LDSToronto Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 So tell us, how long have you been arrogant enough to view other peoples stances as being morally inferior to yours?Or is it moral of me to ask? Is there something in the water around here? How many times am I going to be accused of being an arrogant moral erudite, just because I happen to disagree with the church's moral position on certain issues? I know decency gets thrown out the window quite often, but literacy doesn't have to be tossed along with it.Read the posts again. I am not claiming a) that the moral stance that any person or group of people takes is inferior to mine nor do I feel that b) disagreement with my worldview makes a person morally right or morally wrong.Very simply, I believe that, on certain issues, the institution that is known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is morally wrong. That is all I've stated. Any additions are by your own inference.H.
LDSToronto Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 How is upholding Biblical marriage morally wrong?Ah, so it is a comprehension problem. Recall, in the post that you just responded to, I said:"I'll answer this question; as for the others, you'll need to start new threads on them so as not to derail this one."Please abide.H.
deadeye Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 I don't think so. I think that such things are not nearly has common or as heinous as you may believe. Anecdotally yes but I have not yet seen a solid work up of the numbers. I think the argument is overwrought. Like not getting a temple recommend if you have a speeding ticket in regards to obeying the laws of the land.I think comparing the issues associated with illegal immigration to speeding is a little over-simplistic. It's a matter of degrees. There's a big difference between someone who is simply here illegally, brought here as a child illegally and isn't working (civil offense) versus someone who is caught, deported and returns again and knowingly using a fake id to obtain work (several felonies). It seems that currently, there is no mechanism to differentiate the differences between these situations. In fact, it appears that what is being taught is no matter what the situation is, violating immigration and related laws in no way affects someone's worthiness. I've heard of Wards welcoming back members who've returned after being deported, for example.Even with your speeding example, there is a hug difference between going a couple miles over the speed limit on the freeway and someone who recklessly drives 60 MPH in a school zone and causes an accident resulting in injury/death. In that case the speeding is a serious issue and could potentially affect someones personal worthiness. I believe the church would be quick to discipline a member who does something like this and gets convicted for it.
Pahoran Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 the BYU HONOR CODE which "Real Men" follow, requires "informing", so much for dignity of decent people.The BYU Honor Code is a specific contract that students freely and knowingly enter into. They all know its provisions. Are people asked to sign a similar contract when they move into a neighbourhood in an American city? as for the Church not being a law enforcer, A person on probation or other types of non-confinement recompense administered by the State, can not receive certain blessings from the LDS Church, but someone flaunting and at even claiming a right to flaunt Federal Law is given a free pass.Yes, the Church restricts certain blessings from people who are under legal sanctions. It does not take it upon itself to impose legal sanctions, or to investigate alleged law-breaking, or otherwise to enforce civil laws.This does not seem to me to be a very subtle difference.Regards,Pahoran
Jeff K. Posted March 23, 2011 Posted March 23, 2011 Is there something in the water around here? How many times am I going to be accused of being an arrogant moral erudite, just because I happen to disagree with the church's moral position on certain issues? I know decency gets thrown out the window quite often, but literacy doesn't have to be tossed along with it.Read the posts again. I am not claiming a) that the moral stance that any person or group of people takes is inferior to mine nor do I feel that b) disagreement with my worldview makes a person morally right or morally wrong.Very simply, I believe that, on certain issues, the institution that is known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is morally wrong. That is all I've stated. Any additions are by your own inference.H.You will be asked as many times as you are. The arrogant often think themselves humble in the height of arrogance.On certain issues you morality is "superior". One presumes if you find a moral wrong in yourself you correct it, therefore it simply must be.... Ahem, ok we get it.
LDSToronto Posted March 23, 2011 Author Posted March 23, 2011 On certain issues you morality is "superior". If you say so... Does this rule apply to you, too? Meaning, when you disagree with someone's moral position, are you implying that you are morally superior to that person?H.
LT123 Posted March 24, 2011 Posted March 24, 2011 So I didn't know what the bill was, so I looked it up: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/21/christianity-religionSounds like the Church encouraged a middle-ground, advocating for both fairness and compassion.The chamber of commerce thinks its a pretty awesome solution too. It's about time we tackled that dire labor shortage problem.
frankenstein Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 Is the following Proclamation still applicable?Parents have a sacred duty to ... be law-abiding citizens wherever they live.
