Are You Only "Good" Because You Are Afraid Of Being "Bad"?

[Questing Beast]

The concept of "heaven" is "dogmatic," but the concept of "good" is "demonstrated?" How does that work? How do you quantify "good?" How is it defined and measured?

You are denying/ignoring "the light of Christ in every man". That is how "good and bad" are demonstrated everywhere, every day. Yet "heaven and hell" are entirely separate from our common judgment of "good and bad".

Proving what? That there are no atheists in foxholes?

Differentiating "good" behavior from "bad" is an exercise in pointing to an authoritative arbiter. Without such an arbiter, there is no differentiation.

Take any two people from anywhere in the world and put them together, and they will agree on "good and bad", and even "justice" almost all the time. Bring "heaven and hell" into the mix, and your enormous differences of opinion will start.

Oh. So you get to dictate which concepts are fabricated and which are not.

Um, good luck with that.

All concepts are "fabricated", no exceptions. That's the beauty of believing that "God" is directly connected to every human being. Everything we come up with is influenced by that inseverable connection. As that is true, religions, all of them, spring from the same connection, as nothing can originate outside of the Cause of existence in the first place. All religions are valid frameworks that "God" works within.

We see what? You are presupposing the existence of "good," but you cannot define it.

We see "eye to eye" on most moral things. And our cultural histories agree on "justice" in most details going back as far as we can tell. When we look into history we do not see much that is alien about how people defined "good and bad". There are exceptions of course, but for the most part "good" equals "virtue". Our modern sensibilities rebel at ancient sexual practices, and often do not see the logic behind them for the practitioners. Judging the "ancients" by an incomplete set of criteria will always result in a bigoted judgment.

The world is already in the thrall of Korihor's paradigm.

That's one, dogmatic, pov. Possibly Korihor is nothing more than a story, like Job, to point out the unwisdom of being a totally self-serving hedonist. And worse, making it into a religious "calling" in order to justify yourself.

In order for the world to "already be in thrall" to "Korihor's paradigm" it would have to be peopled by a majority who do not have a functioning conscience, for Korihor, when confronted, admitted that he had "always known there is a God", etc. How many people have you known who deliberately squelch their conscience so that they can get away with being "bad"? I know countless individuals who have pursed foolish even addictive behavior because of darkness, ignorance, immaturity, etc., but I can't think of even one as I sit here that I am positive did the "Korihor thing" and made up revelations to justify their decision to sin. Even Brian David Mitchell asserted that he had been told by God to assume Joseph Smith's mantel as "the one mighty and strong", etc. He did not follow Korihor's "paradigm" at all, since Mitchell was patterning his "authority" after the religious inculcation of his fathers.

The Light of Christ and the Gospel of Christ.

To the contrary, I see them every day.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you see good things abounding every day, then what are you on about "Korihor's paradigm"? There are huge swathes of the Earth that do not labor under the influence of "the Gospel of Christ", yet their people are largely good and are improving all the time. The LDS faith is decreasing in the world as a percentage of the total population. So much for that "stone" rolling until it fills the whole earth. Yet we, combined with all other religious, moral and good-loving people ARE increasing in the earth, especially when you count the combined influence we have on each other via our modern communication technologies....

Edited February 14, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

If there were no god nor ultimate justice, nor reciprocity, what is in fact a "good" thing for me as an invididual would change would it not.

I did not assert that there is no "God", just not "heaven and hell" as the dogma of Judeo-Christianity asserts. Judgment occurs continually, therefore there is no requirement of a "final judgment". The concept is repugnant, impugning "God" with limited power to "save" people. If you want to live in "heaven", make it yourself by doing the kinds of things that make your life heavenly. The reverse is true, and "hell" is what you make out of your life, if you feel hellish. Anyone can alter their present state, especially with "God's" intervention, which I absolutely believe in, for everyone, forever.

... Without eternity, good and bad have no meaning.

I agree.

I think human beings are very good at lying to themselves and believing they are "good," when they are not.

I don't see it myself. Actually we are quite bad at lying to ourselves. We are not "designed" to get away with lying to ourselves indefinitely....

[Questing Beast]

I think a good place to look would be the animal world.

Yes, there would be groups that would be socially minded and work towards the good of the group, but for the most part it would be a dog eat dog world.

The strongest would be the leaders until someone stronger came along, or a group banded together and overthrew them.

Pecking orders would be prevelant and deference given to those higher in the pecking order.

Theft would not be a crime...oh yes people would grumble about it but the weak would give way to the strong.

Strangers to the group could be beaten or killed without punishment.

Marriage would be few and far between...raising a family would be a matriarchal affair for the most part as males would be sowing their wild oats...which seems to be more common right now.

That's my thoughts anyway...

We are not animals bereft of sapience. That is why we are self-styled "homo sapiens". Our kind of thinking is not mirrored or mimicked anywhere else in any species. So to compare our belief in "heaven and hell" and "final judgment" to animals that don't hold those concepts, and to assert that it is "religion" that is responsible for inculcating those concepts into our species, is false logic....

[Questing Beast]

I'm not exactly sure what I should think about you comparing the Ancient Greek culture with Hamba Tuhan's description of a barbaric people confined behind walls or in treetops, seemingly living in constant fear and violence. Though I can see the resemblance that made you draw that comparison, I still find this at best missing important nuances, and for now simply grotesque.

Now what are these "nuances" of which you speak"? The level of shared art and wisdom, or the lack of the same? We Westerners conquered those "benighted" cultures with our borrowed Greco-Roman culture and civilization. Had our culture continued pederasty, do you think that the Polynesians would have had to ditch theirs?

Now, in light of your making the connection between the Ancients' concept of virtue and Greek pederastry, I'd like to ask you to help me see how exactly you understand the word "virtue" in this context, and also say if you believe it differs from the concept I was intending and referring to. For the sake of good communication, I think this should make things clearer, and should also help avoid inappropriate referencing to concepts at hand, as well as tasteless comments in the future.

