Are Our Values Under Attack?

[mormonnewb]

Increasingly, the counsel from church leaders is that the saints must have the courage to defend our values. My question is: "How are our values under attack?"

The desire of gays to legally marry doesn't seem to present any more of a "threat" to our law of chastity than does the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are legal everywhere is a threat to the Word of Wisdom.

I don't see how our inability to impose our standards on others constitutes a threat to our religion. Somebody please show me the error of my ways.

Edited April 8, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Rivers]

Our values are under attack in that they are being they are being criticized. The Facebook messages in Elder Anderson's talk is a good example.

[bluebell]

We have a lot more values than just those related to SSM.

 

Values of honesty, integrity, virtue, modesty, chastity, charity, etc.  These are not typically the values that the popular culture celebrates or fosters, and anytime society, or culture, attempts to teach that any of these values are not important, old fashioned, nerdy, harmful to the individual, etc, it can reasonably said that such values are 'under attack.'

[mormonnewb]

Our values are under attack in that they are being they are being criticized. The Facebook messages in Elder Anderson's talk is a good example.

Someone attacked Elder Anderson for marrying a woman? Or for insisting that others not be allowed o marry the person of their choosing?

[mormonnewb]

We have a lot more values than just those related to SSM.

 

Values of honesty, integrity, virtue, modesty, chastity, charity, etc.  These are not typically the values that the popular culture celebrates or fosters, and anytime society, or culture, attempts to teach that any of these values are not important, old fashioned, nerdy, harmful to the individual, etc, it can reasonably said that such values are 'under attack.'

Good point. Offhand, can you think of an example of someone teaching that others shouldn't be honest, etc.? I'm sure there are people doing just that. I just can't think of any.

[readstoomuch]

It would seem part of our value as a religion are under attack because we are an organized religion and we believe that adherence to a core set of ideals is important. The values of any religion or moral way are under attack by a increasingly secular component of our society. Former/recent mormons bring up too much rigidity concerning modesty. They are tired of hearing about their daughters/womens shoulders showing for example. Another was a horror story about girls camp-too much brainwashing about virtue or eternal marriage. I have personally had incidents lately where my daughters young women leaders have pushed things too far. In fact my wife uses it as an example of why women shouldn't hold the priesthood.

[bluebell]

Good point. Offhand, can you think of an example of someone teaching that others shouldn't be honest, etc.? I'm sure there are people doing just that. I just can't think of any.

 

I read articles from time to time on why it's beneficial to not always tell the truth-ways to make money that, while legal, aren't really dishonest, or ways to get what you want from people by manipulating them.  

 

I see non fiction books that teach that being financially successful is what is most important, or that rules hold you back from reaching your full potential, or that making bad choices is good, and regret is bad.  

 

I see t.v. shows that teach that lying is o.k. if it benefits you, that it's better to get even than to forgive, that bad behavior (selfishness, for example) is praiseworthy, and that winning at all costs is most important.

 

 

For kids in high school and junior high, they are constantly taught by peers that their values are 'lame'.

[Mystery Meat]

Perhaps it would be better to say the Lord's values are under attack. As the Lord has said through his leaders time and time again marriage is between man and a woman and sexual relations are appropriate only in such a marriage, His values are indeed under attack.

[mormonnewb]

Perhaps it would be better to say the Lord's values are under attack. As the Lord has said through his leaders time and time again marriage is between man and a woman and sexual relations are appropriate only in such a marriage, His values are indeed under attack.

So aren't the Lord's values under attack when states allow for the sale of cigarettes and alcohol? Shouldn't we be fighting to outlaw such substances to defend the Lord's values?

[Kenngo1969]

You know what, MormonNewb?  You're absolutely right: I have to wonder whether the greatest danger to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might not come from within.

[Mystery Meat]

So aren't the Lord's values under attack when states allow for the sale of cigarettes and alcohol? Shouldn't we be fighting to outlaw such substances to defend the Lord's values?

 

The values are under attack regardless of their legality under the law. The pushing for legality is not what constitutes "under attack."

[mormonnewb]

I read articles from time to time on why it's beneficial to not always tell the truth-ways to make money that, while legal, aren't really dishonest, or ways to get what you want from people by manipulating them.

I see non fiction books that teach that being financially successful is what is most important, or that rules hold you back from reaching your full potential, or that making bad choices is good, and regret is bad.

I see t.v. shows that teach that lying is o.k. if it benefits you, that it's better to get even than to forgive, that bad behavior (selfishness, for example) is praiseworthy, and that winning at all costs is most important.

For kids in high school and junior high, they are constantly taught by peers that their values are 'lame'.

I've noticed many of those same things but I still see a distinction between not accepting our values and ATTACKING them. For instance, many celebrities have babies out of wedlock, but I can't think of a single one who DISCOURAGES others to get married. And certainly, NO ONE is trying to ban in-wedlock child birth.

As I see it, THAT would be a threat to our values that requires defending. Or, if as some fear, if there was pressure for us to marry gay couples in our temples, then our values would be under attack.

However, at present it seems that we are being asked to go out of our way to attempt to impose our values on others.

[mormonnewb]

The values are under attack regardless of their legality under the law. The pushing for legality is not what constitutes "under attack."

