Equality May Lead To Banality?

[wenglund]

God is no respecter of persons. If and to what extent we obey the Commandments of God the rewards are equal.

Even so, would you agree that unequal obedience does not produce equal results, and that if it did, it would be banal.

Would you also agree that the objective of the commandments isn't equality, but results, and were it otherwise, it may be banal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I don't really buy into this notion.

It suggests that you have two children that need two different truths. If Christians... LDS and non-LDS actually believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and no one comes to Father but by Him.. then we'd do better by offering them the only truth that is rather than apples and bannanas.

My point wasn't so much about "truth" as it was about approach and treatment. In my experience training children, I have found that rewarding certain children may encourage obedience, whereas with other children it may inadvertently encourage disobedience or lack of obedience. The same is true for punishment. Not all children respond the same to the same external stimuli. Metaphorically, some children may respond better to a banana than an apple, and giving them an apple may be banal.

I have also found that certain children are ready to learn certain things at a certain age, while others are not. Metaphorically speaking, some children may be ready for a banana, and not an apple. So, giving them an apple may be banal.

And, some children of a certain age may need to learn one thing, while other children of the same age may need to learn another. Metaphorically, some children may need to learn about bananas in order to survive in the jungle. Teaching them about apples may be banal.

Some children are more inclined than others to delay gratification and act maturely and responsibly and are less dependent than others, and are thus more deserving greater responsibility and relaxing of authority. Metaphorically, some children are deserving of a banana-level of responsibility and freedom. Giving them an apple-level of responsibility and freedom may be banal.

From my reading of the scriptures, I believe God understood this (actually, I got my ideas from him). As the epitome of loving parentage, and for some of his children, God instituted the old law, whereas for others, he instituted the new law. For some of his children he rained down fire and brimstone, whereas with other of his children he stayed his judgment, and was long-suffering. Some of his children were chosen, and others were not, and some were ordained leaders and others as followers. To some he gave the gift of healing, and to others the gift of prophesy. Some of his children were healed simply by touching the hem of his Son's cloak, while others required application of mud to their eyes. Some of his children he views as wheat, and others as chaff, Etc., etc.

From what I can tell, the all-wise God doesn't treat us equally, but rather he approaches us in the way that works best for each of us, and his gives us his truths as we are ready to receive them. If he sees that we have need of a banana, he will provide us with a banana rather than an apple.

At least that is the way I see it. Others are free to see it otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As luck would have it, the Sunday School lesson for this week or next includes readings from D&C 78, which contains these verses on equality:

5 That you may be ^aequal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.

6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be ^aequal in obtaining heavenly things;

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

From what I can tell, the all-wise God doesn't treat us equally, but rather he approaches us in the way that works best for each of us, and his gives us his truths as we are ready to receive them. If he sees that we have need of a banana, he will provide us with a banana rather than an apple.

At least that is the way I see it. Others are free to see it otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think I see what you're saying, but I would say that he does treat us equally rather than not. It's just that he has various methods of bringing about equality (I equate equality with justice and fairness) in various circumstances. He doesn't give special treatment to anyone, in the sense of judging people by different and unequal standards, so what he will do for one he will do for all if they are in the same exact circumstances.

Your ideas seem a bit garbled to me because your idea of equality would mean people in unequal circumstances should be given the same thing... rather than whatever would work equally well for one as another. If one responded as well to an apple as another did to a banana, it would be equal treatment to give one an apple and the other a banana. Or if one was sick with a cold and the other had cancer, it would be equal treatment to heal both of them regardless of what treatment was needed to make them both whole. Justice is the goal where equality is concerned, so just as in a court of law when justice requires one person to be sent to prison and another to receive a cash settlement, justice is being served when each receives their own just reward for their works.

p.s. One other example. In this world we're treated and rewarded unequally but it's not always because of our own works. It's because of various circumstances and opportunities which are not equally available to all of us on this planet. Some of us are born into wealthy families and some of us are born into poor families, so the injustice usually begins at that point. And even when we strive to work ourselves out of our current unequal situations we're often hit with hurdles or road blocks that aren't there for other people. Even if we tried to remedy all of that with money, as if we could all pool our money together and then divide it up equally, some of us would need to give to others while some others would need to receive. At least then we'd arrive at a state of financial equality, but there's more to life than just money, so we'd then need to either teach or learn whatever was needed for each one of us to know all of the same things, including how to use our money to make things equal for everyone.

Edited March 8, 2013 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

Even so, would you agree that unequal obedience does not produce equal results, and that if it did, it would be banal.

Would you also agree that the objective of the commandments isn't equality, but results, and were it otherwise, it may be banal?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Unequal obedience can never produce equal results. It wouldn't be banal it would be oxymoronic on its face.