I believe sexual mores to be best judged by the place and time in which they exist. For instance, in some places of Europe nudity is nothing. Yet it shocks many still conservative Americans. We share the same basic religious teaching and laws, yet the attitude toward sexuality and nudity are literally worlds apart. This is not likely to change, unless Americans do the changing. So, vis-a-vis Greek pederasty and "virtue": sexual indulgence was defined by the ancient Greeks, and it was essentially wanton and selfish, without self-discipline and predatory, just like it is today with us. However, nudity, sexuality and its use as a part of open "play" was entirely different with the ancient Greeks compared to our modern standards. The complex of influences that changed that kind of thinking into the dominant paradigm of sexual proscriptions typical within Christianity are not known, but only seen partially. I doubt that even today, in Greece and the rest of the Balkans, where Greek culture holds sway, that what is allowed openly is necessarily denied in private, out of respect for the reigning dominant paradigm in the Western World. This is all in a rapid state of flux, caused by the GLBTQ advocacy that is ongoing. Where it will all wind up nobody can say. But one thing I am confident is predicting is that, the outcome, the resulting laws, will mirror what "the light of Christ" dictates.

Regarding the light of Christ, you referred to its influence being felt over the process of time, resulting in aberrant practices eventually being abandoned and punished "for what they are". But isn't the light of Christ supposed to be "given to every man, that he may know good from evil"? Then how does your portraying of it as occuring over the process of time differ from, let say, Walden's approach to good and evil?

I am not seeing how you got my belief of "the light of Christ" that way. What I believe is that "the light of Christ" has always been with us. I use the term because it is facile, in the positive sense as useful and accessible. TLOC is our permanent connection to "God", who manifests as everything in the world. I do not hold a Mormon cosmological belief, much if at all. I try to reconcile my beliefs as much as possible with Mormon cosmology and theology, but it is not easy. I don't hold that God the Father is capable of being the Cause of existence in the first place: Abraham says no anyway, as does Joseph Smith (which I believe is saying the same thing). So TLOC did not "evolve", it is unchanging.

What is occurring "over process of time" is our group growth spiritually as a species. This will result in "the Millennium", but it is we who will create our own paradise, through the powers that "God" inspires in us....

...

[Walden]

In large part, that's because atheists have inherited their basic value systems from the faith traditions they now so proudly reject.

You have it backwards.

It was the faith traditions that codified the basic value systems that were derived through evolutionary biology, the basic values that made society thrive, expand and flourish. Simply take basic human decency, add some dogmatic codes and rituals and tithes, mix it with a vengeful/judgemental "god" who has the power to send you to hell for eternity for not following the "code" and you have religion.

[smac97]

Questing Beast,

> The concept of "heaven" is "dogmatic," but the concept of "good" is "demonstrated?" How does that work? How do you quantify "good?" How is it defined and measured?

You are denying/ignoring "the light of Christ in every man".

Um, no, I'm not. I brought up that concept, remember? I am a Mormon, remember? Mormons believe in this concept.

That is how "good and bad" are demonstrated everywhere, every day. Yet "heaven and hell" are entirely separate from our common judgment of "good and bad".

They are? "Good and bad" and "heaven and hell" are both intangible, unprovable concepts that people nevertheless believe in (in a broad sense - people disagree about the particulars of these concepts in many ways).

Belief in "good and bad" is just as valid, or invalid, as belief in "heaven and hell."

>Proving what? That there are no atheists in foxholes?

>Differentiating "good" behavior from "bad" is an exercise in pointing to an authoritative arbiter. Without such an arbiter, there is no differentiation.

Take any two people from anywhere in the world and put them together, and they will agree on "good and bad", and even "justice" almost all the time.

Agreed, pretty much.

Bring "heaven and hell" into the mix, and your enormous differences of opinion will start.

Well, I think this is a bit of exaggeration. People have varying concepts of heaven and hell, but the basic premise underpinning these concepts - that good is rewarded and evil is punished - is pretty ubiquitous. And note the close proximity of the concept of "good" with "heaven" and "bad" with "hell."

> Oh. So you get to dictate which concepts are fabricated and which are not.

> Um, good luck with that.

All concepts are "fabricated", no exceptions.

I disagree. "Good" and "bad" are not fabricated concepts. We have an innate sense about these things, a sense that affected by nurturing and environment, but which does not originate from nurturing and environment. These concepts are not man-made. They come from ... somewhere else.

But hey! I love your dogmatic, because-I-say-so declarations.

That's the beauty of believing that "God" is directly connected to every human being. Everything we come up with is influenced by that inseverable connection.

I disagree somewhat that there is an "inseverable connection" between us and God. A person can become so depraved, so evil, that even the Light of Christ departs from him. Sons of Perdition are altogether severed from God.

As that is true, religions, all of them, spring from the same connection, as nothing can originate outside of the Cause of existence in the first place. All religions are valid frameworks that "God" works within.

We believe that all religions have truth in them, albeit in varying degrees.

> We see what? You are presupposing the existence of "good," but you cannot define it.

We see "eye to eye" on most moral things.

Probably. When I was a missionary in Taiwan, I saw "eye to eye" on most moral things with the folks I met there, even though they grew up in a fairly different cultural environment than I did.

We are all the Children of God. We all have access to the Light of Christ. That Light, together with inklings of our prior state, help us discern simple but essential concepts like "good and bad."

And our cultural histories agree on "justice" in most details going back as far as we can tell. When we look into history we do not see much that is alien about how people defined "good and bad". There are exceptions of course, but for the most part "good" equals "virtue".

Agreed.

Our modern sensibilities rebel at ancient sexual practices, and often do not see the logic behind them for the practitioners.

Our modern sensibilities (that is, mine and - apparently - yours) should also rebel at many contemporary sexual practices. There are all sorts of depraved behaviors going on in the worlds right now. They have not been relegated to the ancient past.

