Are Our Values Under Attack?

[thesometimesaint]

Lying is rarely taught as a virtue. I don't read many business books, but never have I heard that lying and being unethical are good business practices. Lying happens, did Joseph Smith teach it was ok when he denied polygamy while teaching and practicing it?

High school students will make fun of anything, this is not restricted to Mormon values.

 

Lie a little, cheat a little, dig a pit for thy neighbor. There is no harm in this. It is taught and practiced as a good business model.

SEE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/wells-fargo-foreclosure-manual-under-fire/2014/03/17/25cd383c-ae00-11e3-96dc-d6ea14c099f9_story.html

[Calm]

Lying is rarely taught as a virtue. I don't read many business books, but never have I heard that lying and being unethical are good business practices..

Unfortunately I have.

[Walden]

 

So you are indeed saying that our values are under attack, and that we seek or deserve it to boot!

 

I don't think that it's the LDS values regarding SSM that are under attack necessarily....most right-leaning Christian organizations oppose SSM. If the LDS church just simply stated their beliefs, maintained their own rules regarding SSM in relation to church membership, taught their principles regarding SSM to their members, and didn't politicize the issue, then there would be much less backlash to make members feel "attacked."

 

What's under attack is the fact that the LDS church has actively mobilized it's adherents in an effort to legislate their brand of morality to apply to the masses. Anytime you attempt to legislate morality, there will be opposition.

[CV75]

Yes, our SSM values are under attack and we deserve ridicule for it because we choose to legislate and impose our values on others. If we just said homosexuality is wrong, don't do it, we'd get a small amount of persecution for it. But we don't just preach it, we mobilized an entire political campaign to stop it and deny choice to others while the whole time saying we got nothing against you folks. So yes, to keep backing a losing horse (politically and socially stopping SSM), I conclude that we seek this persecution.

LOL… That’s just an excuse; hardly an objective response. Polemics!

It’s the nature of politics to conflict, and then to debate, and then to attack a particular position on chastity as it plays out in legislation. That's just the nature of the beast. But it is the nature of the adversary to attack the value of chastity itself, or the people who hold to it. It is also the nature of the adversary to confound politics with values, or to put politics over values.

So you are saying it is justified to attack our values. (Slow clap)

I suggest you go back and read a few of the talks from last weekend's General Conference.

Anytime you attempt to legislate morality, there will be opposition.

See above. Edited April 8, 2014 by CV75

[bluebell]

Of these values, only our idea of chastity is under "attack", and only because we want all to follow our narrow rules. There are very few instances when integrity, honesty, virtue, kindness or charity etc. are denigrated and not celebrated. 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I had a change of mind. I think all is well in Zion, nothing to see here. There is no attack. What the worlds wants is virtue and integrity. In fact I don't think I need to go to church any more because all is well.

[mormonnewb]

LOL… That’s just an excuse; hardly an objective response. Polemics!

It’s the nature of politics to conflict, and then to debate, and then to attack a particular position on chastity as it plays out in legislation. That's just the nature of the beast. But it is the nature of the adversary to attack the value of chastity itself, or the people who hold to it. It is also the nature of the adversary to confound politics with values, or to put politics over values. [Emphasis added]

So you are saying it is justified to attack our values. (Slow clap)

I suggest you go back and read a few of the talks from last weekend's General Conference.

See above.

 

I don't see how chastity itself is being attacked.  Sure, not everyone believes it is the right choice for themselves, but I can't think of anyone who is "attacking" the concept for others.  For instance, in the last election, Mitt Romney was attacked for many things, but I don't remember a single attack ad aimed at the fact that he has been faithful to his wife.  In fact, even the "godless Democrats," ran a candidate who upholds the law of chastity.  Likewise, no one attacked Romney for his ethical business dealings.  Any attacks were aimed at perceived unethical business dealings.

 

Remember, just because someone doesn't hold our values, it doesn't mean that they are attacking them.  For example, I don't hold to Muslim dietary restrictions, but I wasn't attacking any Muslims when I had a BLT this morning.  That would be the case even if I had it in a restaurant.  Now, I guess if I tried to sneak a BLT into a mosque, that might be an attack on their values but otherwise, I am simply exercising my agency and leaving them free to exercise their agency.  In the same vain, I don't see how an unmarried couple raising, say, two children is an ATTACK on our values.  They are simply leaving their lives "according to the  dictates of their conscience" and allowing us to right to do the same.