The purpose of the Commandments is to establish a floor of acceptable behavior. Without which there would be chaos.

Edited March 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

dup.

Edited March 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

Unequal obedience can never produce equal results. It would be banal it would be oxymoronic on its face.

The purpose of the Commandments is to establish a floor of acceptable behavior. Without which there would be chaos.

Even still, in terms of what you said, the objective of the commandments isn't equality but chaos-avoidance. And, since chaos is banal...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think I see what you're saying, but I would say that he does treat us equally rather than not. It's just that he has various methods of bringing about equality (I equate equality with justice and fairness) in various circumstances.

Logically, the notion of "using various methods" is contradictory to the notion of "treat us equally," It's like saying, "by treating us differently, God treats us the same."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Logically, the notion of "using various methods" is contradictory to the notion of "treat us equally,"

No, not to my logical senses. Substitute the word "justly" or "fairly" with the word "equally" to see if that helps you.

The courts of justice, when bringing about justice, use various means to bring about justice. To one is given a fine, to another a jail sentence, to another a cash settlement, and all of that is justice brought about by using various methods to bring about justice.

It's like saying, "by treating us differently, God treats us the same."

More like, "by treating us to whatever brings about justice, God treats us the same."

[wenglund]

No, not to my logical senses. Substitute the word "justly" or "fairly" with the word "equally" to see if that helps you.

Substituting those words does help, but only in so far as I understand them to mean something different from "equally". Given what I have said thus far and drawn from the scriptures, justice and fairness may demand unequal treatment for unequal circumstance, whereas equal treatment for unequal circumstance may be banal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 8, 2013 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Even still, in terms of what you said, the objective of the commandments isn't equality but chaos-avoidance. And, since chaos is banal...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wengland:

I don't believe chaos is banal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banal

[wenglund]

wengland:

I don't believe chaos is banal.

http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/banal

I am using the word "banal" in the colloquial sense--as synonymous with "asinine."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe chaos is asinine. But it is self defeating.

[wenglund]

I don't believe chaos is asinine. But it is self defeating.

It isn't asinine to be self-defeating?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Substituting those words does help, but only in so far as I understand them to mean something different from "equally". Given what I have said thus far and drawn from the scriptures, justice and fairness may demand unequal treatment for unequal circumstance, whereas equal treatment for unequal circumstance may be banal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Equal treatment for unequal circumstance but for what purpose, though.

Suppose that we want to arrive at a state where all are equal in the best way possible. How would we achieve that?

Suppose the "equal treatment" is "to do whatever is necessary" for unequal circumstances to become equal. The "equal treatment" would change depending on whatever the unequal circumstances were, so that the treatment would make things equal. Right? Or are you on some other wavelength and still not seeing what I'm trying to get at?

What in your mind is "equal treatment"? And what if it could be something other than what you're thinking it is?

[wenglund]

Equal treatment for unequal circumstance but for what purpose, though.

Suppose that we want to arrive at a state where all are equal in the best way possible. How would we achieve that?

Suppose the "equal treatment" is "to do whatever is necessary" for unequal circumstances to become equal. The "equal treatment" would change depending on whatever the unequal circumstances were, so that the treatment would make things equal. Right? Or are you on some other wavelength and still not seeing what I'm trying to get at?

What in your mind is "equal treatment"? And what if it could be something other than what you're thinking it is?

Logically, and mathematically, 3 + 7 = 10 and 6 + 4 = 10. The sums are equal at 10, though 3 does not equal 6, and 7 does not equal 4. So, in order to go from unequal amount (3 and 6) it takes adding unequal amounts (7 and 4). Where there is inequality, it takes inequality to achieve equality (assuming equality is the goal). Where there is inequality, it would be banal to try and achieve equality through equality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Where there is inequality, it takes inequality to achieve equality (assuming equality is the goal).

Yes. That was one of my points. I thought you didn't agree with that point.

Where there is inequality, it would be banal to try and achieve equality through equality.

Except in those cases where the inequality would become equality by doing the exact same thing to achieve equality.

In all cases where 7 and 4 are needed to arrive at 10, as in your examples, the exact same thing needs to be done if we want to arrive at 10. I think some people might refer to that as "equal treatment", in those cases, but as you said above and as I have been saying there are also times when it takes inequality to achieve equality, like when 8 or 9 are needed and like how 8 or 9 are not equal to 7 or 4.

[bcuzbcuz]

D&C 78, which contains these verses on equality:

5 That you may be ^aequal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.

6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be ^aequal in obtaining heavenly things;

Couldn't have said it better myself. Is equality still banality?