> The world is already in the thrall of Korihor's paradigm.

That's one, dogmatic, pov.

It is not. It is a quantifiable POV. We can look at Korihor's philosophy as stated in the Book of Mormon and find countless manifestations of it in today's society.

More in the next post.

[smac97]

cont'd

Possibly Korihor is nothing more than a story, like Job, to point out the unwisdom of being a totally self-serving hedonist.

Perhaps. But I believe he was real.

And worse, making it into a religious "calling" in order to justify yourself.

Huh?

In order for the world to "already be in thrall" to "Korihor's paradigm" it would have to be peopled by a majority who do not have a functioning conscience, for Korihor, when confronted, admitted that he had "always known there is a God", etc.

Well, no. I'm not sure a majority is required (or if it is, I think we're headed toward it). I also think that Korihor's admission was made after having been struck dumb by the God of Heaven. This is not going to happen on a large scale (I think), so the admission will not be forthcoming ... yet. At some point, "every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess" the truth of things (D&C 88:104). Meanwhile, however, Korihor's philosophy lives on.

How many people have you known who deliberately squelch their conscience so that they can get away with being "bad"?

Well, all of us.

I know countless individuals who have pursed foolish even addictive behavior because of darkness, ignorance, immaturity, etc., but I can't think of even one as I sit here that I am positive did the "Korihor thing" and made up revelations to justify their decision to sin.

Huh? Korihor "made up revelations?"

Korihor attacked God's prophets, and belief in prophecy and revelation. He preached a gospel of hedonism. That was his paradigm.

Even Brian David Mitchell asserted that he had been told by God to assume Joseph Smith's mantel as "the one mighty and strong", etc. He did not follow Korihor's "paradigm" at all, since Mitchell was patterning his "authority" after the religious inculcation of his fathers.

First, I think Brian David Mitchell is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Second, I think he is a wicked man who use religious rhetoric to cloak and justify his depraved behavior.

> To the contrary, I see them every day.

If you see good things abounding every day, then what are you on about "Korihor's paradigm"?

Well, I thought you were moderately familiar with LDS belief. I guess that was in error.

I thought you would be familiar with the notion that some people are quite good, some people are quite bad, some people are in between, and none of us is perfect. That being the case, we will be able to observe our brothers and sisters - having the Light of Christ and/or the Spirit of God guinding them - doing good things. We will also observe our brothers and sisters doing bad things by disregarding the Light of Christ and the Spirit of God.

There are huge swathes of the Earth that do not labor under the influence of "the Gospel of Christ",

Well, yes, they do. They just don't call it that or recognize it by that name. Plus, there's the Light of Christ.

yet their people are largely good and are improving all the time.

Agreed. And to the extent people do good things, those actions arise out of the Gospel of Christ or some derivative thereof, and from the Light of Christ.

The LDS faith is decreasing in the world as a percentage of the total population.

But still increasing in number.

I think Christians altogether are decreasting in the world as a percentage of the population as well.

So much for that "stone" rolling until it fills the whole earth.

Again, I thought you were moderately familiar with LDS belief. That was plainly an error on my part.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mark Beesley]

If the whole world woke up this morning knowing that heaven and hell were only man-made concepts, that you can in fact do whatever you want to, tomorrow, the day after that, forever, and nothing is going to happen to you permanently, i.e. no "final judgment" and consignment to "heaven" or "hell", would you still want good things or would you want bad things?

The hypothetical is incomplete. Does the elimination of the concepts of heaven and hell also eliminate the concept of life after death? If there is life after death, what does it look like? Does God continue to exist in this made-up world you are creating? If He does continue to exist, what is His role? Only after you flesh out the hypothetical can we really begin to draw any conclusions about how we would behave.

[Stroopwafel]

Stuff...

Ok, now it is clear that your concept of "virtue" here is related to sexual behaviour, which is not at all what I was referring to. So you really did not understand my comment and therefore I absolve you from this frailty. Anyways, foolishness asides, look up Virtue Ethics when you've got time. Maybe you don't care much learning about it, but if you do, good!, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

As for the TLOC, you're talking about it being unchanging, but then you refer to this "group growth spiritually" (emphasize added) happening "over process of time", making me again wonder how different this moral learning process really is from what is proposed by evolutionary biology. Yes, yours has God in the equation, but both end up with the same result of ethical/moral set of behaviour. In the end, it doesn't matter much to have had the TLOC "always with us", since in both cases, for all practical purposes, humanity still experiences growth, and there is still a learning process.

[Flyonthewall]

We are not animals bereft of sapience. That is why we are self-styled "homo sapiens". Our kind of thinking is not mirrored or mimicked anywhere else in any species. So to compare our belief in "heaven and hell" and "final judgment" to animals that don't hold those concepts, and to assert that it is "religion" that is responsible for inculcating those concepts into our species, is false logic....

You are the one that asked for speculation on what it would be like to not have a belief in "heaven and hell" and "final judgement". Per your own admission, animals don't hold those concepts, so I find it very reasonable and logical to look at them as an example of what it would/could be like.

Are you saying animals have no sapience? While I had to look up sapience to see what it means(wisdom and discernment), I would have to say that animals are not bereft of sapience either.

If it is not religion that has produced the concept of heaven, hell and final justice, do tell where else it might come from...

[tyler90az]

There are both good and bad inside and outside religion. If you lie steal or any other "bad" things in religion you will also do them outside religion. Your behavior change slightly, you may smoke or drink. for the most part I dont think the gospel makes bad men good. It does however good men better.

Everybody has differwnt idea of bad so if mean not ng sab does make bad men good. Bednar was ght in his assesment by how he it.

[Questing Beast]

I don't use the word dogma a lot as it doesn't have a lot of meaning either way in my worldview. So I don't equate dogma with religion. What is your definition of dogma.

Dogma is teaching gone awry, morphing into absolute, exclusive doctrine that brooks no argument.

