Moral Issues And The Secular Church Argument

[jdlaw]

In May of 1991, when I was still deciding on whether or not to join the Church, Boyd K. Packer came to D.C., the Missionaries invited me, and I went to hear him speak. I love this man and his words inspired me in a big way to join this Church. His talks of late are certainly controversial. When he speaks to the body of the Church, he is spot on (as to the decay of sexual morality in society). However, when he speaks to the "laws of the land" and suggests that our commandment of chastity should somehow be imposed upon the rest of the world with laws of the government - I can agree that the world would be a better place, however, I am very concerned that once we go down that path (that path of putting our own moral dictates into the hands of the government) to make and define the rules of sexual morality for the nation as whole- we move headlong back into an apostasy. In many deeply seeded Islamic Governments they still have the same problem today. Nothing against Islam, but Sharia Law is the type of law where the religious dictates of a few are forced by compulsion among the general public. Yes, I do believe that God's law trumps man's law. My problem is the question, what man has the right to tell another man, exactly what God's law is? I do not want the government telling us what God's law is. I do not want a society where people in California people can simply vote on the definition of marriage for all citizens. If we allow that to happen today (when we think the vote will go in our favor) what happens tomorrow, when the vote will go the other way? We will have already given up fundamental rights preventing the government from defining these things for us. I for one do not want to live in a society where the government defines my temple marriage. Yes, I am glad that some immoral sexual behavior like rape, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia are still illegal. These are sexual deviations that actually hurt other individuals. And yes, we know that any sexual immorality that is not within the dictates of the law of chastity will not lead us to individual happiness. But, making laws to infringe the human rights of the otherwise moral homosexual is a bad thing. And my own sources of revelation tell me that Boyd Packer is mistaken with his "laws of the land comments." As to his speaking to the Church body and to us as individuals, then yes -- he is spot on and I do fully sustain him as a leader of our Church today. We must follow him, make our own choices, and allow others to do the same. We invite all to come unto Christ.

[Stone holm]

In May of 1991, when I was still deciding on whether or not to join the Church, Boyd K. Packer came to D.C., the Missionaries invited me, and I went to hear him speak. I love this man and his words inspired me in a big way to join this Church. His talks of late are certainly controversial. When he speaks to the body of the Church, he is spot on (as to the decay of sexual morality in society). However, when he speaks to the "laws of the land" and suggests that our commandment of chastity should somehow be imposed upon the rest of the world with laws of the government - I can agree that the world would be a better place, however, I am very concerned that once we go down that path (that path of putting our own moral dictates into the hands of the government) to make and define the rules of sexual morality for the nation as whole- we move headlong back into an apostasy. In many deeply seeded Islamic Governments they still have the same problem today. Nothing against Islam, but Sharia Law is the type of law where the religious dictates of a few are forced by compulsion among the general public. Yes, I do believe that God's law trumps man's law. My problem is the question, what man has the right to tell another man, exactly what God's law is? I do not want the government telling us what God's law is. I do not want a society where people in California people can simply vote on the definition of marriage for all citizens. If we allow that to happen today (when we think the vote will go in our favor) what happens tomorrow, when the vote will go the other way? We will have already given up fundamental rights preventing the government from defining these things for us. I for one do not want to live in a society where the government defines my temple marriage. Yes, I am glad that some immoral sexual behavior like rape, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia are still illegal. These are sexual deviations that actually hurt other individuals. And yes, we know that any sexual immorality that is not within the dictates of the law of chastity will not lead us to individual happiness. But, making laws to infringe the human rights of the otherwise moral homosexual is a bad thing. And my own sources of revelation tell me that Boyd Packer is mistaken with his "laws of the land comments." As to his speaking to the Church body and to us as individuals, then yes -- he is spot on and I do fully sustain him as a leader of our Church today. We must follow him, make our own choices, and allow others to do the same. We invite all to come unto Christ.

Gave you a bump on this , you understand the long term social consequences.

