fact that those doctrines and policies are unpopular does not give gay activists or anyone else the right to resort to violence. However, protests against the church are within the rights of the church's opponents under their First Amendment rights, and if the church wishes to persist in a view that gay people are committing grave sins by engaging in homosexual behavior, the church can expect nothing other than protests against the church.
Bottom line: pointing fingers at gay militants doesn't make you justified in fighting the gay agenda.
Why Having A Living Prophet Does Not Eliminate All Error
The comment was made:
"I am copying an excerpt from a talk given by a Black female member of the LDS Church which discusses this issue:
Dispelling the Black Myth
by Renee Olson
What are we supposed to do when someone makes an accusation against our Church leaders, either past or present, of being a racist? Agree with them--they certainly won't be expecting that! But, by agreeing with them, all the "arguments" cease, and you can begin to really teach them. If you disagree and try to defend the Church, you're already fighting a losing battle. Our Church leaders have made more than enough damning remarks to give our critics all the ammunition they need to accuse the Church of racism.
Now that we've agreed there is just cause for accusing the Church of racism, how do we deal with that? Well, I think we need to understand that our Church leaders are human. As a matter of fact, they are human first and Apostles second. As human beings and children of their Heavenly Father, they are entitled to their own thoughts, opinions and feelings, just like anyone else. Just because one is ordained to the Quorum of the Twelve doesn't mean Heavenly Father all of the sudden imparts all of His wisdom and knowledge to them! I think we also have to operate from the premise that no General Authority would intentionally do or say anything to deliberately hurt the cause of Christ.
As a matter of fact, I would venture to say that except for the scriptures, anything written before 1978 that speaks of blacks should be avoided. This is why we have a living prophet on the Earth today. As Latter-day Saints, we have the most up-to-date information available. Even Elder McConkie said to forget everything said before, because the Lord had now revealed new light to man. We have to give him credit for that. His views before the ban was lifted may have seemed racist, but his attitude was on target for an apostle of the Lord. No matter how we as individuals may feel about something, when the Lord speaks, we are expected to listen, which means bringing our thinking in line with His."
To which I responded:
I praise Brother McConkie for his bold admission of fault. We need more of that among church leaders, in my opinion. But I do not believe that the issue is cured by the mere fact that we have a living prophet. If past prophets erred, which they surely did, then why must we assume that our living prophet cannot? In my opinion, we should listen to what the prophet has to say, but that does not deprive us of our right to disagree and to follow our own conscience and spiritual promptings even if they contradict what we are told.
"I am copying an excerpt from a talk given by a Black female member of the LDS Church which discusses this issue:
Dispelling the Black Myth
by Renee Olson
What are we supposed to do when someone makes an accusation against our Church leaders, either past or present, of being a racist? Agree with them--they certainly won't be expecting that! But, by agreeing with them, all the "arguments" cease, and you can begin to really teach them. If you disagree and try to defend the Church, you're already fighting a losing battle. Our Church leaders have made more than enough damning remarks to give our critics all the ammunition they need to accuse the Church of racism.
Now that we've agreed there is just cause for accusing the Church of racism, how do we deal with that? Well, I think we need to understand that our Church leaders are human. As a matter of fact, they are human first and Apostles second. As human beings and children of their Heavenly Father, they are entitled to their own thoughts, opinions and feelings, just like anyone else. Just because one is ordained to the Quorum of the Twelve doesn't mean Heavenly Father all of the sudden imparts all of His wisdom and knowledge to them! I think we also have to operate from the premise that no General Authority would intentionally do or say anything to deliberately hurt the cause of Christ.
As a matter of fact, I would venture to say that except for the scriptures, anything written before 1978 that speaks of blacks should be avoided. This is why we have a living prophet on the Earth today. As Latter-day Saints, we have the most up-to-date information available. Even Elder McConkie said to forget everything said before, because the Lord had now revealed new light to man. We have to give him credit for that. His views before the ban was lifted may have seemed racist, but his attitude was on target for an apostle of the Lord. No matter how we as individuals may feel about something, when the Lord speaks, we are expected to listen, which means bringing our thinking in line with His."
To which I responded:
I praise Brother McConkie for his bold admission of fault. We need more of that among church leaders, in my opinion. But I do not believe that the issue is cured by the mere fact that we have a living prophet. If past prophets erred, which they surely did, then why must we assume that our living prophet cannot? In my opinion, we should listen to what the prophet has to say, but that does not deprive us of our right to disagree and to follow our own conscience and spiritual promptings even if they contradict what we are told.
Explaining Porn Usage And Correlation With Religion
In reference to a color-coded map supposedly showing porn usage statistics in the U.S., with Utah showing a high usage, the question was put:
"This image shows porn subscriptions per thousand home broadband users. The data comes from the zip code of the credit cards used to pay for porn. Utah is ranked number 1 (Utah is ranked #1 even if this metric is measured in a number of other ways).
The study tried to correlate a number of factors to porn use, but couldn't find any that were meaningful. For example, regularly attending religious services seemed to have little or no correlation to the amount of porn consumed.
The bottom line is that Utahns consume a lot of porn and we don't why. Yikes!!!"
To which I responded:
While I am in no position to say whether or not the study is accurate, I do have a few comments:
1) There is no universally-accepted definition of "porn." Thus, it is awfully difficult for a study of this kind to be meaningful without further explanation about definitions.
2) It would surprise me if there were a higher rate of porn use among church members than among the general American population. For some people, I suppose porn has a greater appeal the more it is suppressed, and it is definitely suppressed in the LDS faith. However, my own speculation is that effect of the cultural suppression of porn within the church is probably stronger than what I'll call the "self-fulfilling prophecy effect" (whereby people are actually more likely to use porn because of its attempted suppression). Therefore, I would expect porn use in Utah among church members to be slightly lower than among the general population.