TAO Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 Is the following Proclamation still applicable?Parents have a sacred duty to ... be law-abiding citizens wherever they live.Yes, I think it is.To be quite honest, I think that the church is still trying not to stray too far in either direction. But that's just my feeling about this, even after what happened here.
frankenstein Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 The BYU Honor Code is a specific contract that students freely and knowingly enter into. They all know its provisions. Are people asked to sign a similar contract when they move into a neighbourhood in an American city? regardless of a contract or not, you said concerning informing on neighbors Pahoran, on 22 March 2011 - 04:25 PM, said: a practice that is still encouraged in certain totalitarian societies, but which is rather beneath the dignity of decent people.either informing is beneath decent people or it is not, and if informing is beneath decent people; then being of sound body and mind and knowingly and willfully signing a contract for ones own gain (i.e. you do not inform and it is discovered you did not inform you are punished too) to inform is far more below decent people.
Mordecai Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 ...informing on neighbors...Do you think "informing on neighbors" is evil in itself? If so, that's pretty simplistic. You must be able to think of some exceptions. I can easily make an argument for why it is perfectly moral at BYU in that particular situation. Easily.
Jeff K. Posted March 28, 2011 Posted March 28, 2011 Anytime you call the police to report a crime being perpetrated upon someone else you are "informing".So if it is black and white, then the question is really why would an individual allow a heinous crime by not informing?
semlogo Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Here's the thing that bugs me about the church's apparent embrace of illegal aliens into the church. I've always treated the worthiness interview for the temple very seriously and have carefully considered each interview question, answering it with complete truthfulness, even if the answer meant that a recommend would not be issued at that time. I've also known others who've had their own struggles with things and have worked through issues and put their lives in order to earn the blessings associated with being temple-worthy. For them it was a serious and solemn issue, bringing joy to many people who witnessed the spiritual journey.With these sacred experiences in mind, I have a hard time contemplating Bishops or Stake Presidents issuing temple recommends to illegal aliens who are knowingly breaking multiple laws, in some cases multiple felonies in order to conduct their lives here.I can't imagine a member who considers temple worthiness serious, who works through some issues in order to get to the temple, only to encounter an illegal alien there who is responsible for stealing the identity of one of the members children or who caused the member to lose his business because of dishonest business practices (hiring illegals, not paying taxes, etc...)?What happened to the notion that God will not be mocked in his temples?Illegal immigration isn't actually a crime - it's a misdemeanor, like speeding.
semlogo Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 Do you think "informing on neighbors" is evil in itself? If so, that's pretty simplistic. You must be able to think of some exceptions. I can easily make an argument for why it is perfectly moral at BYU in that particular situation. Easily.To me the BYU informing on your neighbors thing smacks of Pol Pot era Cambodia and other totalitarian regimes. I know they mean well, but it IS disturbing. I guess that's why I decided not to attend, even after being admitted.
Mordecai Posted April 1, 2011 Posted April 1, 2011 To me the BYU informing on your neighbors thing smacks of Pol Pot era Cambodia and other totalitarian regimes. I know they mean well, but it IS disturbing. I guess that's why I decided not to attend, even after being admitted.So you think it's like something violent and oppressive, huh? I think it's more like if your friend's fiance tried to hit on you, you could tell his bishop. Nothing disturbing about informing on someone in that case, is there? Is that like Pol Pot era Cambodia?
Jeff K. Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 To me the BYU informing on your neighbors thing smacks of Pol Pot era Cambodia and other totalitarian regimes. I know they mean well, but it IS disturbing. I guess that's why I decided not to attend, even after being admitted.I mean really, if you can compare BYU to Pol Pot you either have no understanding of BYU or you are woefully inadequate in your knowledge of who Pol Pot was and what he did.In Mission Viejo we have a very good neighborhood watch system. Crime is low and our kids are pretty safe at night. Our mayor must be pol pot. I wonder how much higher the crime rate would be if we felt that it was not of our business?
semlogo Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 I mean really, if you can compare BYU to Pol Pot you either have no understanding of BYU or you are woefully inadequate in your knowledge of who Pol Pot was and what he did.In Mission Viejo we have a very good neighborhood watch system. Crime is low and our kids are pretty safe at night. Our mayor must be pol pot. I wonder how much higher the crime rate would be if we felt that it was not of our business?So you think it's like something violent and oppressive, huh? I think it's more like if your friend's fiance tried to hit on you, you could tell his bishop. Nothing disturbing about informing on someone in that case, is there? Is that like Pol Pot era Cambodia?BYU students are encouraged to inform on each other for personal infractions, like having a girl in your place after hours, or drinking coffee, or not shaving, or wearing shorts that are too high. That system of informing on your neighbors is very much like many totalitarian regimes. The consequences, of course, are nothing like those in a totalitarian regime.Ironically, earlier in the church the credo was "mind your own business." They took that seriously. I believe in that credo. On the other hand, no one is forced to attend BYU, so it's not so terrible. BYU isn't the church itself.
