Is The Us Better With Strict Moral Conformance Or High Individual Freedom?

[volgadon]

What I did say is that homosexuality was an accepted part of the Roman culture.

You mean that men of high social standing being the dominant partner and bedding their lessers was somewhat accepted. It was more common among those who adapted Greek culture to a large extent, like Hadrian. Heliogabalus' behaviour, OTOH, was considered rather scandalous.

[california boy]

I have two questions I would appreciate some thoughts on.

Where does the concept of "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves"

And does anyone have an example of a righteous government other than in the BOM. Some government that managed over time that managed to keep its people moral by passing laws. Is all I can come up with is many governments that tried to impose what they considered moral and ended up being even more immoral The Spanish inquisition for example or Protestants who ended up burning people to the stake that they though were "not like them". Do we like the idea of the scarlett letter kind of government? These are all attempts by government to dictate to the population what would lead them to salvation.

[california boy]

You mean that men of high social standing being the dominant partner and bedding their lessers was somewhat accepted. It was more common among those who adapted Greek culture to a large extent, like Hadrian. Heliogabalus' behaviour, OTOH, was considered rather scandalous.

What I mean is exactly what I stated. Homosexuality was an accepted part of their culture. There were more than just men of high social standing practicing homosexuality.

[CV75]

I think that over time our communities will continue to define harm in more and more narrow manner as we increasingly tolerate the rights of individuals to act according to their own conscience. My current questioning is trying to understand whether this is an increase in societal freedom in a good way, a bad way, or not an increase in freedom at all.

I also think that harm should not left entirely to the people via petition and vote as we must measure the "peoples will" on harm against some obvious objective definitional parameters. Otherwise I fundamentally agree with everything you have said here.

Thanks for the comments.

The way I see it, an increase in freedom to act without regard to covenant or a shared conscience will inevitably result in harm and loss of freedom to the society and the people living in it. I think the Book or Mormon teaches this especially well. An unrestrained lack of a shared conscience results in competing special interests and enmity which ultimately undermines freedom. Widespread popular disagreement with or disobedience to universal principles has undesirable consequences impacting freedom. There used to be a term, “public virtue” that covered both these ideas.

You refer to “obvious objective definitional parameters” which to me are the basis for covenants, conscience and public virtue. Acceptance of these is entirely a function of individual agency as they cannot be imposed upon anyone. They are then expressed by individual action which includes petition and vote. This can come back to bite them once the “pride cycle” begins and “the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity.”

[Bikeemikey]

The way I see it, an increase in freedom to act without regard to covenant or a shared conscience will inevitably result in harm and loss of freedom to the society and the people living in it. I think the Book or Mormon teaches this especially well. An unrestrained lack of a shared conscience results in competing special interests and enmity which ultimately undermines freedom. Widespread popular disagreement with or disobedience to universal principles has undesirable consequences impacting freedom. There used to be a term, “public virtue” that covered both these ideas.

You refer to “obvious objective definitional parameters” which to me are the basis for covenants, conscience and public virtue. Acceptance of these is entirely a function of individual agency as they cannot be imposed upon anyone. They are then expressed by individual action which includes petition and vote. This can come back to bite them once the “pride cycle” begins and “the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity.”

The book of mormon specifically teaches this around the principle of wealth disparity (something the US ranks the highest among first world nations at present). Almost every reference to the wickedness of the people is tied to the consideration of welfare of the poor and how resource is distributed amongst the community as a whole. It may be the case the homosexual activity is a primary cause of wealth disparity (the current dramatic increase in wealth disparity related to the USA is a post sexual revolution thing). I am not sure there is any evidence for this however.

It seems that we agree that the govt should not be a coercive moral force, but that if the people fall into moral degradation things will go badly.

[volgadon]

What I mean is exactly what I stated. Homosexuality was an accepted part of their culture. There were more than just men of high social standing practicing homosexuality.

If you meant what you said there, you are oversimplifying things, to say the least. Certain forms of homosexuality were accepted to a limited degree. Varying over time, place, and social circumstance, of course.

[CV75]

The book of mormon specifically teaches this around the principle of wealth disparity (something the US ranks the highest among first world nations at present). Almost every reference to the wickedness of the people is tied to the consideration of welfare of the poor and how resource is distributed amongst the community as a whole. It may be the case the homosexual activity is a primary cause of wealth disparity (the current dramatic increase in wealth disparity related to the USA is a post sexual revolution thing). I am not sure there is any evidence for this however.