... is the cosmological idea of a binary heaven/hell necessary to human goodness?

Which last one is what you specifically introduced; without noting, I might add, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the very beginning challenged this paradigm and still does. (Does anyone remember who gave the Conference Talk within the last maybe 10 years about 4 or so reasons to serve or something like that; lesser reasons v greater reasons?) The Church and the gospel as restored by Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith does not subscribe to a binary hell/heaven cosmos nor does it teach fear as the basis for action. So you are asking us to defend a skin we are not wearing.

I'm incapable of detecting any difference. All that Joseph Smith "revealed" was a stratification of "heaven and hell", not an elimination of the ultimate assigning of the soul to one or the other. "That is the end of his kingdom", etc. A soul can increase in knowledge within any of the lower "kingdoms of glory", but never attain to a higher glory, etc. This is even true for souls in the CK that "serve" those in the higher levels of the CK! Yet ONLY the CK is "heaven", all others are levels of "hell", which is defined as anywhere that GtF does not personally dwell, i.e. grace with his presence. Jesus Christ ministers to the Terrestrial Kingdom, but does not grace the Telestial Kingdom with his presence, and the Holy Spirit ministers to the Telestial Kingdom, where murderers, child molesters and people who talk in the theater go, forever. So "heaven" has (an asserted) twelves levels within it, that being the CK. And all other "kingdoms of glory" are "hell". The damnable aspect of all of this is the "that is the limit/end of the glory thereof", with GtF "losing" those children forever because they are incapable of accepting a greater glory, etc.

... We are talking about true fear, injustice, brutality and such that is still too widespread in this world and what is the healing for that?

Learning by commission and being a victim of the same, that there lies no "path to Joy".

... (Note: God is human per the restored knowledge of Jesus Christ through Joseph Smith; God is my fellow traveller and my master teacher.)

Yes, Jesus Christ does appear to be the greatest manifestation of "God" as a mortal so far on this planet.

... Perhaps there are some really great souls that come with their wisdom already intact and that remains intact through being treated evilly (i.e. by abusive parents etc). But most of us have to be taught.

Yes, no two of us are identical. I suspect that many of us are "here" merely to help in the teaching, i.e. we are already in a position as immortals who "get it" Hugh Nibley said that it is possible for a powerful mind to be at peace in vile surroundings, but it is much easier in pleasant surroundings. Reads like a no-brainer, but it is profound insight into how this world operates. Do all the more powerful minds go into the most vile surroundings? I don't think so.

If you have a person or a society who is living in some sort of depravity--mistreatment of women, toxic sexuality, poverty and hunger, etc etc--SOMETHING must be introduced to them to lift them. When the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is introduced to them, then they change (if they choose to subscribe to what they are offered therein). They get their education, they realize what women are, they become sexually clean, etc etc etc.

I see that the corruption of sexuality is weighing oppressively upon your soul. It is a burden in this age unlike any other, a veritable flood of conformity disguised as individuality, a sickening blend of biological drives masquerading as "choice" and "art", and the amount of money to be made is one of the most file aspects, causing the exploitation of innocent and foolish people of all ages everywhere.

Is this gospel the ONLY way to introduce goodness to people? I personally don't think so; and I don't think God thinks so, I think he uses all ways, any way (including atheism) that will bring any good to his children for what they personally need.

God is everywhere and there is no escape! I always liked the "hound of heaven" analogy to describe the persistence that "God" Is in pursuing after each one of us.

Is this gospel a POWERFUL way to introduce goodness to people? Absolutely.

Is this gospel the BEST way to introduce goodness to people? I don't think I'm smart enough to say; for myself at least, I trust that it is and I let other people make a choice about it for themselves. But when I connect with other humans it is due to a paradigm that for me is largely informed by the gospel (for better or worse, but I think better based on my experiences of good).

As dogmatically organized religions go, I don't know a better than the LDS faith.

Is the gospel the creation of Jesus Christ and HIS way his wants to introduce good to the world, at least speaking overall? Yes, I think that.

Could be. Yet Islam came at last to the Arabic culture, giving them their own "prophet" where they were pagans and polytheists before that, raising them up a notch in their spiritual thinking.

...So if you then make a question lumping the restored gospel in with all religion, you certainly have the right to do that if that's what you think, but that is not acknowledging an important distinction perhaps.

I've already said that Mormonism is the best I know of. And Christianity is better than any other religion for the masses.

...

For me, the bottom line is human choice. WE choose what we get out of what is available. I expect that of myself, I expect that of other human beings no matter what paradigm they subscribe to; but I honor their paradigms. But the bottom line is WE choose to be good or bad; and then we justify either of those in some manner based on the justifications we have available to us in the paradigms that were transmitted to us or that we later chose or created.

So I agree with you in many ways, but I did want to add in what I felt were critical notes to thinking about this whole issue.

Thank you! I agree with your "bottom line", that individuals choose, that's the important thing: and choosing always, always, includes the chance to lie to yourself once again. By choosing to not lie to yourself, you have stepped upon the "path to Joy". There is no other way to companionship with "God"....

[Questing Beast]

Oh, so you're being coy. Well, what do you believe?

If there is a thing I am NOT, it is coy. Read my posts, responses, and you'll see that I absolutely believe in "God".

You speak as one lacking much familiarity with LDS beliefs about the nature of man.

LOL! I know "everything" about LDS doctrine about "the nature of man".

There are many good people on the earth, and many bad people on the earth. They become that way not by an innate nature, but through their environment and through the choices they make.

"Many" requires qualifying/quantifying. I do not see "many" as a majority, ever, despite what the BoM has to assert about it. In the real world no civilization of any quality and size has ever been destroyed, they go through catastrophic alterations and emerge because of the experiences stronger and more enlightened than ever before. The whole planet is in "upgrade mode" right now. We see a huge exposure, not increase, in the kinds of corruptions "on offer", and yet I don't see many takers, if the outward tenor of society is any gauge. There are certainly problems, some of them "new" in their intensity and prevalence. But solutions are equally on offer, and escape, and rehabilitation, etc. I don't see the world melting down into a morass or evil and chaos, far from it, ergo, no apocalypse is developing, and that means no "second coming to destroy the wicked with fire" etc and etc and etc.