[CASteinman]

In May of 1991, when I was still deciding on whether or not to join the Church, Boyd K. Packer came to D.C., the Missionaries invited me, and I went to hear him speak. I love this man and his words inspired me in a big way to join this Church. His talks of late are certainly controversial. When he speaks to the body of the Church, he is spot on (as to the decay of sexual morality in society). However, when he speaks to the "laws of the land" and suggests that our commandment of chastity should somehow be imposed upon the rest of the world with laws of the government - I can agree that the world would be a better place, however, I am very concerned that once we go down that path (that path of putting our own moral dictates into the hands of the government) to make and define the rules of sexual morality for the nation as whole- we move headlong back into an apostasy. In many deeply seeded Islamic Governments they still have the same problem today. Nothing against Islam, but Sharia Law is the type of law where the religious dictates of a few are forced by compulsion among the general public. Yes, I do believe that God's law trumps man's law. My problem is the question, what man has the right to tell another man, exactly what God's law is? I do not want the government telling us what God's law is. I do not want a society where people in California people can simply vote on the definition of marriage for all citizens. If we allow that to happen today (when we think the vote will go in our favor) what happens tomorrow, when the vote will go the other way? We will have already given up fundamental rights preventing the government from defining these things for us. I for one do not want to live in a society where the government defines my temple marriage. Yes, I am glad that some immoral sexual behavior like rape, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia are still illegal. These are sexual deviations that actually hurt other individuals. And yes, we know that any sexual immorality that is not within the dictates of the law of chastity will not lead us to individual happiness. But, making laws to infringe the human rights of the otherwise moral homosexual is a bad thing. And my own sources of revelation tell me that Boyd Packer is mistaken with his "laws of the land comments." As to his speaking to the Church body and to us as individuals, then yes -- he is spot on and I do fully sustain him as a leader of our Church today. We must follow him, make our own choices, and allow others to do the same. We invite all to come unto Christ.

I am very sorry you feel this way.

You know of rules and laws that would make the world a better place but you do not want to see them enacted by democratic processes -- or really any way for that matter.

And you compare the concepts of the Restored Gospel to Sharia Law. They aren't the same.

And now you come out in open opposition to an Apostle of the Lord.

I am sorry you feel this way.

[Stone holm]

I am very sorry you feel this way.

You know of rules and laws that would make the world a better place but you do not want to see them enacted by democratic processes -- or really any way for that matter.

And you compare the concepts of the Restored Gospel to Sharia Law. They aren't the same.

And now you come out in open opposition to an Apostle of the Lord.

I am sorry you feel this way.

I think the point was that laws based primarily on religious doctrine, if once granted legitimacy can lead to tyranny. Laws based solely on Christian fundamentalism if that were to become the case would be no different in their oppressiveness than Sharia law. After listening to Elder Packer again I think it is possible to construe his remarks as simply a warning that as we as a society extend tolerance, we as a people for ourselves should not get caught up in that tolerance in our personal lifestyles. And, after comparing his talk with pres uchtdorf's I wonder if once again Elder Packer's talk might find itself edited before it hits print in the Ensign.

[CASteinman]

I think the point was that laws based primarily on religious doctrine, if once granted legitimacy can lead to tyranny.

If that was the point it was not made well.. and in addition, that point is also "wrong" in that laws based primarily NOT on religious doctrine, if once granted legitimacy can lead to tyranny. Its not the religious content that does this -- tyranny can occur either way -- its the fact that they are laws.

But this fear of The Kingdom of God is really bizarre coming from Mormons.

Laws based solely on Christian fundamentalism if that were to become the case would be no different in their oppressiveness than Sharia law.

I just read a rule that say extreme comparisons are not allowed in debates. This looks like an extreme comparison. And I will give you just one way it is extreme: Sharia is actually codified with courts and rules and so on with centuries of established precedent and is its own legal system. Christian fundamentalists are nothing of the sort and their ideas are not agreed upon even among themselves.

Its a ridiculous comparison. Its just an excuse.

After listening to Elder Packer again I think it is possible to construe his remarks as simply a warning that as we as a society extend tolerance, we as a people for ourselves should not get caught up in that tolerance in our personal lifestyles.