3) What is almost certainly the case, in my opinion, is that a very large percentage of the religious population hides their true views and habits concerning sexually-oriented materials. They put on a show to fit in in their conservative communities, but in reality, no amount of preaching or prayer or attempted religious devotion "cures" them of the inherent sexual nature God gave them. In my own view, the overly zealous suppression of that sexual nature does more harm than good, and in many instances causes the fractionization of people's lives; only in private are they allowed to be themselves, and they must face the daily battle of pretending to be someone they are not. That being said, I am not advocating tossing all sexual restraint to the wind, but I am saying that rules mandating sexual restraint, to be morally binding on us, require a compelling justification (i.e., not just, "because God says so.")
*Edit: And in response to my comments above, the comment was made:
"What's instructive here is the manner in which the author reduces human sexual behavior and proclivities to something alone the lines of a plethora of inherent, innate instinctual drives or innate, programmed psychological types (being ourselves) and then even lays the blame for the existence of these inherent, ontologically programmed desires at the feet of God (who now appears to be a kind of cosmic voyeur enjoying from his throne in the clouds our persuit of pornography and sexual stimulation outside of what is understood to be the boundaries of his laws ans counsel concerning our sexuality).
Psychological or ontological reductionism of this kind, popular since the sixties, makes human sexuality something alone the lines of plate tectonics; something that simply "is" and exists as a matter of the play of natural forces over which human beings have little control.
This is all quite convenient, of course, given the ultimate end sought by such arguments. The impression given that sex and sexuality are at the very core of daily life for most people, and form the nucleus around much of human existence (as over against a balanced and integrated aspect of a much larger, broader range of interests and goals) is standard for the genra of sexual revolution philosophy which I grew up with throughout the seventies and has now become anything but revolutionary.
Assertions that many, or most people are somehow sexually repressed by prudish or puritanical sexual restrictions and rules is another nice trope left over from the sixties and early seventies when it was fashionable (as it still is) to point the finger of mockery at anyone not yet fully Hefnerized.
It may just be the case that much of our perception of sexual repression may be as much a function of our culture's cultic obsessiveness with sex and eroticism as any alleged opressive atmosphere."
To which I responded:
Thanks for your response. It appears to me that you are dismissing my argument as incredible or invalid because it resembles or is identical to arguments perpetuated as part of the sexual revolution. I don't consider that to be a very strong argument. I never said God is a voyeur. I believe in God. I also believe that somewhere along the path of humanity's existence, someone got the idea that sex, because it is a big deal, is inherently suspect as a cause of humanity's problems. That idea, I think, is what gave rise to what I consider to be overly tight restrictions on human sexuality. Again, as I have said many times on this board, I do not and never have argued in favor of lifting all sexual restrictions. Some restriction is good for humanity and also for the soul. But many of the restrictions found in the LDS faith, in my opinion, do more harm than good.
One other thing: I have yet to see a reliable empirical study that really shows that LDS restrictions on sexuality are feasible for the bulk of society. There may be a very small percentage of men, who, for reasons I do not understand, manage to have the type of sex drive and discipline which is compatible with LDS policy. But the empirical evidence, from what I have studied and from what I have experienced in my own life, suggest very strongly to me that there is a serious disconnect between the LDS view on sexuality and what the reality is. The LDS model is a flawed one which assumes a reality which doesn't exist.
Does anyone know of any statistical evidence on, say, the percentage of LDS male missionaries who never masturbated during their mission? Does anyone have any reliable statistic on the percentage of temple-married LDS men who do not think of another woman while having sex with their wives? Does anyone have any statistics on the number of times per day that LDS bishops have erotic thoughts about women to whom they are not married? I doubt you will find it, and there is no way for us to get inside those people's heads to know for sure whether they would be telling us the truth.
Here's what we can be relatively certain of: because our society associates sex with a certain amount of shame, admissions of having erotic thoughts about people to whom we are not married are much more credible than denials. An anonymous survey would be much more likely to have accurate responses than a public survey, because the respondent would have much less fear that he/she would be put on the spot. Here's a study that I found very interesting, which was published in the Journal of Sex Science: In an anonymous study of students and faculty at a U.S. university, 98% of men, and 80% of women, admitted to having regular sexual fantasies about people other than their long-term-relationship partner. Interestingly, there was no significant difference for married people versus co-habiting couples. Also interesting: the longer the relationship had lasted, the greater the incidence of sexual fantasies about someone else.
We need more studies of that kind. You can argue until you're blue in the face, you can kick against the pricks, but it appears to me, that ultimately, you are probably living in dreamland if you imagine to yourself that God expects the entirety of humanity to only engage in sexual expression when it is towards and about their spouse. That does not mean that we should abolish marriage or marital commitments or fidelity in terms of sexual relationships with other people. But it does mean that we have to be realistic in our expectations and our restrictions. From what I can tell, many couples, with consent of each other, use pornography and it does not seem to cause a problem in their relationship. From what I can tell, what often causes the problem is that one spouse, usually the wife, is fed an unrealistic expectation by society (or in many cases the LDS faith) that any erotic thoughts of her husband which are not about her constitutes infidelity to her. She comes to expect and believe that, if he really loves her, he will only fantasize about her sexually. Because of that false expectation, fed by the church based upon an unrealistic model of human sexuality, she takes offense at her husband's way of life, and it can cause all sorts of problems in the marriage. Therefore, in many instances, it is the false beliefs which oppose pornography, not the pornography itself, which cause the so-called breakdown in the family.
