Are Our Values Under Attack?

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Now the Holier-Than-Thou Schtick?  Seriously, knock it off.

[mormonnewb]

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'!

I agree with you totally. Unless the other person asks for my opinion (or I'm in a special position of authority that requires unsolicited advice), I think the proper thing is to wish them well and keep MY values to myself. Just as I certainly wouldn't want unsolicited advice about, say, an impending blood transfusion from a Jehovah's Witness.

So why are we being asked to do more with regards to SSM? To "defend" our values?

[Mystery Meat]

I agree with you totally. Unless the other person asks for my opinion (or I'm in a special position of authority that requires unsolicited advice), I think the proper thing is to wish them well and keep MY values to myself. Just as I certainly wouldn't want unsolicited advice about, say, an impending blood transfusion from a Jehovah's Witness.

So why are we being asked to do more with regards to SSM? To "defend" our values?

 

It is the will of the Lord.

[mormonnewb]

Now the Holier-Than-Thou Schtick? Seriously, knock it off.

Seriously, do you really think that I should hate you because you have the "temerity" to see things differently than I do? Really?

Despite thinking that you are sometimes (okay, often) wrong, I'd be willing to bet that you're a good man. I'd have no problem sustaining you as a member of my bishopric or as scoutmaster in our ward.

Perhaps, I see differently because my livelihood depends upon me seeing things much differently than most people. If you were correct and "perfect" like me, then I'd have to get a real job and I'd HATE that.

Edited April 8, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Kenngo1969]

I agree with you totally. Unless the other person asks for my opinion (or I'm in a special position of authority that requires unsolicited advice), I think the proper thing is to wish them well and keep MY values to myself. Just as I certainly wouldn't want unsolicited advice about, say, an impending blood transfusion from a Jehovah's Witness.

So why are we being asked to do more with regards to SSM? To "defend" our values?

Because there's much more at stake than simply whether two people of the same sex can marry.  If that were the only thing at stake, I don't think the Brethren would be nearly as concerned as they apparently are.  The preeminent place originally granted to religious freedom in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has been eroding for at least twenty years now (probably longer than that, but I'm thinking of a specific United States Supreme Court case that I personally think was the beginning of such erosion in earnest).  Same-sex marriage isn't simply a single, isolated issue: I think it is the pivot-point upon which a whole host of sociopolitical and sociolegal issues will turn.  I think the Brethren have hinted at that; they've left it there for the time being because perhaps they don't know yet what other issues will turn on that pivot-point: the "big picture" might not look so bad in some respects, currently; but in this case, if you'll forgive what you might be tempted to dismiss as hyperbole, very literally speaking, the Devil is in the Details.

[pogi]

mormonnewb, would you consider homosexuality a social vice?  While I agree that making homosexuality legal will not destroy our personal values, it is one more layer of erosion of our social and community values.  When social values change, personal and individual values change.  I think the adversary works and teaches us the same way the Spirit does...line upon line, precept upon precept.  The social message that homosexuality is not immoral, along with pre-marital sex and promiscuity, etc. is the attack on our values.  This is not simply being taught in the media, but it is being forced upon our children in schools in certain locations.

 

At the rate things are going, I can guarantee you the day will come that those who maintain and teach their children that homosexuality is immoral will be viewed in the same light as those who maintain and teach their children that blacks are inferior.  We will be no better than racits in the public eye.  Make no mistake, our values are being atacked line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.

 

If you found out that your children were being taught that cigarettes are not a vice in school, would you be upset?  I would be outraged.  Would you view that as an attack on truth and value?  I would.  I wouldn't be so concerned with making homosexuality legal if they played anti-homosexuality campaigns in the media and taught that it is damaging in school like they do anti-smoking campaigns.  Can you imagine?  While smoking is legal, it is still considered a social vice.  Interestingly, the opposite seems to be true for homosexuality, but that is changing rapidly...on the side of legality.

Edited April 8, 2014 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

Prohibition by law isn't really all that successful. Changing you heart works much better.

Edited April 8, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Kenngo1969]

Prohibition by law isn't really all that successful. Changing you heart works much better.