Jeff K. Posted April 2, 2011 Posted April 2, 2011 BYU students are encouraged to inform on each other for personal infractions, like having a girl in your place after hours, or drinking coffee, or not shaving, or wearing shorts that are too high. That system of informing on your neighbors is very much like many totalitarian regimes. The consequences, of course, are nothing like those in a totalitarian regime.And that to you is like Pol Pots regime? Really? I mean do you really think so? That is unbalanced to say the least.Ironically, earlier in the church the credo was "mind your own business." They took that seriously. I believe in that credo.Two things....CFR on the "credo" as you put it, that such was ever the church's. Secondly, one is always welcome to find another church to fit their "unique" tastes when they no longer believe in the "credo" that we have, which we sometimes call "Articles of Faith". Allow me to repeat that your rejection of anykind of neighborhood watch is somewhat extreme. I prefer neighbors who inform to neighbors who "mind their own business"In both examples below, an informant could have changed things and did not. In one a person was hurt by another, in the second, the person was only hurt by themselves.The young woman had been attacked in full view of a New York City subway clerk, then dragged down the steps onto a deserted platform where she was raped and raped again, the assailant not stopping even when a subway train pulled into the station. Now, after nearly four years of constant nightmares, bouts of depression and anxiety, the woman has been told by a judge that two transit workers who saw her being attacked had no obligation to do anything to help her other than to signal their superiors that police were needed at the station.
dirtius maximus Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 I think it's more like if your friend's fiance tried to hit on you, you could tell his bishop. Nothing disturbing about informing on someone in that case, is there?I am curious in why you think informing in that situation is not disturbing? What Doctrinal source would you use to articulate that a person engaged - no eternal covenant - is violating the BYU Honor code by flirting with another person. Have you the LDS themed film Legacy, which as I understand was shown for some time at the Joseph Memorial Building. In that film one of the lead male characters flirts on a regular basis with the lead female who is in essence engaged to another man; the male who does the flirting also does the flirting in earshot and within the presence of the other man. If flirting while engaged was so terrible I highly doubt the LDS Church would have allowed Legacy to be shown on Temple Square.
Pahoran Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 regardless of a contract or not, you said concerning informing on neighbors either informing is beneath decent people or it is not, and if informing is beneath decent people; then being of sound body and mind and knowingly and willfully signing a contract for ones own gain (i.e. you do not inform and it is discovered you did not inform you are punished too) to inform is far more below decent people.How do you know? Have you asked one?BYU students agree to uphold certain standards that are considerably above the world at large. They do so, knowing that there will be temptations to fall below those standards. Therefore, part of the agreement they make is that they will help each other to uphold those standards, including (but not limited to) initiating the process to help an erring brother or sister to correct any infractions.If you can't tell the difference between that and snooping around your neighbour's place to find out if he's got the right paperwork in order to "deserve" to live in an ostensibly free country, then I'm afraid I can't help you.And anyone who can't tell the difference between the BYU honor code and certain murderous dictatorships must have smoked rather too much Pot; possibly of the Pol variety.Regards,Pahoran
USU78 Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 Illegal immigration isn't actually a crime - it's a misdemeanor, like speeding.and DUI . . . and wifebeating without leaving a mark . . . and child abuse . . .
semlogo Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 And that to you is like Pol Pots regime? Really? I mean do you really think so? That is unbalanced to say the least.Two things....CFR on the "credo" as you put it, that such was ever the church's. Secondly, one is always welcome to find another church to fit their "unique" tastes when they no longer believe in the "credo" that we have, which we sometimes call "Articles of Faith". Allow me to repeat that your rejection of anykind of neighborhood watch is somewhat extreme. I prefer neighbors who inform to neighbors who "mind their own business"In both examples below, an informant could have changed things and did not. In one a person was hurt by another, in the second, the person was only hurt by themselves.She cried rape
semlogo Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 and DUI . . . and wifebeating without leaving a mark . . . and child abuse . . .Child abuse is a misdemeanor? Do you think the brethren ought to treat illegal immigration more seriously?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.