Caveat: there are forms of pornography which, in my view, truly are harmful, such as child pornography, coerced sex, or violent depictions of sexuality. Pornography also can have a different effect on different people. Some are able to easily separate the fantasy from reality, and others seem less able to do so. It is also likely that some people would use pornography as an alternative for otherwise available sex with a spouse who wants, but cannot have, sex because the other spouse's interest in pornography has decreased their interest in sex. This is a perfectly legitimate concern for spouse 1 who is interested in sex, but is not able to get it from spouse 2 because spouse 2 would rather use porn. On the other hand, if spouse 1 doesn't feel like sex anyway, and spouse 2 does, is it fair to spouse 2 to deny them all sexual experience? I say clearly not. We do not choose marriage to become prisoners, we chose marriage in part to have a relationship and to more fully experience our sexuality. If spouse 1 is obese, or out of town, or sick, or depressed, or disabled, or any host of other conditions which put a serious damper on the couple's sexual relationship, then spouse 2 has a right to take care of their own needs. Pornography can be a safe way of doing that, so that sex with another partner outside of marriage is unnecessary. For that reason, and others, pornography actually serves a great public good; it can foster the continuance of stable relationships by reducing the likelihood of sex outside marriage. Similarly, it can help single people hold off on pre-marital sex.
On an empirical level, I predict that what we would find, if we had reliable data, is that societies which legalize sexual media have more dialogue on what is and is not acceptable, and there are probably fewer unwanted pregnancies and less sexual abuse/rape. If anyone has any statistical data on this, I'd love to see it.
*And in response to the above comment by me, the comment was made:
"Don't be shocked...this is an ongoing theme for Mr. James. Apparently, in his opinion, the Law of Chastity is an impossible law to live."
To which I responded:
That is not true in most instances. If the law of chastity is simply, "thou shalt not have sexual intercourse with anyone to whom you are not married," (and, by the way, I believe the temple ceremony used to have that as the language in the early 1900s, and the "relations" language only came along later), then it is, in my view, possible, and in most circumstances, reasonable, to live. It is the expansive reading of that law that is unrealistic. The debate, in my view, is not whether it is possible to live the commandments God has given us, but rather, what are God's commandments really? Since we are left to figure out that question with limited and imperfect evidence (i.e., science, scriptures, philosophy, emotions, spiritual experience, history, preaching, philosophy, purported revelations, etc.), we can only do our best. If reality seems to me to be inconsistent with a purported commandment from God, then it is likely, in my opinion, that the purported commandment is not a commandment at all, but just the philosophies of men.
"This image shows porn subscriptions per thousand home broadband users. The data comes from the zip code of the credit cards used to pay for porn. Utah is ranked number 1 (Utah is ranked #1 even if this metric is measured in a number of other ways).
The study tried to correlate a number of factors to porn use, but couldn't find any that were meaningful. For example, regularly attending religious services seemed to have little or no correlation to the amount of porn consumed.
The bottom line is that Utahns consume a lot of porn and we don't why. Yikes!!!"
To which I responded:
While I am in no position to say whether or not the study is accurate, I do have a few comments:
1) There is no universally-accepted definition of "porn." Thus, it is awfully difficult for a study of this kind to be meaningful without further explanation about definitions.
2) It would surprise me if there were a higher rate of porn use among church members than among the general American population. For some people, I suppose porn has a greater appeal the more it is suppressed, and it is definitely suppressed in the LDS faith. However, my own speculation is that effect of the cultural suppression of porn within the church is probably stronger than what I'll call the "self-fulfilling prophecy effect" (whereby people are actually more likely to use porn because of its attempted suppression). Therefore, I would expect porn use in Utah among church members to be slightly lower than among the general population.
3) What is almost certainly the case, in my opinion, is that a very large percentage of the religious population hides their true views and habits concerning sexually-oriented materials. They put on a show to fit in in their conservative communities, but in reality, no amount of preaching or prayer or attempted religious devotion "cures" them of the inherent sexual nature God gave them. In my own view, the overly zealous suppression of that sexual nature does more harm than good, and in many instances causes the fractionization of people's lives; only in private are they allowed to be themselves, and they must face the daily battle of pretending to be someone they are not. That being said, I am not advocating tossing all sexual restraint to the wind, but I am saying that rules mandating sexual restraint, to be morally binding on us, require a compelling justification (i.e., not just, "because God says so.")
*Edit: And in response to my comments above, the comment was made:
"What's instructive here is the manner in which the author reduces human sexual behavior and proclivities to something alone the lines of a plethora of inherent, innate instinctual drives or innate, programmed psychological types (being ourselves) and then even lays the blame for the existence of these inherent, ontologically programmed desires at the feet of God (who now appears to be a kind of cosmic voyeur enjoying from his throne in the clouds our persuit of pornography and sexual stimulation outside of what is understood to be the boundaries of his laws ans counsel concerning our sexuality).
Psychological or ontological reductionism of this kind, popular since the sixties, makes human sexuality something alone the lines of plate tectonics; something that simply "is" and exists as a matter of the play of natural forces over which human beings have little control.
This is all quite convenient, of course, given the ultimate end sought by such arguments. The impression given that sex and sexuality are at the very core of daily life for most people, and form the nucleus around much of human existence (as over against a balanced and integrated aspect of a much larger, broader range of interests and goals) is standard for the genra of sexual revolution philosophy which I grew up with throughout the seventies and has now become anything but revolutionary.