I propose that you label whatever you dislike with pejoratives (like "indoctrination"), and that you are overly fond of broadly-worded jabs at "religion" (ironic, since you appear to have your own set of religious beliefs - no doubt originating from "indoctrination").

I agree, and the irony is galling to me. Yet we can only do with what we have/are.

Uh ... this is from the guy who doesn't like dogmatism?

Yes, I am in danger of engaging in debate with my OWN dogma. The last thing I want to do is set up a dogma to take the place of dogma! What I believe is probably for me and my individual path "back" to "God". I grant everyone the same privileged relationship with "God", so when/if we share our paradigm, we have to allow that it is possibly "tailored" to us alone, and therefore not binding on anyone to believe any of it for them. There is only ONE doctrine that I "dogmatically" assert to be binding on everyone, always, forever, worlds without end: "Never lie to yourself".

That sounds nice, but godlessness does not lead to this result, notwithstanding your dogmatic (ha!) assertion to the contrary.

It is possible, because of 'the light of Christ" (our origin from "God"), that a person in this venue can be good without a belief in "God". It is even likely.

We agree on it because of the Light of Christ. Because we have inklings of Before, of where we came from. Because God has given us sufficient wisdom to discern basic concepts like "justice."

All this reminds me of an ongoing bit of banter I've been having with one of my sons. Several weeks ago I ate some potato chips in the cupboard which turned out to be his. He has repeatedly demanded (in good humor) that I reimburse him for the loss of those chips. I respond by noting that my salary from my job paid for those chips, but that I will reimburse him for the chips as soon as he reimburses me for all the other things which I pay for and let him have for free: room and board, clothing, transportation, access to computers, the Internet, TV and DVDs, etc. My son refuses this deal (again, in good fun) by simply refusing to acknowledge the source of all the things he has, and which things he takes for granted. In his mind, these things just are. They are not the result of my wife and I working for many years to build a home environment and accumulate some things which make life enjoyable. No, sir! All of my son's stuff is his. It belongs to him. He is not the beneficiary of any "help" from his parents.

So it is with you. You claim the fruits of wisdom, but deny the source of that fruit. I reject that notion. You may as well be praising the health benefits of apples while denying that they grow on trees.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you! Nice parable taken from real life. We are all in that mindset up to some point in our lives, then the "terrible question" enters in and never departs. With me it came as a child, causing me to question/doubt what I was being taught as the "ultimate source of truth", etc. The God the Father I was taught could not be the Cause of Existence in the First Place. It took half a century for me to "jump off the cliff" and find out what is waiting at the bottom. I have been moving forward through a misty, not unpleasant "landscape" ever since. I do acknowledge my very thoughts as originating from the Cause of my Existence. My thoughts are my own, of course, and cannot travel "back" to the Source, but that Source knows me and made me to become a "soul-mate" in process of time. I don't possess any "potato chips" or anything at all, but I do get to enjoy the use of all things in their season....

[Questing Beast]

... "Good and bad" and "heaven and hell" are both intangible, unprovable concepts that people nevertheless believe in (in a broad sense - people disagree about the particulars of these concepts in many ways).

Nothing is "provable", we only have evidence to convince us "beyond a reasonable doubt". We see "good and bad" all the time, here and now. We see no evidence of "heaven and hell", anywhere, since we see nothing of the "afterlife" evidenced in this world. Some of us are convinced by "evidence" of the paranormal, or metaphysical as I prefer to call it, but that "evidence" is not on offer for anyone else, i.e. we cannot call it forth. But we can point to "good and bad" examples everywhere and agree that they exist.

Belief in "good and bad" is just as valid, or invalid, as belief in "heaven and hell."

... People have varying concepts of heaven and hell, but the basic premise underpinning these concepts - that good is rewarded and evil is punished - is pretty ubiquitous. And note the close proximity of the concept of "good" with "heaven" and "bad" with "hell."

... "Good" and "bad" are not fabricated concepts. We have an innate sense about these things, a sense that affected by nurturing and environment, but which does not originate from nurturing and environment. These concepts are not man-made. They come from ... somewhere else.

...

It's just as valid to believe in "heaven or hell", if it makes you good instead of bad.

I disagree somewhat that there is an "inseverable connection" between us and God. A person can become so depraved, so evil, that even the Light of Christ departs from him. Sons of Perdition are altogether severed from God.

Dogmatic assertions that there even is a place and people called "perdition", and that the "light of Christ" can depart, are the arguable part. I suppose that since the concepts were capable of expression that such do in fact exist, but not exclusively vis-a-vis other concepts or assertions to the contrary. It reminds me of the joke, where the guy goes to heaven and is told to be very quiet and not disturb that group over there, and he asks why, and God tells him, "Those are Mormons, and they think they're the only ones up here."

...We all have access to the Light of Christ. That Light, together with inklings of our prior state, help us discern simple but essential concepts like "good and bad."

The doctrine isn't that we have access to the light of Christ, we come here with it "in" us, everyone does. The doctrine continues to state that we can have access, in addition, to the Holy Ghost as a constant gift. The "light of Christ" is a way of saying "inseverable connection to God", because each of us originates from "God" and therefore cannot be separated from the Cause of Existence in the First Place.

...

Our modern sensibilities (that is, mine and - apparently - yours) should also rebel at many contemporary sexual practices. There are all sorts of depraved behaviors going on in the worlds right now. They have not been relegated to the ancient past.

I am constantly offended by sexual behavior and attitude in the world around me, and that is comparatively benign compared to other places in the world where sexuality continues to be largely corrupted by age-worn traditions.