It seems that we agree that the govt should not be a coercive moral force, but that if the people fall into moral degradation things will go badly.

The “iniquity” in Mosiah 29 refers to:

v. 5: pride

v. 6: contention, shedding blood, perverting the ways of the Lord, destruction of souls.

v. 9: pride, vanity, sin

v. 14: stealing, plundering, murdering, “any manner” of iniquity

v. 15: crime against “the law which has been given to us by our fathers”)

v. 18: King Noah’s activities (sin, whoredoms, all manner of wickedness, laziness, idolatry, material excess, excessive taxation, riotous living, alcohol abuse, delighting in shedding blood, wickedness—Mosiah 11)

v. 22: “teareth up the laws of …righteousness” and “trampleth the commandments of God”

v. 23 “laws after the manner of …wickedness” and “pervert the ways of all righteousness”

v. 24: abominations

So I would say that the pride cycle involves or incorporates all these types of iniquity as well as the mistreatment of the poor.

I figure the government’s proper place is to enact, execute and enforce laws, and that the proper place of the governed is to avoid the above-mentioned behaviors in order to establish a government that works well for them.

[thesometimesaint]

And of course I never made that statement. In fact marriage back then was nothing like the institute it is today. What I did say is that homosexuality was an accepted part of the Roman culture. To insinuate that homosexuality was a reason for the downfall of any civilization as implied by MormonMason is absolutely a false premise. You may want to reread MormonMasons post again to see what I was responding to.

Actually we get our marriage laws from the Romans, by way of English Common Law. While neither Rome nor Byzantium had laws against homosexuality, accepted is not the same thing as approved of. I said nothing about the downfall of any empire being linked to homosexuality. In the case of the Roman Empire they grew beyond their means to effectively control, and the population simply didn't care anymore. Rome itself was relegated to secondary, if not tertiary, role. Byzantium's downfall was bit more complex but homosexuality wasn't even proximal to it.

[CV75]

Where does the concept of "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves"

Religiously, it refers to the Holy Ghost helping the saints apply the principles of truth in keeping their covenants.

If I were to apply this statement to government, it would refer to the responsibility of citizens to unitedly adhere to principles of truth so that they may successfully govern themselves.

And does anyone have an example of a righteous government other than in the BOM. Some government that managed over time that managed to keep its people moral by passing laws.

Even the righteous Book of Mormon governments failed to keep people moral once the people became steeped in iniquity. This is because it wasn't the government's role to keep the people righteous. It wasn't government itself that ruled their conscience and covenant-keeping. It was only the government's role to adhere to the righeous voice of the people, so once the people became iniquitous, the government became corrupt and eventually collapsed.

[california boy]

Actually we get our marriage laws from the Romans, by way of English Common Law. While neither Rome nor Byzantium had laws against homosexuality, accepted is not the same thing as approved of. I said nothing about the downfall of any empire being linked to homosexuality. In the case of the Roman Empire they grew beyond their means to effectively control, and the population simply didn't care anymore. Rome itself was relegated to secondary, if not tertiary, role. Byzantium's downfall was bit more complex but homosexuality wasn't even proximal to it.

Thanks for your clarification. And yes you did not say anthing about the downfall of any empire being linked to homosexuality. Like I said in my post, I was responding to MormonMasons comment where he was trying to link homosexuality with the downfall of empires.

[california boy]

Religiously, it refers to the Holy Ghost helping the saints apply the principles of truth in keeping their covenants.

If I were to apply this statement to government, it would refer to the responsibility of citizens to unitedly adhere to principles of truth so that they may successfully govern themselves.

Even the righteous Book of Mormon governments failed to keep people moral once the people became steeped in iniquity. This is because it wasn't the government's role to keep the people righteous. It wasn't government itself that ruled their conscience and covenant-keeping. It was only the government's role to adhere to the righeous voice of the people, so once the people became iniquitous, the government became corrupt and eventually collapsed.

I would agree with you on the points you made. So to get back to the OP do you think it is the role of government to govern with strict moral conformance? By that I mean the government does not have the role of punishing its citizens that choose immoral behavior as long as that behavior does not injure others.

Edited October 9, 2012 by california boy

[CV75]

I would agree with you on the points you made. So to get back to the OP do you think it is the role of government to govern with strict moral conformance? By that I mean the government does not have the role of punishing its citizens that choose immoral behavior as long as that behavior does not injure others.