Assertions that many, or most people are somehow sexually repressed by prudish or puritanical sexual restrictions and rules is another nice trope left over from the sixties and early seventies when it was fashionable (as it still is) to point the finger of mockery at anyone not yet fully Hefnerized.
It may just be the case that much of our perception of sexual repression may be as much a function of our culture's cultic obsessiveness with sex and eroticism as any alleged opressive atmosphere."
To which I responded:
Thanks for your response. It appears to me that you are dismissing my argument as incredible or invalid because it resembles or is identical to arguments perpetuated as part of the sexual revolution. I don't consider that to be a very strong argument. I never said God is a voyeur. I believe in God. I also believe that somewhere along the path of humanity's existence, someone got the idea that sex, because it is a big deal, is inherently suspect as a cause of humanity's problems. That idea, I think, is what gave rise to what I consider to be overly tight restrictions on human sexuality. Again, as I have said many times on this board, I do not and never have argued in favor of lifting all sexual restrictions. Some restriction is good for humanity and also for the soul. But many of the restrictions found in the LDS faith, in my opinion, do more harm than good.
One other thing: I have yet to see a reliable empirical study that really shows that LDS restrictions on sexuality are feasible for the bulk of society. There may be a very small percentage of men, who, for reasons I do not understand, manage to have the type of sex drive and discipline which is compatible with LDS policy. But the empirical evidence, from what I have studied and from what I have experienced in my own life, suggest very strongly to me that there is a serious disconnect between the LDS view on sexuality and what the reality is. The LDS model is a flawed one which assumes a reality which doesn't exist.
Does anyone know of any statistical evidence on, say, the percentage of LDS male missionaries who never masturbated during their mission? Does anyone have any reliable statistic on the percentage of temple-married LDS men who do not think of another woman while having sex with their wives? Does anyone have any statistics on the number of times per day that LDS bishops have erotic thoughts about women to whom they are not married? I doubt you will find it, and there is no way for us to get inside those people's heads to know for sure whether they would be telling us the truth.
Here's what we can be relatively certain of: because our society associates sex with a certain amount of shame, admissions of having erotic thoughts about people to whom we are not married are much more credible than denials. An anonymous survey would be much more likely to have accurate responses than a public survey, because the respondent would have much less fear that he/she would be put on the spot. Here's a study that I found very interesting, which was published in the Journal of Sex Science: In an anonymous study of students and faculty at a U.S. university, 98% of men, and 80% of women, admitted to having regular sexual fantasies about people other than their long-term-relationship partner. Interestingly, there was no significant difference for married people versus co-habiting couples. Also interesting: the longer the relationship had lasted, the greater the incidence of sexual fantasies about someone else.
We need more studies of that kind. You can argue until you're blue in the face, you can kick against the pricks, but it appears to me, that ultimately, you are probably living in dreamland if you imagine to yourself that God expects the entirety of humanity to only engage in sexual expression when it is towards and about their spouse. That does not mean that we should abolish marriage or marital commitments or fidelity in terms of sexual relationships with other people. But it does mean that we have to be realistic in our expectations and our restrictions. From what I can tell, many couples, with consent of each other, use pornography and it does not seem to cause a problem in their relationship. From what I can tell, what often causes the problem is that one spouse, usually the wife, is fed an unrealistic expectation by society (or in many cases the LDS faith) that any erotic thoughts of her husband which are not about her constitutes infidelity to her. She comes to expect and believe that, if he really loves her, he will only fantasize about her sexually. Because of that false expectation, fed by the church based upon an unrealistic model of human sexuality, she takes offense at her husband's way of life, and it can cause all sorts of problems in the marriage. Therefore, in many instances, it is the false beliefs which oppose pornography, not the pornography itself, which cause the so-called breakdown in the family.
Caveat: there are forms of pornography which, in my view, truly are harmful, such as child pornography, coerced sex, or violent depictions of sexuality. Pornography also can have a different effect on different people. Some are able to easily separate the fantasy from reality, and others seem less able to do so. It is also likely that some people would use pornography as an alternative for otherwise available sex with a spouse who wants, but cannot have, sex because the other spouse's interest in pornography has decreased their interest in sex. This is a perfectly legitimate concern for spouse 1 who is interested in sex, but is not able to get it from spouse 2 because spouse 2 would rather use porn. On the other hand, if spouse 1 doesn't feel like sex anyway, and spouse 2 does, is it fair to spouse 2 to deny them all sexual experience? I say clearly not. We do not choose marriage to become prisoners, we chose marriage in part to have a relationship and to more fully experience our sexuality. If spouse 1 is obese, or out of town, or sick, or depressed, or disabled, or any host of other conditions which put a serious damper on the couple's sexual relationship, then spouse 2 has a right to take care of their own needs. Pornography can be a safe way of doing that, so that sex with another partner outside of marriage is unnecessary. For that reason, and others, pornography actually serves a great public good; it can foster the continuance of stable relationships by reducing the likelihood of sex outside marriage. Similarly, it can help single people hold off on pre-marital sex.
On an empirical level, I predict that what we would find, if we had reliable data, is that societies which legalize sexual media have more dialogue on what is and is not acceptable, and there are probably fewer unwanted pregnancies and less sexual abuse/rape. If anyone has any statistical data on this, I'd love to see it.
*And in response to the above comment by me, the comment was made:
"Don't be shocked...this is an ongoing theme for Mr. James. Apparently, in his opinion, the Law of Chastity is an impossible law to live."