I agree, but I also think it's naive, and potentially dangerous, to hypothesize that there's no connection between public, collective morals and private moral behavior.  I don't think the Brethren are necessarily as concerned with gay marriage qua gay marriage among those who do not accept the values and morals of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as they are about the fact that increasing societal acceptance of certain behaviors and practices portends increasingly grave consequences for religious practice and other matters of conscience.  (And they're hardly alone among religious leaders in holding that view.)

[Bernard Gui]

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?

We preach the gospel to them.

[AZ in GA]

If I believed that the homosexual community would stop at civil marriage, I might agree that our values are not under attack.

However, it is my opinion that the first step was the repeal of the anti-sodomy laws, the next step was normalization of the practice in society. We are in the middle of the third step which is legalization of civil marriage. After that, the push will be for a couple of things:

1. Secular homosexuals and their allies will push (and I believe they will be successful in the push) to remove tax exempt status from any organization that discriminates against homosexuals in any way (ie refusing to marry them in church buildings). There is already a push to do this.

2. Internally, more liberal Mormons will attempt to redefine gender roles, claim further light and knowledge, and push for the church to declassify homosexuality as a sin.

The church will respond one of two ways in my opinion.

If it is inspired, the doctrine will be upheld and protected at all costs. I believe President Monson set the stage for that this weekend. Doctrine will not change regardless of tax exempt status, or vulgar mocking musicals, or protests by well meaning, but misguided members.

If the church is not true, it will start a slow march towards acceptance of what is now considered sin. They will start with something relatively small like women's ordination, or refusing to excommunicate gay members who are not celibate while still classifying it as sin(similar to current word of wisdom policy). They will then change to allow for it to not be a sin if the couple is married. The final straw will be these couples who married civilly petitioning to be sealed together in order to protect and bind their family together forever (won't someone think of the children).

If path 2 were to occur, we would end up with a completely different and divergent doctrine to what we have today. I don't believe that path 2 will occur, but I do believe that it is the path the world is trying to push us down (from both inside the church and outside.).

For me, I love my church, and my gospel. I believe it to be the most complete church on the earth today. But if the church were to wander down the path the world seems to be pushing it, I don't know how I could stay.

That is a fairly long winded way for me to describe why I feel our values are under attack.

[Calm]

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.

If however he knows you are dieting, knows that eating in front of you makes it harder for you to do so and still continues to eat in front of you when he has the option of doing something else (like taking it to the room or not eating while you are in the kitchen), it at least demonstrates a lack of caring and depending on the frequency and quality of that lack, could be defined as destructive of your own need to diet.

[Calm]

Seriously, do you really think that I should hate you because you have the "temerity" to see things differently than I do? Really?

Despite thinking that you are sometimes (okay, often) wrong, I'd be willing to bet that you're a good man. I'd have no problem sustaining you as a member of my bishopric or as scoutmaster in our ward.

Perhaps, I see differently because my livelihood depends upon me seeing things much differently than most people. If you were correct and "perfect" like me, then I'd have to get a real job and I'd HATE that.

simply because Ken does not see you as acting like a friend to him does not mean he believes you hate him.

I think what Ken is saying is it takes more than mere acquaintance to be friends. It also requires respect and considerate compassionate treatment. In the past iirc, you called him or implied he was a racist and did not give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he was attempting to do.

I can understand why he feels that way.

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

I think I have to agree with you.  When I look at society, particularly US society, I see one that is full of love and forgiveness for others. In addition, it is society that really admires and respects holiness and righteousness. It is a moral society that encourages making good choices when it comes to respecting your body in both a spiritual and physical aspect.  It is such a wholesome society that is supportive of religious ideals and finds a balance between living a life of faith and a life of reason.  It is just remarkable country where parents can feel comfortable and confident that their children will not be abused by going outside alone or spending time on the internet.  This is a land where it seems like all evil is chained!

 

Yes, I don't see any reason for any person committed to a safe environment should feel threatened by such a supportive, enlightened, wholesome culture here in the USA.  