Edited April 8, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

I see numerous examples that the ends justify the means esp in politics.

 

Not upholding our values is not the same as attacking them.  For example, I am not attacking vegan values when I choose to have a steak.  I am simply choosing an alternative value system (the delicious one).  On the other hand, if I raised millions of dollars to pass a law outlawing vegetables or better yet, requiring that meals could only be between one meat and one vegetable, then I would be attacking vegan values.

 

So the fact that others live dishonestly and encourage it in others is not an attack on honesty.  The attack comes when the dishonest work to hinder the ability of others to be honest.  I really don't see much (if any) of that in today's society.  Certainly, I can't think of any legislation that would make it a crime to, say, report all of your income on a tax form.

[DJBrown]

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 behavior in California of some who opposed Prop 8 is a good example of this.  Many people who supported limiting marriage to one man and one women were very much targeted.  

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/the-price-of-prop-8

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not upholding our values is not the same as attacking them.  For example, I am not attacking vegan values when I choose to have a steak.  I am simply choosing an alternative value system (the delicious one).  On the other hand, if I raised millions of dollars to pass a law outlawing vegetables or better yet, requiring that meals could only be between one meat and one vegetable, then I would be attacking vegan values.

 

So the fact that others live dishonestly and encourage it in others is not an attack on honesty.  The attack comes when the dishonest work to hinder the ability of others to be honest.  I really don't see much (if any) of that in today's society.  Certainly, I can't think of any legislation that would make it a crime to, say, report all of your income on a tax form.

I guess it depends on your definition of attack?

 

 

Its like when you don't vote you still have made a choice. If you don't stand for something then you really are not for it and it could be said that you are against it even though you are not actively against it. More like standing for something in omission. 

 

 

Lets take a hot button topic like abortion. They are going to pass a bill that bans abortion. But you as an individual say "I don't care about that pfffft". and you sit at home. Since you did not vote for it it could be said that you are against pro life because you did nothing to up hold it. In a certain sense you did indeed support a movement that attacked it because you did not support it. I guess attack is more of a metaphor in this sense.

 

In most cases these issues you can't be on the fence on them. It's not like "Do I like ham or turkey more?". Were the answer has no real effect on anything. But if you look at morals, sitting on the fence really means you are against them. Because they don't stand if no one is actually for them. 

 

Oh well. I guess we just see thing quite differently. I am not sure how to get you to see my point of view.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[why me]

Of these values, only our idea of chastity is under "attack", and only because we want all to follow our narrow rules. There are very few instances when integrity, honesty, virtue, kindness or charity etc. are denigrated and not celebrated. 

And yet, when we see what is coming from the televsion reality shows it  is a lack of honesty, integrity, virtue, and charity. How to explain it? And it the teleivsion is encouraging such values, then I can say that mormons values are under attack.

[why me]

Great points.  The gay marriage debate is past, we lost.  It is accepted by the majority of society and will continue to gain acceptance.  It will be legal throughout the country in a few years. 

However, the world is not the US. Or is it? Many christians are against ssm. Again, I find it interesting that westerner think that god supports postomodernism and western relativism.

[why me]

So well said.  I hope to see the day when the church is known for it's kindness, charity love for all sinners and are bringing people to Christ.  Maybe at some point the focus of the church will be known for embracing the teachings of Christ. 

I think that many christians throughout the world  may disagree with the american interpretation of christ's understanding of love. I aslo think that we just had a talk about the concept of love at conference. Your post is ringing with platitudes full of empty words. But let me put it this way: we should have charity and love for all sinners. But will this get them saved in the after life? Will this get them to celestial glory in the afterlife? I think that the church cares so much for the sinner that the church wishes the sinner to change his or her life,  to get back on track so that the sinner can become more holy and enjoy the glory of god. Now that is true love.

[why me]

I had a change of mind. I think all is well in Zion, nothing to see here. There is no attack. What the worlds wants is virtue and integrity. In fact I don't think I need to go to church any more because all is well.

This is the impression that I get when Iisten to the other side. All is well, all is well. Usually this means that all is not well.

[california boy]

I agree. But it isn't all or nothing, is it? Is it really accurate to protray a legal marriage as the only possible commitment process?

If two people have their own private ceremony where they say vows to be as one for eternity, but tell no one else but have every intent to live that way, is this a committed relationship or not?

If someone legally marries with the understanding that in a few years they will be most likely divorcing because they see themselves as naturally falling out of love and moving on to someone else, is that marriage someho more committed than the above relationship just because it has public approval?