To which I responded:
That is not true in most instances. If the law of chastity is simply, "thou shalt not have sexual intercourse with anyone to whom you are not married," (and, by the way, I believe the temple ceremony used to have that as the language in the early 1900s, and the "relations" language only came along later), then it is, in my view, possible, and in most circumstances, reasonable, to live. It is the expansive reading of that law that is unrealistic. The debate, in my view, is not whether it is possible to live the commandments God has given us, but rather, what are God's commandments really? Since we are left to figure out that question with limited and imperfect evidence (i.e., science, scriptures, philosophy, emotions, spiritual experience, history, preaching, philosophy, purported revelations, etc.), we can only do our best. If reality seems to me to be inconsistent with a purported commandment from God, then it is likely, in my opinion, that the purported commandment is not a commandment at all, but just the philosophies of men.
Are Women Created FOR Men?
The question was put, concerning the following Biblical verses:
"1 Cor 11: 8-9
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
"Is this a doctrine of the Church that women were created for men? I sure hope not. My ex-husband is such an ingrateful slob."
To which I responded:
I am not at all disturbed by the scripture because I have already come to accept that the Bible, like a large percentage of religious dogma, contains erroneous doctrines of mankind, often based upon the prejudices and misconceptions prevalent in the day the "revelation" was codified. This is just another example of that, and I feel perfectly at liberty to disregard and to refuse to follow/accept any doctrine which is not consistent with my view that men and women are of equal dignity and importance.
Of course, as one person has already commented, the scripture IS a problem for any biblical-inerrantists out there who effectively will embrace chauvenism if they accept this scripture as being God's inerrant word.
"1 Cor 11: 8-9
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
"Is this a doctrine of the Church that women were created for men? I sure hope not. My ex-husband is such an ingrateful slob."
To which I responded:
I am not at all disturbed by the scripture because I have already come to accept that the Bible, like a large percentage of religious dogma, contains erroneous doctrines of mankind, often based upon the prejudices and misconceptions prevalent in the day the "revelation" was codified. This is just another example of that, and I feel perfectly at liberty to disregard and to refuse to follow/accept any doctrine which is not consistent with my view that men and women are of equal dignity and importance.
Of course, as one person has already commented, the scripture IS a problem for any biblical-inerrantists out there who effectively will embrace chauvenism if they accept this scripture as being God's inerrant word.
Musings On The Book Of Mormon's Condemnation Of Polygyny
I commented:
Some years ago, I was trying to come up with a plausible explanation for why the BoM (in the book of Jacob) so strongly condemns polygamy, and why God commanded it in the D&C. Emma Smith (Joseph's first wife), as we all know, hated polygamy, even though, as I recall, she may have spoken in favor of it out of obedience to what she perceived to be God's commands.
My non-expert impression of Emma is that she was a rather possessive and jealous spouse who felt very threatened by the idea of Joseph being involved with anyone else intimately (not to say that is abnormal in the least, but that dynamic seems more present in the Joseph/Emma relationship than in the average marital relationship). Now, consider the likely fact that Emma was the scribe who was taking down Joseph's "translation" concerning the condemnation of polygamy in the Book of Jacob. (for a timeline of BoM translation, see http://eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm, which is not necessarily authoritative but which strongly suggests to me that Emma was the primary scribe during the Jacob translation).
For me, it seems this was more than coincidental. Joseph was probably giving Emma a "revelation" exactly along the lines of what she wanted to hear. For her, those passages condemning polygamy were probably just the assurance she wanted from her husband that he would not stray. D&C 132 (the revelation commanding polygamy), by contrast, was, I believe, given to Joseph without Emma's knowledge until several years later. I think these facts, along with the naturally-occuring tendancy in most men (and many women) to desire multiple sex partners, combine to make out a very persuasive case for the proposition that the Book of Jacob's passage condemning polygamy was dictated by Joseph, not be revelation, but for Emma's sake to assure her that he was committed to her and to convince her of his prophetic calling.
Naturally, my speculations probably do nothing for the TBMs who consider their testimony of the BoM to constitute irrefutable proof that the BoM is a not only authentic, but doctrinally accurate translation free of Joseph Smith's own personal opinions and musings. Those TBMs would probably not give much consideration to this coincidence, and would write it off as just that- coincidence and nothing more.
But my questions are as follows:
1) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed by someone other than Emma?
2) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed without Emma being present?
3) Other than your own spiritual witness concerning how to reconcile Jacob and D&C 132, do you know of any objective evidence that would weigh in favor of considering the book of Jacob's transcription by Emma a mere coincidence?
I'm not seeing where Jacob says the Lord can (or has) commanded the practice of polygyny. The verse to which the apologists are citing, Jacob 2:30, says,
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."
As noted by one commentator (caveat: I do not agree with everything, but believe the commentator lends insight on the interpretation issue):
"In my experience of understanding the scriptures, I have found that proper interpretation of a verse comes from the meaning of the verses surrounding it. Jacob 2:30 must be interpreted in light of the meaning of the surrounding verses. To do otherwise could render a meaning opposed to the meaning of the surrounding text and thus would make no sense. It is clear from reading Jacob 2:22-35 above that the scriptures before and after Jacob 2:30 plainly state that having many wives as well as having concubines is a whoredom and an abomination before the Lord. And He forbade Jacob's people to have concubines and more than one wife. The Lord was not pleased with David and Solomon for doing these things and He was not pleased with the people in Jacob's time for also doing these things and justifying their actions by what David and Solomon did. In addition, the Lord stated that these actions were breaking the hearts of their wives and daughters and indicated that if they continued to pursue such activities, He would "visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction..." (verse 33). Thus, to take verse 30 out of the middle of this entire passage, which strongly states that polygamy is evil, and render the meaning of verse 30 to be that "Polygamy is ... to be practiced ... only when commanded by God," is ridiculous. Such an interpretation is out of context with the meaning of the surrounding verses. Even more, it makes God changeable, which He is not.