Here is what he said:

"The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequences that result from the violation of God's law of chastity."

He does not distinguish as you do between "we as a society" and "we as a people for ourselves". And probably with good reason: The Book of Mormon seems to identify the spiritual quality of the people with that of the society as though they were one and the same.

And, after comparing his talk with pres uchtdorf's I wonder if once again Elder Packer's talk might find itself edited before it hits print in the Ensign.

We shall see. Or it could be that Uchtdorf's talk could get removed. But really, they do not seem to be in contradiction. Where do you see a contradiction?

Edited April 7, 2013 by CASteinman

[Tacenda]

If that was the point it was not made well.. and in addition, that point is also "wrong" in that laws based primarily NOT on religious doctrine, if once granted legitimacy can lead to tyranny. Its not the religious content that does this -- tyranny can occur either way -- its the fact that they are laws.

But this fear of The Kingdom of God is really bizarre coming from Mormons.

I just read a rule that say extreme comparisons are not allowed in debates. This looks like an extreme comparison. And I will give you just one way it is extreme: Sharia is actually codified with courts and rules and so on with centuries of established precedent and is its own legal system. Christian fundamentalists are nothing of the sort and their ideas are not agreed upon even among themselves.

Its a ridiculous comparison. Its just an excuse.

Here is what he said:

"The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequences that result from the violation of God's law of chastity."

He does not distinguish as you do between "we as a society" and "we as a people for ourselves". And probably with good reason: The Book of Mormon seems to identify the spiritual quality of the people with that of the society as though they were one and the same.

We shall see. Or it could be that Uchtdorf's talk could get removed. But really, they do not seem to be in contradiction. Where do you see a contradiction?

Why would Pres. Uchtdorf's talk be removed, did I miss something, he's the bomb and admired, but do you think a little too much, or am I trying to read your mind?

[CASteinman]

Why would Pres. Uchtdorf's talk be removed, did I miss something, he's the bomb and admired, but do you think a little too much, or am I trying to read your mind?

For the same reason that any GA's might be removed or edited -- because that GA requests it to happen. Stoneholm says that Packer's talk might be edited. Well any of them might. Its an invalid argument that I was bringing to his attention. Though, Stone holm apparently believes these things happen TO the talks by OTHERS -- which is not how it goes.

[Stone holm]

For the same reason that any GA's might be removed or edited -- because that GA requests it to happen. Stoneholm says that Packer's talk might be edited. Well any of them might. Its an invalid argument that I was bringing to his attention. Though, Stone holm apparently believes these things happen TO the talks by OTHERS -- which is not how it goes.

Do you have an example of Pres Uchtdorf's talks being edited prior to publication? We have a very recent example of Elder Packer's talks pretty much on this topic being edited.

[CASteinman]

Do you have an example of Pres Uchtdorf's talks being edited prior to publication? We have a very recent example of Elder Packer's talks pretty much on this topic being edited.

I don't know that people have paid as much attention to Uchdorf's talks. It might have happened. Packer's is definitely not the first time this has happened. I believe once, even one of President Kimball's talks was edited.

You are excited because it was edited in a way you liked. But there are little edits and big edits -- I won't say frequently -- but its not really unheard of and I have picked them up.

My point here is that since these things happen (and why shouldn't they?) that you have one example does not make your point.

No I don't have other examples but primarily because I do not save them up. But there have been many of them. And they are mostly, pretty minor, just as Packer's was.

I only know of one really significant change in my lifetime.

[Stone holm]

I don't know that people have paid as much attention to Uchdorf's talks. It might have happened. Packer's is definitely not the first time this has happened. I believe once, even one of President Kimball's talks was edited.

You are excited because it was edited in a way you liked. But there are little edits and big edits -- I won't say frequently -- but its not really unheard of and I have picked them up.

My point here is that since these things happen (and why shouldn't they?) that you have one example does not make your point.

No I don't have other examples but primarily because I do not save them up. But there have been many of them. And they are mostly, pretty minor, just as Packer's was.