Edited April 8, 2014 by Storm Rider

[mormonnewb]

I think I have to agree with you.  When I look at society, particularly US society, I see one that is full of love and forgiveness for others. In addition, it is society that really admires and respects holiness and righteousness. It is a moral society that encourages making good choices when it comes to respecting your body in both a spiritual and physical aspect.  It is such a wholesome society that is supportive of religious ideals and finds a balance between living a life of faith and a life of reason.  It is just remarkable country where parents can feel comfortable and confident that their children will not be abused by going outside alone or spending time on the internet.  This is a land where it seems like all evil is chained!

 

Yes, I don't see any reason for any person committed to a safe environment should feel threatened by such a supportive, enlightened, wholesome culture here in the USA.

Well, you name a country, time and place that is better in ANY of the areas you listed above and you win a prize! And, by the way, the 1950s America is NOT a right answer.

[why me]

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.

The world is moving on and the church is still in the same value structure. Eventually, there will be a collision. In a small way, we are beginning to see a clash of

'civilizations'. The mormon value standard vs. the world of relativism. But we are not alone in this. Others are with us in attempting to uphold a certain kind of standard. However, it seems that mormons are now standing out more and more in what they consider good moral values. And the other side will continue with the attack.

[why me]

I think I have to agree with you.  When I look at society, particularly US society, I see one that is full of love and forgiveness for others. In addition, it is society that really admires and respects holiness and righteousness. It is a moral society that encourages making good choices when it comes to respecting your body in both a spiritual and physical aspect.  It is such a wholesome society that is supportive of religious ideals and finds a balance between living a life of faith and a life of reason.  It is just remarkable country where parents can feel comfortable and confident that their children will not be abused by going outside alone or spending time on the internet.  This is a land where it seems like all evil is chained!

 

Yes, I don't see any reason for any person committed to a safe environment should feel threatened by such a supportive, enlightened, wholesome culture here in the USA.  

You must have written the above tongue in cheek.

[mormonnewb]

The world is moving on and the church is still in the same value structure. Eventually, there will be a collision. In a small way, we are beginning to see a clash of

'civilizations'. The mormon value standard vs. the world of relativism. But we are not alone in this. Others are with us in attempting to uphold a certain kind of standard. However, it seems that mormons are now standing out more and more in what they consider good moral values. And the other side will continue with the attack.

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.” ― Socrates

For more than 2,000 years, EVERY generation decrees the declining values of the succeeding generation and the horrors of humanity (slavery, war, oppression) diminish in each generation.

Edited April 8, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Storm Rider]

You must have written the above tongue in cheek.

 

No.   I was completely serious. I am still stunned that anyone would think our enlightened culture is anything but supportive of righteous ideals.  Stunned I tell you!

[mormonnewb]

mormonnewb, would you consider homosexuality a social vice?  While I agree that making homosexuality legal will not destroy our personal values, it is one more layer of erosion of our social and community values.  When social values change, personal and individual values change.  I think the adversary works and teaches us the same way the Spirit does...line upon line, precept upon precept.  The social message that homosexuality is not immoral, along with pre-marital sex and promiscuity, etc. is the attack on our values.  This is not simply being taught in the media, but it is being forced upon our children in schools in certain locations.

 

At the rate things are going, I can guarantee you the day will come that those who maintain and teach their children that homosexuality is immoral will be viewed in the same light as those who maintain and teach their children that blacks are inferior.  We will be no better than racits in the public eye.  Make no mistake, our values are being atacked line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.

I think you've gotten to the heart of the Church's concern with SSM. Legality brings about acceptance and before long, anyone not in line with the current legal regime is considered a "bigot,"

I believe this was at the heart of the Church's ambivalence about embracing civil rights. Once integration became the legal standard, it was only a matter of time before the priesthood restriction came under attack. However, should we have fought against equality for millions of black Americans so we could comfortably hold onto our prejudices?

Well, perhaps this is a question worth asking ourselves now. Shall we deny gays important rights to civil marriage so that we can comfortably hold on to our religious doctrine? Or should we be willing to suffer the slings and arrows for "God's values"?