So, if Jacob 2:30 shouldn't be interpreted that polygamy is acceptable when God commands it, then what is the meaning of this verse? Verse 25 says that the Lord led these people out of Jerusalem to give them an opportunity to become righteous. In this context, verse 30 means that if these people are going to become righteous, He must give them commandments to obey Him. If He doesn't, "they shall harken unto these things," or in other words they will commit these whoredoms and not become a righteous people. This interpretation of verse 30 is in context with the meaning of the surrounding verses and can be the only plausible meaning given to it.
Thus, in my opinion, Jacob 2:22-35 supports the position that polygamy is evil. Knowing this, Joseph would have never engaged in this activity. And the Lord, being unchangeable, would have never given him a revelation telling His people to practice polygamy."
I commented:
The idea that Jacob 2:30 supports polygamy is the product of an afterthought, invented by those who are unwilling to entertain the possibility that either the Jacob passage (altogether condemning polygyny) or D&C 132 (commanding polygyny) could be incorrect and not God-inspired.
As for who was the scribe for the Jacob passage, I'm not seeing where Watson says Oliver was the scribe for Jacob chapter 2 (or for that matter, the scribe for the entire book of Jacob, although there is a notation that Cowdery's handwriting was in one of the chapters). Even if Oliver were the scribe for Jacob chapter 2, Emma was most likely present. In any event, while I'm on the topic, does anyone know whose handwriting is in the transcription manuscript for Jacob chapter 2, or where it is possible to get that information? Are scanned versions of the original manuscripts anywhere on the web?
Here are the pertinent verses quoted from the Book of Mormon:
"22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And bwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their bhusbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our afather, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done agreater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the bstrictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds."
Now, here's the challenge: Find one hundred non-LDS, reasonably-educated, native English speakers who are not familiar with your position (that Jacob 2:30 stands for the proposition that the Lord sometimes commands polygyny), and survey them, asking the following question:
Based upon your review of this passage, and assuming it to be authentic revelation from God, do you believe the passage supports, cuts against, or is indifferent to the proposition that God sometimes commands His people to practice polygyny?
If your survey reveals that a majority of people agree with your interpretation, I am willing to reconsider my view that a plain reading of the Jacob 2 passage on its face universally condemns polygyny. If, however, as I suspect, the overwhelming majority of survey takers respond that their impression is that the passage raises no reasonable dispute concerning the acceptability of polygyny, and that the passage universally condemns it, then I believe it would be fair for you to at least acknowledge that your interpretation of Jacob 2:30 is a strained, faith-based-only, interpretation. Does that sound fair to you? Are you willing to take the challenge?
Some years ago, I was trying to come up with a plausible explanation for why the BoM (in the book of Jacob) so strongly condemns polygamy, and why God commanded it in the D&C. Emma Smith (Joseph's first wife), as we all know, hated polygamy, even though, as I recall, she may have spoken in favor of it out of obedience to what she perceived to be God's commands.
My non-expert impression of Emma is that she was a rather possessive and jealous spouse who felt very threatened by the idea of Joseph being involved with anyone else intimately (not to say that is abnormal in the least, but that dynamic seems more present in the Joseph/Emma relationship than in the average marital relationship). Now, consider the likely fact that Emma was the scribe who was taking down Joseph's "translation" concerning the condemnation of polygamy in the Book of Jacob. (for a timeline of BoM translation, see http://eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm, which is not necessarily authoritative but which strongly suggests to me that Emma was the primary scribe during the Jacob translation).
For me, it seems this was more than coincidental. Joseph was probably giving Emma a "revelation" exactly along the lines of what she wanted to hear. For her, those passages condemning polygamy were probably just the assurance she wanted from her husband that he would not stray. D&C 132 (the revelation commanding polygamy), by contrast, was, I believe, given to Joseph without Emma's knowledge until several years later. I think these facts, along with the naturally-occuring tendancy in most men (and many women) to desire multiple sex partners, combine to make out a very persuasive case for the proposition that the Book of Jacob's passage condemning polygamy was dictated by Joseph, not be revelation, but for Emma's sake to assure her that he was committed to her and to convince her of his prophetic calling.
Naturally, my speculations probably do nothing for the TBMs who consider their testimony of the BoM to constitute irrefutable proof that the BoM is a not only authentic, but doctrinally accurate translation free of Joseph Smith's own personal opinions and musings. Those TBMs would probably not give much consideration to this coincidence, and would write it off as just that- coincidence and nothing more.
But my questions are as follows:
1) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed by someone other than Emma?
2) Does anyone have any evidence that the condemnation-of-polygamy passage in Jacob was transcribed without Emma being present?
3) Other than your own spiritual witness concerning how to reconcile Jacob and D&C 132, do you know of any objective evidence that would weigh in favor of considering the book of Jacob's transcription by Emma a mere coincidence?
I'm not seeing where Jacob says the Lord can (or has) commanded the practice of polygyny. The verse to which the apologists are citing, Jacob 2:30, says,
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up a seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."