So whenever we see someone smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer, we should defend that attack on The Lord's values? And how do we do that?

[Mystery Meat]

So whenever we see someone smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer, we should defend that attack on The Lord's values? And how do we do that?

 

In whatever way the Lord has required either through personal revelation or as directed by His servants, the Prophets.

[Calm]

Good point. Offhand, can you think of an example of someone teaching that others shouldn't be honest, etc.? I'm sure there are people doing just that. I just can't think of any.

A lot of business people by example, politicians, etc. Movies that glorify adultery, etc.

People share ideas by what they do as well as what they preach.

[mormonnewb]

You know what, MormonNewb? You're absolutely right: I have to wonder whether the greatest danger to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints might not come from within.

I wouldn't be so worried, my friend. This mighty church can withstand your presence in it

[Calm]

So whenever we see someone smoking a cigarette or drinking a beer, we should defend that attack on The Lord's values? And how do we do that?

The significance of smoking or drinking for us is the covenant, not the act itself. If they are not acting in breaking a covenant, which they wouldn't be if not members, then it is not an attack.

[Calm]

I've noticed many of those same things but I still see a distinction between not accepting our values and ATTACKING them. For instance, many celebrities have babies out of wedlock, but I can't think of a single one who DISCOURAGES others to get married. And certainly, NO ONE is trying to ban in-wedlock child birth.

As I see it, THAT would be a threat to our values that requires defending. Or, if as some fear, if there was pressure for us to marry gay couples in our temples, then our values would be under attack.

However, at present it seems that we are being asked to go out of our way to attempt to impose our values on others.

When people push for acceptance of their behaviour as appropriate (which IMO includes flaunting it), then I think that could be view as an attack in the sense that it may damage our own values as we become desensitised and begin to think there are less spiritual and other consequences attached to sin and less blessings attached to faith and obedience and sacrifice and love of God...that the Lord will pat our heads and say it is not that big of a deal.

I don't think all attacks need to be intentional if one is defining it by potential damage rather than motivation.

Edited April 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

The significance of smoking or drinking for us is the covenant, not the act itself. If they are not acting in breaking a covenant, which they wouldn't be if not members, then it is not an attack.

Really? So consuming alcohol is not a sin unless you're a Mormon? I'm not sure that I've had it explained to me in that way. And it makes perfect sense to me.

However, let's take something like violating the law of chastity. An acquaintance tells you that she and her BOYFRIEND are having a baby. How do you defend our values in this situation?

[Calm]

Really? So consuming alcohol is not a sin unless you're a Mormon? I'm not sure that I've had it explained to me in that way. And it makes perfect sense to me.

However, let's take something like violating the law of chastity. An acquaintance tells you that she and her BOYFRIEND are having a baby. How do you defend our values in this situation?

If it was a sin, then Christ would be a sinner.

I think in most cases where the "attack" is not intentional, the best response is by being a good example. Hopefully others will see it and begin to desire the good fruit for themselves.

Edited April 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

I wouldn't be so worried, my friend. This mighty church can withstand your presence in it

Cut the patronizing, condescending crap.  I know damn good and well I'm not one of your "friends."

Edited April 8, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[mormonnewb]

When people push for acceptance of their behaviour as appropriate (which IMO includes flaunting it), then I think that could be view as an attack in the sense that it may damage our own values as we become desensitised and begin to think there are less spiritual and other consequences attached to sin and less blessings attached to faith and obedience and sacrifice and love of God...that the Lord will pat our heads and say it is not that big of a deal.

I don't think all attacks need to be intentional if one is defining it by potential damage rather than motivation.

I agree that when others engage in certain behaviors, it can weaken our resolve to stay faithful. I experience this quite often in my very own home.

Right now, my 10 yo is eating a brownie. However, I don't see it as an attack on my diet. Sure, it would be easier if I didn't have to be tempted, but I'd hate to deny his agency simply because of MY dietary standards.

[Kenngo1969]

Really? So consuming alcohol is not a sin unless you're a Mormon? I'm not sure that I've had it explained to me in that way. And it makes perfect sense to me.

However, let's take something like violating the law of chastity. An acquaintance tells you that she and her BOYFRIEND are having a baby. How do you defend our values in this situation?

You don't, unless you're a Judge in Israel, and they come to you and tell you that they're interested in conforming their conduct to the requirements of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Thanks fer playin'! 

[BCSpace]

The desire of gays to legally marry doesn't seem to present any more of a "threat" to our law of chastity than does the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are legal everywhere is a threat to the Word of Wisdom.

I don't see how our inability to impose our standards on others constitutes a threat to our religion. Somebody please show me the error of my ways.

 

State recognition o SSM is a direct attack on traditional marriage because it gives a societal stamp of approval on an alternative to it.  Recall that, according to the scriptures, even if homosexuality were found to be genetic, it does not matter, it would still be sin and less than the ideal condition (Ether 12:27).

 

Anything that prevents people from achieving or contemplating the ideal is a threat to our values.

[mormonnewb]

Cut the patronizing, condescending crap. I know damn good and well I'm not one of your "friends."

Really? I didn't know that I couldn't be friends with someone I didn't agree with on everything. I would have thought the fact that we both had a testimony of the atonement of Christ and His Church would prevent us from being enemies.