[bcuzbcuz]

Logically, and mathematically, 3 + 7 = 10 and 6 + 4 = 10. The sums are equal at 10, though 3 does not equal 6, and 7 does not equal 4. So, in order to go from unequal amount (3 and 6) it takes adding unequal amounts (7 and 4). Where there is inequality, it takes inequality to achieve equality (assuming equality is the goal). Where there is inequality, it would be banal to try and achieve equality through equality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have no problem with giving more to those who have less and less to those that have the most. I also have no problem with taking from those that have the most in order to give more to those who have little. If the rich aren't willing to give up of their bounty, then they will be taxed from their bounty to provide for those who have little or nothing.

I am not rich but neither am I poor. I have no problem of sharing from the bounty I have. I give in taxes, I give in labour, I give in time, money and energy. But I am not a Christian. I am a Socialist. If you find my behaviour asinine, so be it.

I find your math example banal by its ignoring the obvious.

[thesometimesaint]

But I am not a Christian. I am a Socialist.

Those terms are not mutually exclusive.

[Bikeemikey]

Yes. That was one of my points. I thought you didn't agree with that point.

Except in those cases where the inequality would become equality by doing the exact same thing to achieve equality.

In all cases where 7 and 4 are needed to arrive at 10, as in your examples, the exact same thing needs to be done if we want to arrive at 10. I think some people might refer to that as "equal treatment", in those cases, but as you said above and as I have been saying there are also times when it takes inequality to achieve equality, like when 8 or 9 are needed and like how 8 or 9 are not equal to 7 or 4.

All of this assumes that equality is an outcome (10) rather an a method of engagement in itself where outcomes are not part of the consideration.

I have not made up my mind about this but think it is worth considering that the fusion of outcomes and equality may be a problematic red herring that creates a false premise of measurement from the beginning.

We have no outcome guarantees in the gospel. Only process guarantees... that is no one will be judged based on conditions and factors that they never experienced and all have a method of positive development (of some measure) based on the atonement.

God seems to judge the gap in beginning and end... not making a judgement on either one in the process.

That is equality.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[bcuzbcuz]

Those terms are not mutually exclusive.

Good point. Maybe I'm reading too much into some responses here that charity, (although not as fine a girl as Brandy...(dooda-dit-dooda), (dit-dooda-dit-dooda-dit) has been written out of Christian standards and values. I'm hearing a lot of, "It's mine, I earned it, I own it, and you ain't gettin' none of it."

Maybe some people envision the "eye of the needle" they'll be passing through as very large indeed.

[wenglund]

Yes. That was one of my points. I thought you didn't agree with that point.

What I disagreed with is your proposition that treating people unequally is treating them them same. To me, that proposition is logically self-contradictory.

I also disagree with your proposition that we should be striving for equality. If the goal was equality, then using my previous example, it would be much simpler to equalize at 3 ( 3+0=3 and 6-3=3) rather than 10 (3+7=10 and 6+4=10) because that would only require a movement of -3 for both to equal 3 whereas it would require a movement of 7 and 4 to equalize at 10. And, unfortunately, as explained earlier, when equality is the goal, the tendency is to equalize down rather than up. To me, that is banal.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Is equality still banality?

As I indicated previously in the thread, not all instances of equality are banal. What to me MAY be banal is when there is an over-emphasis on equality and/or where equality becomes the ultimate objective.

If you look at the section from whence the two verses were quoted, you will see that the section had little to do with equality, and much to do with setting up the United Order for the benefit of the poor and establishing Zion. The goal wasn't equality, but attaining "a place in the celestial world." Yet, those who are obsessed with equality, will tend to view it otherwise.

It is analogous to stoics in the Church taking the several passages about ceasing all laughter and light-mindedness (DC 88:69,121) and over-emphasizing them and using them to posit stoicism as the ultimate goal for the saints, whereas I read those passage as simply advising a reasonable level of seriousness for certain spiritual matters and giving them due reverence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I have no problem with giving more to those who have less and less to those that have the most. I also have no problem with taking from those that have the most in order to give more to those who have little. If the rich aren't willing to give up of their bounty, then they will be taxed from their bounty to provide for those who have little or nothing.

I am not rich but neither am I poor. I have no problem of sharing from the bounty I have. I give in taxes, I give in labour, I give in time, money and energy. But I am not a Christian. I am a Socialist. If you find my behaviour asinine, so be it.

Again, I haven't and don't consider charitable behavior to be asinine. What MAY be asinine is striving for equality rather than charity and love. To me, what distinguishes the gospel of Christ from Socialism, besides governmental compulsion and infringement on agency, is the gospel is focused on bringing people to Christ and enabling them to like him, whereas Socialism is focused on equality. The former is rationally intent on progressing people towards the highest common denominator, whereas the later seems prone to banally digressing towards the lowest common denominator.

But, my faith encourages me to respect the right of people to worship how, where, or what they may, and so to each their own.

I find your math example banal by its ignoring the obvious.

Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-