As noted by one commentator (caveat: I do not agree with everything, but believe the commentator lends insight on the interpretation issue):
"In my experience of understanding the scriptures, I have found that proper interpretation of a verse comes from the meaning of the verses surrounding it. Jacob 2:30 must be interpreted in light of the meaning of the surrounding verses. To do otherwise could render a meaning opposed to the meaning of the surrounding text and thus would make no sense. It is clear from reading Jacob 2:22-35 above that the scriptures before and after Jacob 2:30 plainly state that having many wives as well as having concubines is a whoredom and an abomination before the Lord. And He forbade Jacob's people to have concubines and more than one wife. The Lord was not pleased with David and Solomon for doing these things and He was not pleased with the people in Jacob's time for also doing these things and justifying their actions by what David and Solomon did. In addition, the Lord stated that these actions were breaking the hearts of their wives and daughters and indicated that if they continued to pursue such activities, He would "visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction..." (verse 33). Thus, to take verse 30 out of the middle of this entire passage, which strongly states that polygamy is evil, and render the meaning of verse 30 to be that "Polygamy is ... to be practiced ... only when commanded by God," is ridiculous. Such an interpretation is out of context with the meaning of the surrounding verses. Even more, it makes God changeable, which He is not.
So, if Jacob 2:30 shouldn't be interpreted that polygamy is acceptable when God commands it, then what is the meaning of this verse? Verse 25 says that the Lord led these people out of Jerusalem to give them an opportunity to become righteous. In this context, verse 30 means that if these people are going to become righteous, He must give them commandments to obey Him. If He doesn't, "they shall harken unto these things," or in other words they will commit these whoredoms and not become a righteous people. This interpretation of verse 30 is in context with the meaning of the surrounding verses and can be the only plausible meaning given to it.
Thus, in my opinion, Jacob 2:22-35 supports the position that polygamy is evil. Knowing this, Joseph would have never engaged in this activity. And the Lord, being unchangeable, would have never given him a revelation telling His people to practice polygamy."
I commented:
The idea that Jacob 2:30 supports polygamy is the product of an afterthought, invented by those who are unwilling to entertain the possibility that either the Jacob passage (altogether condemning polygyny) or D&C 132 (commanding polygyny) could be incorrect and not God-inspired.
As for who was the scribe for the Jacob passage, I'm not seeing where Watson says Oliver was the scribe for Jacob chapter 2 (or for that matter, the scribe for the entire book of Jacob, although there is a notation that Cowdery's handwriting was in one of the chapters). Even if Oliver were the scribe for Jacob chapter 2, Emma was most likely present. In any event, while I'm on the topic, does anyone know whose handwriting is in the transcription manuscript for Jacob chapter 2, or where it is possible to get that information? Are scanned versions of the original manuscripts anywhere on the web?
Here are the pertinent verses quoted from the Book of Mormon:
"22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing awhoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And bwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their bhusbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our afather, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done agreater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the bstrictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds."
Now, here's the challenge: Find one hundred non-LDS, reasonably-educated, native English speakers who are not familiar with your position (that Jacob 2:30 stands for the proposition that the Lord sometimes commands polygyny), and survey them, asking the following question:
Based upon your review of this passage, and assuming it to be authentic revelation from God, do you believe the passage supports, cuts against, or is indifferent to the proposition that God sometimes commands His people to practice polygyny?
If your survey reveals that a majority of people agree with your interpretation, I am willing to reconsider my view that a plain reading of the Jacob 2 passage on its face universally condemns polygyny. If, however, as I suspect, the overwhelming majority of survey takers respond that their impression is that the passage raises no reasonable dispute concerning the acceptability of polygyny, and that the passage universally condemns it, then I believe it would be fair for you to at least acknowledge that your interpretation of Jacob 2:30 is a strained, faith-based-only, interpretation. Does that sound fair to you? Are you willing to take the challenge?
Defining "Pride" In The Sinful Sense
I commented:
"It seems that members of the LDS church often refer to "pride" as the underlying cause of just about all sin. I have always viewed pride in a much narrower sense. Pride, in my opinion, is the elevation of one's own honor and prestige over rationale ethical principals. Examples:
1(a). King Noah and Abinadi: When the king was about to release Abinadi because of Abinadi's persuasuave sermon, the King's men appealed to the King's ego with flattery, etc., which caused the king to reverse his compassionate impulse and have Abinadi killed.
1(b). Saul, being angered at the people's love for David, gets jealous and hates David.
2. A man, though convinced that he has sinned, refuses to repent because he does not want anyone to say, "I told you so" and make him feel ashamed.
Examples where a person sins, but not out of "pride" as I have defined it:
3. A person continues smoking because it is just too hard to quit.
4. A person, honestly believing that black people are best taken care of when they are slaves ruled by white owners, engages in slavery.
5. A married woman, without justification, breaks her marriage vow and commits adultery.
Any thoughts? What is a concise, sensible definition of sinful pride in your view?"
And in response to the following comment:
"Pride is refusal to submit to the commandments and will of God. Satan rebelled against God and Jesus Christ because he thought he could do better. So it has been for everyone who has rebelled against God ever since. When you criticize Church leaders, that is pride. When you refuse to accept the word of the living prophet, that is pride. When you try to atone for your own sins, that is pride. When you justify your sins, that is pride. When you attempt to say that you deserve something because you think are better than someone else, that is pride."
I responded:
As you have defined it, it seems to me that the definition of pride is the same as the definition of sin. If that is the definition, then why even use the word "pride" at all? Moreover, I find it terribly troubling that you would define criticizing Church leaders as automatically constituting sinful pride. There may very well be legitimate criticisms of church leaders (i.e., suppose a bishop molests an eight-year-old in a baptismal interview). That does not make the criticism sinful pride. The whole notion that we are never to criticize leadership is antithetical to the church's ideal that truth must reign supreme.
"Pride" in the sinful sense, IMO, is holding yourself to a more lenient standard than you hold others, or favoring your own short-term interests over the legitimate, logically defensible interests of the community. It is thinking that, because you are inherently better or worth more than other people, you deserve special honor, treatment, or glory.