I think I’ve answered this question a couple of different ways already (would you mind reviewing those posts so as not to re-hash excessively)? In short, good government has a role in enforcing secular law, including punishing citizens that choose those immoral behaviors that are defined as illegal in their various manifestations and circumstances, reflecting the moral values of the society as expressed by the voice of the people.

[Bikeemikey]

Religiously, it refers to the Holy Ghost helping the saints apply the principles of truth in keeping their covenants.

If I were to apply this statement to government, it would refer to the responsibility of citizens to unitedly adhere to principles of truth so that they may successfully govern themselves.

Even the righteous Book of Mormon governments failed to keep people moral once the people became steeped in iniquity. This is because it wasn't the government's role to keep the people righteous. It wasn't government itself that ruled their conscience and covenant-keeping. It was only the government's role to adhere to the righeous voice of the people, so once the people became iniquitous, the government became corrupt and eventually collapsed.

This is correct for some forms of democratic govt, not however for constitutional govt. There are principles of governance that even the voice of the people do not have the capacity to overturn - though they may be able to overturn the constitution through more violent means.

It is for this reason the the USA has a unique position in this debate. Other systems (like my home country of New Zealand) simply understand that voice rule of the people is law.

In the USA the voice of the people is law, unless it violates the principles of the constitution. So are the principles of the constitution violated when people ask for tolerance of immoral (from many religious perspectives) actions when such actions do not violate the principle of harm?

[CV75]

This is correct for some forms of democratic govt, not however for constitutional govt. There are principles of governance that even the voice of the people do not have the capacity to overturn - though they may be able to overturn the constitution through more violent means.

It is for this reason the the USA has a unique position in this debate. Other systems (like my home country of New Zealand) simply understand that voice rule of the people is law.

In the USA the voice of the people is law, unless it violates the principles of the constitution. So are the principles of the constitution violated when people ask for tolerance of immoral (from many religious perspectives) actions when such actions do not violate the principle of harm?

The US Constitution may be amended by "the voice of the people" as it is expressed in a democratic constitutional republic (see Article V).

Asking for tolerance is protected as free speech, even if the behavior would be deemed a violation of the principle of harm. The system allows this kind of public discourse.

Certain forms of asking are obviously a violation of the principle of harm.

Edited October 10, 2012 by CV75

[canard78]

The govt is a monolithic entity that will/can impact people's private (moral) decisions.

As such, it is an entity will/can impact people's salvation.

In virtue of the govts capacity to impact an individuals salvation the have an obligation to impact it positively.

Therefore legislation should enhance the principles that lead to salvation, even at the expense of some (individual) freedoms.

I'm not American, and don't live there - so I hope you don't mind me passing comment... I'm applying the same question to my home country's government (UK, I'm not going to get into my 'host' country China...).

I've never considered the government's job to pass legislation that lead to salvation. The government's job is to pass legislation that balances what the electorate want, with what's best for the electorate even if they don't fully realise it. Primarily they should fulfill the mandate given to them by the people who voted for them.

If the majority will wants something 'immoral' then it's questionable as to whether it's no longer moral. Aren't morals defined by society. So if the majority of society believe (e.g.) gay marriage is morally acceptable, it's the government's responsibility to implement that - while also respecting and maintaining the right of the minority to live as they chose, but not allow that minority to hinder the majority view.

I don't think that we can expect the government of US or abroad to guard or righteousness

[Rob Osborn]

I'm not American, and don't live there - so I hope you don't mind me passing comment... I'm applying the same question to my home country's government (UK, I'm not going to get into my 'host' country China...).

I've never considered the government's job to pass legislation that lead to salvation. The government's job is to pass legislation that balances what the electorate want, with what's best for the electorate even if they don't fully realise it. Primarily they should fulfill the mandate given to them by the people who voted for them.

If the majority will wants something 'immoral' then it's questionable as to whether it's no longer moral. Aren't morals defined by society. So if the majority of society believe (e.g.) gay marriage is morally acceptable, it's the government's responsibility to implement that - while also respecting and maintaining the right of the minority to live as they chose, but not allow that minority to hinder the majority view.

I don't think that we can expect the government of US or abroad to guard or righteousness

Morals aren't defined by man, they are defined by God....Huge difference!

[mcjathan]

Is the U.S. better with strict moral conformance or high individual freedom?

Strict moral conformance = Satan's plan

High individual freedom = Jehovah's plan

[thesometimesaint]

Morals aren't defined by man, they are defined by God....Huge difference!

At least in this life the enforcement of those morals is left up to man. We are a secular country and you don't get to enforce your morality on anyone else.