... We can look at Korihor's philosophy as stated in the Book of Mormon and find countless manifestations of it in today's society.

Of course we can find manifestations of Korihor's philosophy. His is a rather facile, unconvincing false logic, incomplete and weak. He asserts that everyone can do whatever s/he wants and it is no crime, and that the strong conquer according to their strength, and that everyone will be "saved" and nobody lost/damned, etc. He says all of this, yet leaves out disbelief in afterlife, an essential feature of such philosophy as "conquer according to the strength of the creature" with nothing being a sin, because "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die". Only in the BoM does afterlife figure in, everywhere else such a philosophy is the creed of the atheist who believes in no existence after death. Then Korihor says the devil taught it all to him after manifesting as a being of light, declaring "there is no God", yet who/what is this "devil as an angel of light"? Obviously a metaphysical apparition without a cause, which makes Korihor an idiot.

...

[Questing Beast]

...

Huh? Korihor "made up revelations?"

"The devil ... appeared unto me in the form of an angel and said ... Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God," etc.

...

First, I think Brian David Mitchell is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Second, I think he is a wicked man who use religious rhetoric to cloak and justify his depraved behavior.

Mitchell is very smart, but he is deranged. He is also very religious and flogged with biological "imperatives", as are we all, though possibly much more insistent in his case than the norm, rather like Joseph Smith in that respect, imho, of course. (I am not suggesting that J.S. was deranged)

...

I thought you would be familiar with the notion that some people are quite good, some people are quite bad, some people are in between, and none of us is perfect. That being the case, we will be able to observe our brothers and sisters - having the Light of Christ and/or the Spirit of God guinding them - doing good things. We will also observe our brothers and sisters doing bad things by disregarding the Light of Christ and the Spirit of God.

We observe our brothers and sisters doing "bad" things more from ignorance and weakness (which we are told by God is his "fault", as our weaknesses are "given" to us by him) than malice-a-forethought. As I said, I don't know anyone who deliberately says "I am bad and I am going to do bad things now". If that occurs it is only after a long process of convincing themselves that they are "bad". But that is the result of lying to yourself, and it won't go on forever.

... And to the extent people do good things, those actions arise out of the Gospel of Christ or some derivative thereof, and from the Light of Christ.

That's the Mormon explanation of course, like the temple endowment content originating from the Temple of Solomon like the Masonic order rituals, thus the similarity: all previous "dispensations" had their revealed gospel, so of course the similarities in other religions are because of the original revelations having been co-opted and corrupted.

But the simplest explanation for similarity and agreement on "good and bad" and people being mostly good everywhere, always, is that we originate from "God", the Cause of Existence.

...

I think Christians altogether are decreasting in the world as a percentage of the population as well.

That would be because of Islam increasing naturally at a faster rate of population expansion, and many Christians divesting themselves of the religion of their fathers in favor of something that suits them individually better.

...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Questing Beast]

The hypothetical is incomplete. Does the elimination of the concepts of heaven and hell also eliminate the concept of life after death? If there is life after death, what does it look like? Does God continue to exist in this made-up world you are creating? If He does continue to exist, what is His role? Only after you flesh out the hypothetical can we really begin to draw any conclusions about how we would behave.

I am not making up an afterlife in this thread. But "God" cannot "continue to exist", since Existence itself is "God" manifesting as space-time and all that it contains.

We behave as we do, and since countless billions, a majority, get on fine without being particularly concerned about religion, the evidence is that "heaven and hell" are not motivators for "good" behavior....

[Questing Beast]

...

As for the TLOC, you're talking about it being unchanging, but then you refer to this "group growth spiritually" (emphasize added) happening "over process of time", making me again wonder how different this moral learning process really is from what is proposed by evolutionary biology. Yes, yours has God in the equation, but both end up with the same result of ethical/moral set of behaviour. In the end, it doesn't matter much to have had the TLOC "always with us", since in both cases, for all practical purposes, humanity still experiences growth, and there is still a learning process.

The Light of Christ is just an expression for "inseverable connection to God" in my view. So, yes, humanity is always growing because of that connection. We are immortals, ergo we should have all the "time" we need to "get it right", that is, to know what Joy Is and is not. If "being there" (here) has a biological component for the duration, and it inarguably does, then of course "the light of Christ" is also manifested biologically, which points to why religion got invented in the first place, and should keep the evolutionists happy!...

[Questing Beast]

You are the one that asked for speculation on what it would be like to not have a belief in "heaven and hell" and "final judgement". Per your own admission, animals don't hold those concepts, so I find it very reasonable and logical to look at them as an example of what it would/could be like.

Are you saying animals have no sapience? While I had to look up sapience to see what it means(wisdom and discernment), I would have to say that animals are not bereft of sapience either.

If it is not religion that has produced the concept of heaven, hell and final justice, do tell where else it might come from...

I am not saying that these concepts originate outside of religion! That's the crux of the discussion: what amount of (undue) influence does dogmatic, organized religion play in the causing of people to be "good" instead of "bad"?

Animals are neither good or bad, they are what they are. There is no evidence of conscience at work, no remorse, just emotional reaction to the immediate situation. Elephants, which are arguably the most sapient non-human species, possess legendarily long memories, which includes observed mourning for life, including also returning to "burial" grounds to remember/reverence the dead, etc. Yet there is nothing remotely akin to "our kind of thought" vis-a-vis holding concepts of the afterlife, and creating our own environment through manipulation born out of imagination of a different world/future, etc. So there is no evidence that animals of any sort hold a concept of good and bad, only existence as it is. To assume that without our concept of heaven and hell that we would lose our definitions of "good and bad", and revert to being mere animals, is a leap without any evidence to back it up. We are the only species with imagination and the power to give it life....

[EllenMaksoud]

If the whole world woke up this morning knowing that heaven and hell were only man-made concepts, that you can in fact do whatever you want to, tomorrow, the day after that, forever, and nothing is going to happen to you permanently, i.e. no "final judgment" and consignment to "heaven" or "hell", would you still want good things or would you want bad things?