[why me]

 

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.” ― Socrates

For more than 2,000 years, EVERY generation decrees the declining values of the succeeding generation and the horrors of humanity (slavery, war, oppression) diminish in each generation.

Of course I was not writing about youth but about how values influence our social relations. And the ideology that it behind it. Young people are rebellious. No question about it. But as they grow and mature they should be able to look outside themselves to see how others are living. And as such as adults have the skills in place to foster empathy, concern, commitment. understanding between the other human beings that may inhabit their lifeworld. And the idea that there are other lives outside the 'me'.

 

And, to live a life with god as a foundation. Current values now are transforming people into robots and zombies with a small amount of the human population left to assure some aspects of humanity.

Edited April 8, 2014 by why me

[why me]

No.   I was completely serious. I am still stunned that anyone would think our enlightened culture is anything but supportive of righteous ideals.  Stunned I tell you!

Recently I visited a european country. And I had a look for what was on TV that week. What did I see? American Idol, Voice USA, America's Got Talent, Criminal Minds, Without a Clue, Rambo First Blood, Terminator, America's Next Top Model, Project Runway, Masterchef USA, Amazing Race, etc. The list was endless on their regular TV programing. Question: What values do these shows transmit? Competitiveness, winners and losers, death, etc. And what does it say about community? Community is competitive and one must do what one needs to do to win.

 

This and more is what the USA is exporting abroad. And unfortunately, the welfare states that europe was known for are disappearing as country after country morphs into a smaller version of the USA, worshiping the money god just to survive. Values are changing and what distinguished human societies are are also disappearing. At least in europe, it is becoming a monoculture of free enterprise with its stress on consumption and individualism.

 

 

Individualism and the Role of the State

 

American opinions continue to differ considerably from those of Western Europeans when it comes to views of individualism and the role of the state. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) Americans believe it is more important for everyone to be free to pursue their life’s goals without interference from the state, while just 35% say it is more important for the state to play an active role in society so as to guarantee that nobody is in need.

In contrast, at least six-in-ten in Spain (67%), France (64%) and Germany (62%) and 55% in Britain say the state should ensure that nobody is in need; about four-in-ten or fewer consider being free from state interference a higher priority.

 

In the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, views of the role of the state divide significantly across ideological lines. For example, three-quarters of American conservatives say individuals should be free to pursue their goals without interference from the state, while 21% say it is more important for the state to guarantee that nobody is in need; among liberals in the U.S., half would like the state to play an active role to help the needy, while 42% prefer a more limited role for the state.

Those on the political right in Britain, France and Germany are also more likely than those on the left in these countries to prioritize freedom to pursue one’s goals without state interference. Unlike in the U.S., however, majorities of those on the right in France (57%) and Germany (56%) favor an active role for the state, as do more than four-in-ten (45%) conservatives in Britain.

American opinions about the role of the state also vary considerably across age groups. About half (47%) of those younger than 30 prioritize the freedom to pursue life’s goals without interference from the state and a similar percentage (46%) say it is more important for the state to ensure that nobody is in need; among older Americans, however, about six-in-ten consider being free a higher priority, with just about three-in-ten saying the state should play an active role so that nobody is in need. No such age difference is evident in the four Western European countries surveyed.

Asked if they agree that “success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,” Americans again offer more individualistic views than those expressed by Western Europeans. Only 36% of Americans believe they have little control over their fate, compared with 50% in Spain, 57% in France and 72% in Germany; Britain is the only Western European country surveyed where fewer than half (41%) share this view.

In the U.S. and in Western Europe, those without a college degree are less individualistic than those who have graduated from college; this is especially the case in the U.S. and Germany. About three-quarters (74%) of Germans in the less educated group believe that success in life is largely determined by forces beyond one’s control, compared with 55% of college graduates. Among Americans, 41% of those without a college degree say they have little control over their fate, while just 22% of college graduates share this view.

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/11/17/the-american-western-european-values-gap/

 

So what is the problem? Europeans are very much in their mindset when it comes to their concept of certain values formed by the european welfare society. However, the politicians are not conforming to what the people consider to be european traditional values. Thus, the clash within europe  as european countries (the EU) follow the american example of economic liberalism..Thus, the saturation of European TV with American shows that show competitive individualism. 