By contrast, I do not consider it sinful pride for a person to demand humane treatment from other people, or to claim freedom of conscience, or to refuse to submit to any rule or idea which is contrary to their ability to accept it by reason, experience, and logic.
In the example of Satan, my understanding from what I have heard in church is that the real problem with his plan (in terms of his own culpability) was that he wanted the glory for himself. The Father asked for proposals; Jesus gave one and Lucifer gave one. I don't think we can criticize Lucifer for his honest belief (at least initially) that God's spirit children would all be better off if they were deprived of free agency and forced to be "good." But reason during the debate stage should have convinced him that God's spirit children would experience little if any spiritual growth if they were never given the opportunity to make bad choices and learn from their mistakes. I suspect that the "pride" of which Satan was guilty was the disregarding of reason and logic because his ego was too bruised, and he did not want to acknowledge the fact that his proposal (that mankind be deprived of free agency so that all would be saved) was flawed. To "guard his honor," and not admit a mistake, Lucifer rebelled against God and vowed revenge, becoming Satan and getting cast out. In effect, I think that Satan committed the sin of pride when he cast reason aside and decided that power (his power), not reason, should take precedence. But to argue that Satan committed the sin of pride, merely because he initially believed that his own plan made sense and was superior to Jesus' plan, is a huge oversimplification and implies that, unless we unquestioningly accept everything we are told by our leaders, we are sinning. In an odd twist of irony, that very idea (the oversimplification) is in opposition to the plan that God eventually settled on, namely that we would come to Earth and have to make tough decisions with limited information, walking with uncertainty and learning from experience, formulating initial opinions but then revising them as reason and experience dictate.
"It seems that members of the LDS church often refer to "pride" as the underlying cause of just about all sin. I have always viewed pride in a much narrower sense. Pride, in my opinion, is the elevation of one's own honor and prestige over rationale ethical principals. Examples:
1(a). King Noah and Abinadi: When the king was about to release Abinadi because of Abinadi's persuasuave sermon, the King's men appealed to the King's ego with flattery, etc., which caused the king to reverse his compassionate impulse and have Abinadi killed.
1(b). Saul, being angered at the people's love for David, gets jealous and hates David.
2. A man, though convinced that he has sinned, refuses to repent because he does not want anyone to say, "I told you so" and make him feel ashamed.
Examples where a person sins, but not out of "pride" as I have defined it:
3. A person continues smoking because it is just too hard to quit.
4. A person, honestly believing that black people are best taken care of when they are slaves ruled by white owners, engages in slavery.
5. A married woman, without justification, breaks her marriage vow and commits adultery.
Any thoughts? What is a concise, sensible definition of sinful pride in your view?"
And in response to the following comment:
"Pride is refusal to submit to the commandments and will of God. Satan rebelled against God and Jesus Christ because he thought he could do better. So it has been for everyone who has rebelled against God ever since. When you criticize Church leaders, that is pride. When you refuse to accept the word of the living prophet, that is pride. When you try to atone for your own sins, that is pride. When you justify your sins, that is pride. When you attempt to say that you deserve something because you think are better than someone else, that is pride."
I responded:
As you have defined it, it seems to me that the definition of pride is the same as the definition of sin. If that is the definition, then why even use the word "pride" at all? Moreover, I find it terribly troubling that you would define criticizing Church leaders as automatically constituting sinful pride. There may very well be legitimate criticisms of church leaders (i.e., suppose a bishop molests an eight-year-old in a baptismal interview). That does not make the criticism sinful pride. The whole notion that we are never to criticize leadership is antithetical to the church's ideal that truth must reign supreme.
"Pride" in the sinful sense, IMO, is holding yourself to a more lenient standard than you hold others, or favoring your own short-term interests over the legitimate, logically defensible interests of the community. It is thinking that, because you are inherently better or worth more than other people, you deserve special honor, treatment, or glory.
By contrast, I do not consider it sinful pride for a person to demand humane treatment from other people, or to claim freedom of conscience, or to refuse to submit to any rule or idea which is contrary to their ability to accept it by reason, experience, and logic.
In the example of Satan, my understanding from what I have heard in church is that the real problem with his plan (in terms of his own culpability) was that he wanted the glory for himself. The Father asked for proposals; Jesus gave one and Lucifer gave one. I don't think we can criticize Lucifer for his honest belief (at least initially) that God's spirit children would all be better off if they were deprived of free agency and forced to be "good." But reason during the debate stage should have convinced him that God's spirit children would experience little if any spiritual growth if they were never given the opportunity to make bad choices and learn from their mistakes. I suspect that the "pride" of which Satan was guilty was the disregarding of reason and logic because his ego was too bruised, and he did not want to acknowledge the fact that his proposal (that mankind be deprived of free agency so that all would be saved) was flawed. To "guard his honor," and not admit a mistake, Lucifer rebelled against God and vowed revenge, becoming Satan and getting cast out. In effect, I think that Satan committed the sin of pride when he cast reason aside and decided that power (his power), not reason, should take precedence. But to argue that Satan committed the sin of pride, merely because he initially believed that his own plan made sense and was superior to Jesus' plan, is a huge oversimplification and implies that, unless we unquestioningly accept everything we are told by our leaders, we are sinning. In an odd twist of irony, that very idea (the oversimplification) is in opposition to the plan that God eventually settled on, namely that we would come to Earth and have to make tough decisions with limited information, walking with uncertainty and learning from experience, formulating initial opinions but then revising them as reason and experience dictate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