If the entire historical edifice defining "good and bad" was stripped away and you had to define it for yourself, what would you judge by?

I would continue as I am. Because I know my feelings steer me rightly toward that which is just. I make mistakes. But I correct them instantly, as I can, and never put off correction even for a moment of self indulgence. That is my paradigm of living by Justice.

But I allow that some people don't know good and bad, right and wrong, by their feelings alone. They are dark creatures, yet, and require guidance. And thus we have dogma in place, and the coercion that powers the dogma, otherwise known as religion.

My belief is that if the elimination of all dogmatic belief occurred, that the world would not melt down into anarchy of selfishness and sin. In other words, I believe that the vast majority of people are good because they like how it feels better than being bad. Only a very few are so messed up that they are dangerously bad.

So the "job" of religion is largely redundant, and most of us fear needlessly because of religious inculcation in childhood....

My Christian experience seems to sometimes be backward from others. To some, who have experienced a great deal of trauma, when they feel like Heavenly Father has finally rescued them, there is a great feeling of thankfulness. Then, one strives to be good in order to please Heavenly Father.

[Questing Beast]

There are both good and bad inside and outside religion. If you lie steal or any other "bad" things in religion you will also do them outside religion. Your behavior change slightly, you may smoke or drink. for the most part I dont think the gospel makes bad men good. It does however good men better.

Everybody has differwnt idea of bad so if mean not ng sab does make bad men good. Bednar was ght in his assesment by how he it.

Were you getting off a late shift? Your prose went all wonky! I think I get what you are saying, though: "Good and bad" are not behavioral unless unjust or immoral results occur as consequences of the action/habit. In that sense, some behaviors are not apparently bad until they run their lengthy course, such as lung cancer from smoking, which takes the father out of the picture when he could have remained and blessed his loved ones for many more years, surely a "bad" if not an evil consequence of a weakness not fought successfully, probably for selfish reasons above others. Then the "secondary smoke" of smoking indoors can kill, as it did my aunt, she died before her several packs a day smoking husband because his habit killed her. Was he "bad"? No, but his behavior was, so in a limited sense he was "bad" because badness surrounded him in a cloud of cigarette smoke his whole life. But my aunt knew this when she married him, so the blame was also hers, even though the effects of cigarette smoking were not known for many years after her decision. She was ignorant, so not knowingly bad, but she did have The Word of Wisdom before her and her upbringing as a Mormon girl, so she erred knowingly in marrying a heavy smoker. No one did anything deliberately immoral or "bad", but both uncle and aunt knew that smoking tobacco was defined as wrong by revelation, and disregarded that counsel, to their mutual hurt. Growing up in a smoke filled house probably contributed to the early cancer of the bowel death of their daughter too, so the selfish habit of the father was a plague upon his family. But my uncle was a good man in all other respects that I know of....

edit: "off"

Edited February 16, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

My Christian experience seems to sometimes be backward from others. To some, who have experienced a great deal of trauma, when they feel like Heavenly Father has finally rescued them, there is a great feeling of thankfulness. Then, one strives to be good in order to please Heavenly Father.

This resonates with the purpose of religion as a whole: I am convinced that "God" is pleased enough to work within religion to rescue people like you. And then there are those raised within a religion who, without it, would have no inculcated inducement to be "good", lacking a functioning conscience of their own. I know people who are "good" out of an ingrained habit, but who otherwise seem to lack any practical sense of "right or wrong". Without the "code" of commandments and punishments, they just wouldn't "get it". Eventually, however, I think that they will be faced with scenarios where their almost thoughtless adherence to that "code" will be put to the test and they will be found shallow and lacking in their commitment to "good". In the meantime, at least, they are not causing trouble for everyone around them!....

[EllenMaksoud]

This resonates with the purpose of religion as a whole: I am convinced that "God" is pleased enough to work within religion to rescue people like you. And then there are those raised within a religion who, without it, would have no inculcated inducement to be "good", lacking a functioning conscience of their own. I know people who are "good" out of an ingrained habit, but who otherwise seem to lack any practical sense of "right or wrong". Without the "code" of commandments and punishments, they just wouldn't "get it". Eventually, however, I think that they will be faced with scenarios where their almost thoughtless adherence to that "code" will be put to the test and they will be found shallow and lacking in their commitment to "good". In the meantime, at least, they are not causing trouble for everyone around them!....

We should pray that we are not found lacking.

[Flyonthewall]

I am not saying that these concepts originate outside of religion! That's the crux of the discussion: what amount of (undue) influence does dogmatic, organized religion play in the causing of people to be "good" instead of "bad"?

Animals are neither good or bad, they are what they are. There is no evidence of conscience at work, no remorse, just emotional reaction to the immediate situation. Elephants, which are arguably the most sapient non-human species, possess legendarily long memories, which includes observed mourning for life, including also returning to "burial" grounds to remember/reverence the dead, etc. Yet there is nothing remotely akin to "our kind of thought" vis-a-vis holding concepts of the afterlife, and creating our own environment through manipulation born out of imagination of a different world/future, etc. So there is no evidence that animals of any sort hold a concept of good and bad, only existence as it is. To assume that without our concept of heaven and hell that we would lose our definitions of "good and bad", and revert to being mere animals, is a leap without any evidence to back it up. We are the only species with imagination and the power to give it life....

I see it as all inter-related....what is the yardstick to determine what is good and bad if not a final judgement? Without a final judgement, at best, good and bad is arbirtrary to who ever is in power at the time.

What is a final judgement without a final reward/punishment such as heaven and hell?

soooo....without heaven and hell, there is no final judgement. Without a final judgement there is no yardstick to determine good or bad, so that leaves only an emotional reaction to stimulus.

[Maidservant]

Questing, I wasn't able to use the quote feature nor to make a straight copy due to the formatting of your reply to me, so I will try to catch what you said or at least what inspired more thoughts in me.