It seems to me commitment has much more to do with how two people feel about each other than a legal process. The legal process has no inherent meaning of commitment save that brought to it by those participating.

 

For some, it is an all or nothing.  Certainly Mormons view marriage as either a legal binding marriage, or you are not married.  Two young people having a private commitment ceremony in the living room would not be considered a marriage by the church. I think teaching that there are alternatives to marriage like just a pledge to stay together is a dangerous road for society to head down.  One that is already traveled by far too many couples already.

 

In any event, a couple should always have the option for a legally recognized marriage.  Whether they choose to have such a ceremony or not is up to them.  I doubt very much that every gay couple will choose to get married even when it becomes legal. 

[CV75]

I don't see how chastity itself is being attacked.

Of course not--that's the whole premsie of your thread.

 

Remember, just because someone doesn't hold our values, it doesn't mean that they are attacking them.

This is a straw man.

 

So you assert that you do not see how our values of chastity are being attacked--only those examples of how they aren't.

 

Remember, just because someone that doesn't hold our values doesn't attack them doesn't mean that someone else that doesn't hold our values doesn't attack them; they do. It ain't all that black and white!

[mormonnewb]

This is the impression that I get when Iisten to the other side. All is well, all is well. Usually this means that all is not well.

Christians of all brands love to claim that the end is nigh; that the world is reaching a fever pitch of inequity. However, the truth is that this world has NEVER been so moral as it is today. In EVERY conceivable measure, people are kinder, more generous, less violent and more loving. Let's be clear that in only the last 500 years would something as horrific as a genocide even be considered newsworthy. Up until then, it was standard practice for one group of people to kill/enslave another group of people just because they could. Now, I know that doesn't compare to rap music and women wearing thong bikinis, but it was pretty bad.

Of course, we haven't been guilty of such barbarism for at least, say, the last 100 years, right? And look at the "Greatest Generation," men and women who sacrificed for truth, justice and the American way. Well, at least, one Monday through Saturday. Sunday was reserved for church ... and lynchings; at least, in more than 6,000 cases in the first 90 years after the Civil War. Of course, they did wear their Sunday best to the lynchings, so at least, they had some "reverence" for the Sabbath.

And no, I'm not suggesting that all, most or even ANY saints participated in such actions. What I am suggesting is that, just 60 years ago, lynchings were a commonplace event in American society to which very little notice was taken. Nowadays, the moral outrage would be incalculable. Just about every American would find such an event deeply troubling. This is how far we've "descended" into debauchery.

So if you're saying that skirts are shorter and that sexual purity is on the wane, I would have to agree. But if you're saying that the people who ignored lynchings, bombed churches and turned water hoses on little boys and girls were more "moral" than people today who favor equal rights for gays and lesbians, you couldn't disagree more.

Edited April 8, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

We are not trying to impose our values on others. Prop 8, an example of different faiths working together...they only point us out to media because we are a large Church, with deep pockets.

[pogi]

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"?

 

For me, I am not so concerned with the slings and arrows as I am concerned about the moral compass of future generations.  Our nation was built upon a mountain of social values which is eroding away.  It is happening so subtly that many don't even recognize that our mountain is now a hill (in relation to sexual morality).  Gay marriage is just one very small aspect of this erosion.  I am personally more concerned about other areas of erosion and how they will affect future generations.  But, until we see the value and virtue in each and every stone that we have left, and are willing to hold them in place, that meager hill will soon be a sand box.  If only our nation could see the chains that they are shackling themselves to in the name of liberty, virtue, and rights.  The problem is that the lower our mountain gets, the less spiritual perspective we have to see the dangers which lie ahead.  

 

I can understand why you might feel that we are not at war and that our values are not under attack.  It is like trying to see a mountain erode - you can't really see any change in just one storm.  It is a subtle and clever attack.  He gets us to vote in favor of immorality in the name of virtue and rights.  Evil is confused for good and good for evil, and we literally hand over our stones thinking that one meager stone will not effect this great mountain or our perspective from it.  I don't doubt that gay marriage will eventually sweep this country, but they don't need my approving vote to do so.  I will hold onto my rock and will not give it away in the name of virtue.  It is not a virtue, nor is it a "right" as you say...yet.