I only know of one really significant change in my lifetime.

So you think the downgrading of the Proclamation on Family from revelation to guidance was minor?

[CASteinman]

So you think the downgrading of the Proclamation on Family from revelation to guidance was minor?

I don't think that any such downgrading took place. It was never upgraded. It was never downgraded. Its status has remained as it always was.

Edited April 7, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I don't think that any such downgrading took place. It was never upgraded. It was never downgraded. Its status has remained as it always was.

The point was that one of the edits was to change Elder Packer's reference to the Proclamation as revelation to have the statement refer to it as guidance. Pres. Uchtdorf's talk referred to preserving everyone's moral agency.

[CASteinman]

The point was that one of the edits was to change Elder Packer's reference to the Proclamation as revelation to have the statement refer to it as guidance. Pres. Uchtdorf's talk referred to preserving everyone's moral agency.

I could see how either once could stay or be edited out. Either one. And really that was not the point. The point was that you do not like Elder Packer to say that we should legislate "morality".

That is the bottom line.

Edited April 7, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

I could see how either once could stay or be edited out. Either one. And really that was not the point. The point was that you do not like Elder Packer to say that we should legislate "morality".

That is the bottom line.

Are you sure that is what he said? I agree that by mentioning weakening certain laws that he implicitly may have been expressing his discontent, but I did not take from that any imperative to go out and reverse that trend, but rather merely as for us that should not be taken as license to indulge in such behavior. A position I heartily agree with.

[Alvino]

Elder Neal Maxwell made a fairly famous sermon about the rise of the "Secular Church" and his perception of the relative decline in respect given to the religious in their arguments as to proper standards of human conduct, in other words morality. He used a phrase from the civil rights contentions of the 1960's which pertained to Rosa Parks deciding one day to no longer sit at the back of the bus. He built on that phrase an argument that religion was being relegated to the back of the bus in discussion of morals, and expressed distress at the thought of what that might mean. There is a rather famous clip now accessible on the itnernet which displays this sermon accompanied by shots of the various Founding Fathers of the Nation including especially the painting of George Washington kneeling in prayer. This seems to be an increasingly common viewpoint amongst Mormons. I have spent some time contemplating this and my thoughts are contained in the following article.

http://www.gather.co...281474981866922

It would be nice if we could discuss this more or less in the abstract regarding morality, what it means and where it comes from instead of it becoming too overtly political as it would be nice to see some earnest discussion before the thread gets locked.

Your opinion in certainly a very meritorious one. Yet I think religion tends to take the back seat in high-level conversations (because it certainly doesn't in Punditland and amongst lay believers) because there is little one can do with a properly religious argument that doesn't quickly devolve into a fight for who has the bigger, ahem, authority.

Think of an argument you think is properly religious. How will you prove your case if not with begging the question in favor of your religion? Take SSM (sorry for having to use such a subject; I promise there's a good reason). How will you show, using a religious argument that we ought not legalize it? God told you to? That won't work. God told you that it will be harmful to children? That won't work. The kicker is that if you try to support something like the second reason you will be pressured to use non-religious information and data. If we start debating that information you put on the table, guess what? Now we have a non-religious discussion and your faith has taken the back seat again.

You might have thought of better examples of 'religious arguments' you think circumvent this problem so I'd like to see them.

[CASteinman]

You might have thought of better examples of 'religious arguments' you think circumvent this problem so I'd like to see them.

Actually that was his point I think. IF I follow him right, he does not believe that you should bring religious morality to the law.

Edited April 8, 2013 by CASteinman

[cinepro]

From the back of the bus, we could advocate that the bus start moving backward. That would mean we are now on the front of the bus.

[Stone holm]

From the back of the bus, we could advocate that the bus start moving backward. That would mean we are now on the front of the bus.

Well some might agree with you about the direction of bus traffic being advocated, but that is not the topic of this thread.

[Alvino]

Actually that was his point I think. IF I follow him right, he does not believe that you should bring religious morality to the law.