Thanks for sharing your definition of dogma. Are you also saying that all religion is dogma, and that the only conclusion to religion is dogma and the consequences of dogma on the human mind, spirit and life?

I should also note that I understand "what Joseph Smith" revealed to be a lot different than how you are presenting it; and I reject and have rejected and did reject the idea of the "assignment" of the soul in an afterlife; and I learned to reject this through my study of the gospel (and personal revelation if I dare assert that). The idea of "assignment" offends me to the core; and I can't say whether this idea is truly supported in other religions (I suspect it is, but I cannot speak for them; let them speak for themselves), but I do not find the idea of "assignment" in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ as given to Joseph Smith. There may be some mention with some terminology, but a more whole study of what is possible for the eternal human journey, one can see that this journey has nothing to do with "assignment". Or at least, that is what I am seeing now. I suppose I could be wrong; BUT perhaps a better point for purposes of the discussion is that at the very least there is more than one way of looking at the material (i.e. Joseph Smith revelations of human potential) and you have seen "assignment" and I have not. In the gospel, I find the ideas of creating and overcoming and becoming and progressing and living--not being assigned.

To be even more plain, should I by some strange toon world find myself faced with a God that exists and that wishes to "assign" me to somewhere--I won't participate. And if I am given no choice, then the question is moot, isn't it? But agency and choice is the foundational element of the gospel. It begins in agency; it "ends" in agency. The rest of the gospel information must bow to the most fundamental property of being alive and being human--agency; or my word for it; self-determination. (Actually agency means a lot of things to me, but here I will equate it with self-determination. I forgo the word choice because I don't think we all have all choices all the time--we can only do with what we have right before us.)

I don't consider the three degrees of glory to be three actual places. I think this is a template, a primer template at that, to help us begin to understand what is possible. One must understand further (or as I imagine) or one doesn't understand all or even much at all. You call the kingdoms under celestial, hell; I most certainly do not, nor do I think Joseph Smith and the gospel ask me to. I take great delight in knowing that all of God's children are destined for glory (NOT hell--I'm pretty sure I know hell, having lived it; I'm pretty sure we all know what hell is, having lived some version of it; I don't imagine any hellfire awaiting anyone as an "assignment"; Joseph Smith said that if we ever ended up in a hell like that, we would just turn it into a heaven.) So if you understand that to be hell, well, as you wish; but I see the same material, the same symbol, as a treasure trove of knowledge of a much different kind than you seem to have found in the same box. That's ok--but again, more than one way to look at it, is all.

Damnation is one of those words that I think should be another thread because I think all people, even and especially religionists--in the words of Princess Bride, "I don't think it means what you think it means." The misunderstanding of that word in and of itself has done so much damage to our paradigm (and here I'm agreeing with you again); but I don't think we understand its original meaning. I.e. damnation is not an afterlife judgment, for one thing. But another thread perhaps.

I love your Pursuing God, ha ha. I found this out for myself, for sure. That he is always coming after me. That he WANTS me. That I belong to him and he belongs to me. That he cannot lose me and still live with himself; that he cannot lose me and still breathe. I learned that by a special experience when I was small but I won't share; but I say that only to differentiate that I did not find this out by reading or by hearing in my mind/heart, as I learn a lot of things; rather, I learned it by passing through something.

You bring up Islam, but I should say that for myself at least, I don't experience Islam as a separate or other paradigm (overall; details, of course; but the GOD paradigm); for that matter, I don't experience any of the world religions as something separate from my journey in the Church and gospel. I consider that God's raising up Muhammad is just like Him to do that; to always have a project to lift, protect and teach his children. As you said.

I agree with you that to tell the truth to yourself, oneself, is the only place to start (and end! ha ha).

Edited February 16, 2013 by Maidservant

[rodheadlee]

"Many" people? What estimated percentage do you think are "bad" people enjoying being "bad"? It would only take one percent to keep things stirred up for the other ninety nine percent. That's what laws are for, so that the vast majority of people who don't "enjoy being bad" can give those who do "time out". Your example in non sequitur in that the "dictators" constitute far less than even one percent, even counting their minions who do their bidding for they own reasons. Your view of the expanding world, via contact with today's instantaneous and intimate communications networks, appears very bleak, imho....

Many people would be more than 50% I am not BIC, nor do I live in Utah. My view may be bleak but it is realistic. I just spent a month sailing through Panama. Every port captain wanted a bribe, er um a tip, at every port. They hide the rules instead of giving you advice on the paperwork needed so they might catch you in an exspensive mistake. I can give an anecdote of every place I've been or sailed to but you still won't believe me because it doesn't fit your pardagrim. No doubt there are nice people out there but they still have an agenda to seek advantage over me or you.

We could talk about the home construction industry in Calif and how certain general contractors withhold payment to framing contractors in order to break them and not pay their bill. or how these framing contractors when they do go TU simply open up in another name after not paying the carpenters that actuallly framed the houses and if some money does get deposited in the TU company it's he who has the fastest car gets his money first and the last one in line gets nothing,

I know there are laws and attorneys to sort this all out but it cost too much money for the average Joe to be able to hire a lawyer.

Right now in Calif there is a pharmacy worker witholding my wife's medication, because she can. I want to sue her for causing unneeded pain to my wife. If I had the money for that I would simply fly my wife home to get her meds. Some people believe the elderly disabled among us should stay home in a darkened room with a TV changer in our hands. Some people believe because you choose to live on a boat that you are rich and they will charge you more for everything that they can. Entire governments do this. Want a visa 3 dollars please, oh you came on a boat, 100.00 please.

edite to ad: If I couldn't travel with Heavenly Father as my forward guard and my rear guard,Ii wouldn't travel. It is also amazing to me that He loves me enough to guard me and my boat in hostile ports or stormy seas.

Edited February 16, 2013 by rodheadlee