Edited April 8, 2014 by pogi

[mormonnewb]

The behavior in California of some who opposed Prop 8 is a good example of this. Many people who supported limiting marriage to one man and one women were very much targeted.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/the-price-of-prop-8

Supporters of Prop 8 were NOT "targeted" for upholding their values. No one complained that Brother So-and-So was married to Sister So-and-So and therefore, their business should be boycotted.

They were "targeted" for trying to impose that value on others. Since when did living our values require others to do likewise?

For instance, I don't need all porn to be outlawed so that I can live the law of chastity. What other people view on their computers has NOTHING to do with the time I waste on this board. On second thought, perhaps that isn't the best example of righteousness

[Calm]

I don't see how chastity itself is being attacked.

I don't think he was referring to only very public attacks.

I was mocked for being a virgin by my fellow workers at two different jobs in my late teens. That was almost 40 years ago. Somehow I doubt teen peers have stopped doing that in the ensuing decades.

[mormonnewb]

For me, I am not so concerned with the slings and arrows as I am concerned about the moral compass of future generations. Our nation was built upon a mountain of social values which is eroding away. It is happening so subtly that many don't even recognize that our mountain is now a hill (in relation to sexual morality). Gay marriage is just one very small aspect of this erosion. I am personally more concerned about other areas of erosion and how they will affect future generations. But, until we see the value and virtue in each and every stone that we have left, and are willing to hold them in place, that meager hill will soon be a sand box. If only our nation could see the chains that they are shackling themselves to in the name of liberty, virtue, and rights. The problem is that the lower our mountain gets, the less spiritual perspective we have to see the dangers which lie ahead.

I can understand why you might feel that we are not at war and that our values are not under attack. It is like trying to see a mountain erode - you can't really see any change in just one storm. It is a subtle and clever attack. He gets us to vote in favor of immorality in the name of virtue and rights. Evil is confused for good and good for evil, and we literally hand over our stones thinking that one meager stone will not effect this great mountain or our perspective from it. I don't doubt that gay marriage will eventually sweep this country, but they don't need my approving vote to do so. I will hold onto my rock and will not give it away in the name of virtue. It is not a virtue, nor is it a "right" as you say...yet.

Aside from all of my hyperbole in the post to Why Me, do you REALLY think that our society is less moral than that of our parents and grandparents? On the scales of morality, I just don't see how our past acceptance of the most brutal forms of oppression is better than our acceptance of, say, out-of-wedlock child birth. Edited April 8, 2014 by mormonnewb

[JLHPROF]

Are Our Values Under Attack?

Yep.  In my opinion society tolerates more vice today than it ever has.  Whether it's an attack I would dispute.  I think for the most part we've completely done it to ourselves and we continue to do it to ourselves until God stops us.  Not by removing our agency, but by changing the circumstances to prevent our agency running amuck.

[Calm]

For some, it is an all or nothing.

Since it is only "some", then that clearly demonstrates it is the value they impose on the ceremony itself, not any inherent attribute that makes marriage the only possible committed relationship. Since it is a personal value, it seems like it should be given no more weight than other personal values are given, if one person dismisses a set of religious values because only some people hold them and not all, then it would be equal treatment to dismiss the claims that marriage should be allowed so those some could perform the ceremony that is meaningful to them.

" Certainly Mormons view marriage as either a legal binding marriage, or you are not married. Two young people having a private commitment ceremony in the living room would not be considered a marriage by the church"

But does that mean they would label it as an uncommitted relationship or instead see it as committed, but not a fully committed as it might be?

"In any event, a couple should always have the option for a legally recognized marriage"

But what does that have to do with the idea that without marriage, someone can't have a committed relationship, which was, I believe, the claim you made.

Given that people often point to gay relationships that have lasted for years and say they deserve to be married because they have proved their commitment, I don't think one should claim that preventing marriage prevents any commitment.

Edited April 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

I don't think he was referring to only very public attacks.

I was mocked for being a virgin by my fellow workers at two different jobs in my late teens. That was almost 40 years ago. Somehow I doubt teen peers have stopped doing that in the ensuing decades.

Yes, but did anyone try to pass a law to force you to have sex? LOL

Also, was it anything more than light ribbing? For me, I've had friends tease me for no longer having cocktails with them. "So you're not going to drink because Mitt Romney said so? Are you going to vote to repeal Obamacare too?"

But this was very short-lived. In many cases, friends have later remarked that they respected my religious convictions, even if they didn't share them. Of course, they might have felt a little different had I sponsored a referendum to outlaw their drinking.

Edited April 8, 2014 by mormonnewb