My point was about why religion takes the backseat, not that it does or that it should. He says it is because the religious are too narrowly focused on smaller issues, I say it is because everything else got too big for religion - now we look for physical, statistical, psychological, philosophical reasons, rather than authority. Religion, in most fields of professional conversation, has been reduced to little more than literature.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Alvino

[CASteinman]

My point was about why religion takes the backseat, not that it does or that it should. He says it is because the religious are too narrowly focused on smaller issues, I say it is because everything else got too big for religion - now we look for physical, statistical, psychological, philosophical reasons, rather than authority. Religion, in most fields of professional conversation, has been reduced to little more than literature.

That's interesting. I don't think either of you are right.

I think Religion has been pushed out by an increased degree of secularization and atheism. This is a "raging in the hearts" affect.

[Alvino]

That's interesting. I don't think either of you are right.

I gave some reasons; Stone gave some of his. Wanna give some of yours?

I think Religion has been pushed out by an increased degree of secularization and atheism. This is a "raging in the hearts" affect.

This is compatible with what Stone and I have said. We all agree religion and 'religious arguments' have been having diminishing roles in serious conversations about policy (which is not to say it doesn't have a big influence in the total, nor does it mean it shouldn't happen, nor that such a push is unfair in the way it's done, nor does any of this specify under what mechanism religion has taken diminished roles than it previously had). You need to provide reasons if you want us to understand what you have in mind there.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Alvino

[CASteinman]

I gave some reasons; Stone gave some of his. Wanna give some of yours?

This statement explains the reason:

"Religion has been pushed out by an increased degree of secularization and atheism. This is a "raging in the hearts" affect"

We all agree religion and 'religious arguments' have been having diminishing roles in serious conversations about policy

Yeah. That was not at issue. The question was "Why?". Stone says its because they are too narrowly focused. You say its because everything else got too big. And I think the proximate cause is increased secularization and atheism and the ultimate cause is satan raging in the hearts of men.

[Alvino]

This statement explains the reason:

"Religion has been pushed out by an increased degree of secularization and atheism. This is a "raging in the hearts" affect"

As I tried to say, that statement clarifies nothing.

Yeah. That was not at issue. The question was "Why?". Stone says its because they are too narrowly focused. You say its because everything else got too big.

And we gave reasons. You might want to check and address those.

And I think the proximate cause is increased secularization and atheism and the ultimate cause is satan raging in the hearts of men.

That's your answer? "Satan did it"? I just hope this isn't the level at which you decide policy.

Also, by saying Satan did it I assume you take this to be a bad thing, right? But, why would you think that? Unless we are talking about different ways in which religion is taking the back seat, I don't think you would really disagree with how I think religion should take the backseat. In discussing the rightness or wrongness of laws I don't think you would say that one should at some point disregard, say, sound scientific evidence that goes against what one wants to support, correct? If I say legalizing marijuana will not increase marijuana abuse among adults, yet good scientific evidence suggests that that it would, then I think you and I would agree that one ought not hold the belief that marijuana won't increase abuse if it's legalized after being presented with this evidence. Similarly, if I hold a position based on bad logic (clearly circular arguments and a bunch of fallacies, etc) then I shouldn't hold that position. Do you think holding a belief in God should make one exempt from these requirements of rationality and intellectual responsibility? Why would you take this secularization and atheism as a bad thing (at least as far as deciding policy is concerned) if both sides should respond to the same standards of rationality?

Edited April 8, 2013 by Alvino

[Stone holm]

As I tried to say, that statement clarifies nothing.

And we gave reasons. You might want to check and address those.

That's your answer? "Satan did it"? I just hope this isn't the level at which you decide policy.