Edited April 8, 2014 by why me

[Kenngo1969]

If I believed that the homosexual community would stop at civil marriage, I might agree that our values are not under attack.

However, it is my opinion that the first step was the repeal of the anti-sodomy laws, the next step was normalization of the practice in society. We are in the middle of the third step which is legalization of civil marriage. After that, the push will be for a couple of things:

1. Secular homosexuals and their allies will push (and I believe they will be successful in the push) to remove tax exempt status from any organization that discriminates against homosexuals in any way (ie refusing to marry them in church buildings). There is already a push to do this.

2. Internally, more liberal Mormons will attempt to redefine gender roles, claim further light and knowledge, and push for the church to declassify homosexuality as a sin.

The church will respond one of two ways in my opinion.

If it is inspired, the doctrine will be upheld and protected at all costs. I believe President Monson set the stage for that this weekend. Doctrine will not change regardless of tax exempt status, or vulgar mocking musicals, or protests by well meaning, but misguided members.

If the church is not true, it will start a slow march towards acceptance of what is now considered sin. They will start with something relatively small like women's ordination, or refusing to excommunicate gay members who are not celibate while still classifying it as sin(similar to current word of wisdom policy). They will then change to allow for it to not be a sin if the couple is married. The final straw will be these couples who married civilly petitioning to be sealed together in order to protect and bind their family together forever (won't someone think of the children).

If path 2 were to occur, we would end up with a completely different and divergent doctrine to what we have today. I don't believe that path 2 will occur, but I do believe that it is the path the world is trying to push us down (from both inside the church and outside.).

For me, I love my church, and my gospel. I believe it to be the most complete church on the earth today. But if the church were to wander down the path the world seems to be pushing it, I don't know how I could stay.

That is a fairly long winded way for me to describe why I feel our values are under attack.

I'm not sure I agree with absolutely everything in this post, but it does provide a few "for instances" to illustrate the point I made earlier, i.e., that opposition of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to gay marriage is not wholly born out of a mere concern regarding immorality.  It deserves more than a single rep point, but I've done all I can do!

[Kenngo1969]

I think you've gotten to the heart of the Church's concern with SSM. Legality brings about acceptance and before long, anyone not in line with the current legal regime is considered a "bigot,"

I believe this was at the heart of the Church's ambivalence about embracing civil rights. Once integration became the legal standard, it was only a matter of time before the priesthood restriction came under attack. However, should we have fought against equality for millions of black Americans so we could comfortably hold onto our prejudices?

Well, perhaps this is a question worth asking ourselves now. Shall we deny gays important rights to civil marriage so that we can comfortably hold on to our religious doctrine? Or should we be willing to suffer the slings and arrows for "God's values"?

As at least two people, myself and AZ in GA, have pointed out to you now, it's not simply about "holding onto prejudices." This oversimplifies the argument and poisons the well. Whether you agree with our assessment of future trends or not (and while, as I said, I'm unsure that I agree with everything AZ in GA said), that assessment is not wholly outside the realm of possibility, particularly not with respect to gay activism regarding the church's tax-exempt status (and quite probably other things).

[CV75]

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.

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), p. 49).

Look at all the opposition to the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets concerning Jesus Christ. Look at all the opposition to the other things which pertain to our religion, or the appendages to that.

We as a Church do not impose the testimony or the standards, and as members we are not supposed to try.

With regards to Church and member participation in civil discourse, of course there are opposing views. It would be naïve to beleive otherwise.

[CV75]

Well, perhaps this is a question worth asking ourselves now. Shall we deny gays important rights to civil marriage so that we can comfortably hold on to our religious doctrine? Or should we be willing to suffer the slings and arrows for "God's values"?

You have demonstarted that when one formulates the terms and conditions of the question by the light of the sparks he's kindled, and then answers it for himself, he can comfortably oppose those who answer it differently.

So you can't offer a better option than to express and vote one's conscience (whatever condition it may be in) and deal with the consequences. That is no different in content than what our prophets are saying, though they encouage us to walk by a greater light.