Also, by saying Satan did it I assume you take this to be a bad thing, right? But, why would you think that? Unless we are talking about different ways in which religion is taking the back seat, I don't think you would really disagree with how I think religion should take the backseat. In discussing the rightness or wrongness of laws I don't think you would say that one should at some point disregard, say, sound scientific evidence that goes against what one wants to support, correct? If I say legalizing marijuana will not increase marijuana abuse among adults, yet good scientific evidence suggests that that it would, then I think you and I would agree that one ought not hold the belief that marijuana won't increase abuse if it's legalized after being presented with this evidence. Similarly, if I hold a position based on bad logic (clearly circular arguments and a bunch of fallacies, etc) then I shouldn't hold that position. Do you think holding a belief in God should make one exempt from these requirements of rationality and intellectual responsibility? Why would you take this secularization and atheism as a bad thing (at least as far as deciding policy is concerned) if both sides should respond to the same standards of rationality?

I gave you a bump on this. In CA's defense he is reacting to arguments I made in another thread. That argument is that in a democratic nation which values religious freedom, arguments in the political arena based solely on religious belief are unwholesome for the public good. Let me use your legalization of marijuana as an example. Let's assume without debate that marijuana usage for recreational usage violates the W of W. So in this debate those who favor continued prohibition argue that it has been linked to serious mental illness if used by youth , it causes issues when operating motor vehicles, it is linked with use to harder drugs, etc etc. The other side argues that it is a softer drug than alcohol which is legal, that the studies showing its link to serious mental illness in youth were procedurally flawed, that because it is illegal the same sources selling it are the source for hard drugs, and because it is illegal adulterated mj is being marketed, etc etc. All these are secular arguments which either side can establish or discredit. However, if someone comes into the debate and simply says it violates the W of W and therefore God's law, what does that add to the debate for non-Mormons? Nothing. It just causes religious contention. But because I have suggested this then, I must be this evil thing called a secularist belonging to this secular church that Elder Maxwell describes. However, I have in this topic suggested that perhaps religion has taken a seat in the back of the bus because those who do present religious arguments have cherry picked so much that they are now being ignored.

[CASteinman]

As I tried to say, that statement clarifies nothing.

Sorry. I think it does.

And we gave reasons. You might want to check and address those.

I don't see why. I don't believe them. And I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am just answering your question. Did you have some question about your views that you want my opinion about?

That's your answer? "Satan did it"? I just hope this isn't the level at which you decide policy.

.

Also, by saying Satan did it I assume you take this to be a bad thing, right?

Yeah. I'm peculiar that way. I think what satan does is evil. But you are, I suppose, free to feel differently.

But, why would you think that?

The words of the prophets have had a significant influence on my feelings about satan being evil. Also a book called "People of the Lie". And, I suppose "The Exorcist" didn't hurt.

Unless we are talking about different ways in which religion is taking the back seat, I don't think you would really disagree with how I think religion should take the backseat. In discussing the rightness or wrongness of laws

Well... I refer you to Dread Pirate Roberts.

I don't think you would say that one should at some point disregard, say, sound scientific evidence that goes against what one wants to support, correct?

You would be right in the way you have worded it. But I am taking special note of the words that I have underlined above. Those are critical to the way I have answered this and may yet lead you to -- as we have said ... disappointment.

If I say legalizing marijuana will not increase marijuana abuse among adults, yet good scientific evidence suggests that that it would, then I think you and I would agree that one ought not hold the belief that marijuana won't increase abuse if it's legalized after being presented with this evidence.

So far so good. If I had seen sufficient scientific evidence to show that and no significant evidence to the contrary -- after such evidence was actually looked for -- then I would agree that it wouldn't seem to increase marijuana abuse among adults after being legalized.

Similarly, if I hold a position based on bad logic (clearly circular arguments and a bunch of fallacies, etc) then I shouldn't hold that position.

No no no! As long as you are not out injuring people, you get to hold whatever position you want!

Do you think holding a belief in God should make one exempt from these requirements of rationality and intellectual responsibility?

No. What a strange idea.

Why would you take this secularization and atheism as a bad thing

Because it drives out God and seeks to establish itself in power. You might profitably review this post, as it is the motivation for this thread:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60535-the-secular-church/

(at least as far as deciding policy is concerned) if both sides should respond to the same standards of rationality?

Oh, if only the secularists and atheists would adhere to the same standards of rationality as I do, I would be satisfied. But they are not usually willing.. You could say.. I have gotten used to disappointment.