Moral Bankruptcy

[Stone holm]

I think the charge recently made in a Salt Lake Tribune article that the Church represented moral bankruptcy if it was turning out members in good standing who felt free to design and create and approve policies allowing governmental torture is unfair. However, I wonder if Christianity's seeming obsession with matters sexual, has resulted in a failure to discuss in a coherent fashion other matters pertaining to cultural morality such as when violence is justified.

[mfbukowski]

I think the charge recently made in a Salt Lake Tribune article that the Church represented moral bankruptcy if it was turning out members in good standing who felt free to design and create and approve policies allowing governmental torture is unfair. However, I wonder if Christianity's seeming obsession with matters sexual, has resulted in a failure to discuss in a coherent fashion other matters pertaining to cultural morality such as when violence is justified.

That approach would be morally bankrupt.

The sanctity of the family is more important than any other issue, and if you do not see it that way, there is nothing to discuss.

It's like abortion. Either you think it is murder or you don't- no communication will change minds on the topic.

[Robert F. Smith]

It might be helpful at the outset, Stone holm, if you could cite that article for our review.  I haven't seen it.

I think the charge recently made in a Salt Lake Tribune article that the Church represented moral bankruptcy if it was turning out members in good standing who felt free to design and create and approve policies allowing governmental torture is unfair.

I would suggest that it might be a mixed bag on what sort of Mormons have worked for the CIA, and I have actually known some.  For example, although I don't know their current status, I wonder what Lester Bush (M.D.) and Michael Barrett (J.D.) might have to say about that article and their own experience at the CIA.  One might also want to know what the outside, but very knowledgeable opinion of General Brent Scowcroft might be.  All these guys were or are Mormon, and were able to view the National Security system from within at a very high level.  I also know one man who is a Mormon and who speaks fluent Arabic, who interrogated prisoners at Gitmo (I have no reason to believe that he tortured anyone).
 

However, I wonder if Christianity's seeming obsession with matters sexual, has resulted in a failure to discuss in a coherent fashion other matters pertaining to cultural morality such as when violence is justified.

What indicates to you that normative christianity has any obsession with sexual matters?  Are you citing a particular study?  I should have thought that such an obsession has greatly lessened over the decades, and that tolerance for variant lifestyles is now much more acceptable.

 

I can still remember the old Hippie saying:  "Make love, not war."  Is there a zero-sum game in cultural morals?  Does a concern with sexual mores crowd out concerns about violence?

[Stone holm]

It might be helpful at the outset, Stone holm, if you could cite that article for our review.  I haven't seen it.

I would suggest that it might be a mixed bag on what sort of Mormons have worked for the CIA, and I have actually known some.  For example, although I don't know their current status, I wonder what Lester Bush (M.D.) and Michael Barrett (J.D.) might have to say about that article and their own experience at the CIA.  One might also want to know what the outside, but very knowledgeable opinion of General Brent Scowcroft might be.  All these guys were or are Mormon, and were able to view the National Security system from within at a very high level.  I also know one man who is a Mormon and who speaks fluent Arabic, who interrogated prisoners at Gitmo (I have no reason to believe that he tortured anyone).

 

What indicates to you that normative christianity has any obsession with sexual matters?  Are you citing a particular study?  I should have thought that such an obsession has greatly lessened over the decades, and that tolerance for variant lifestyles is now much more acceptable.

 

I can still remember the old Hippie saying:  "Make love, not war."  Is there a zero-sum game in cultural morals?  Does a concern with sexual mores crowd out concerns about violence?

I don't think there can be any real dispute about Christianity's current obsession with matters sexual, as proof I would just refer you to the comment above yours. I would except from that Pope Francis who seems to be concentrating on things other than sex.

[Sleeper Cell]

I don't think there can be any real dispute about Christianity's current obsession with matters sexual, as proof I would just refer you to the comment above yours. I would except from that Pope Francis who seems to be concentrating on things other than sex.

 

Presumably you are referring to:

 

That approach would be morally bankrupt.

 

The sanctity of the family is more important than any other issue, and if you do not see it that way, there is nothing to discuss.

 

It's like abortion. Either you think it is murder or you don't- no communication will change minds on the topic 

 

Please clarify.  What part of this post reflects an obsession about sex -- concern about the sanctity of the family or concern about abortion? 

Edited December 15, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[3DOP]

I don't think there can be any real dispute about Christianity's current obsession with matters sexual, as proof I would just refer you to the comment above yours. I would except from that Pope Francis who seems to be concentrating on things other than sex.

 

Presumably, those who view pornography, and abuse themselves or others sexually are normal, and sexually balanced, even if they are Christians. It should be said that only those Christians who think the dignity of the sexual act is diminished by such behaviors are the ones who are obsessed. 

[mfbukowski]

If "the government" kills someone in a war, it is ok, but if they pour water into their nose or make them uncomfortable for a few hours, leaving no permanent damage, seeking to save innocent lives, that is "immoral".

If they had just shot them on capture, I suppose that would have been fine. Bin Laden's killer is a hero, and will be a millionaire several times over

Go figure.

[Guest]

I think the charge recently made in a Salt Lake Tribune article that the Church represented moral bankruptcy if it was turning out members in good standing who felt free to design and create and approve policies allowing governmental torture is unfair. However, I wonder if Christianity's seeming obsession with matters sexual, has resulted in a failure to discuss in a coherent fashion other matters pertaining to cultural morality such as when violence is justified.

Not sure I am getting point here. But if members were engaged in such activities, the Church would not know as CIA members would not be allowed to speak of their activities. Sounds to me like the SLT, was just grandstanding, by not knowing of a case, but showing how morally superior they are as an organization. If the Church knew that members were breaking the law, then they would not hold that person in "good standing". From what I have seen in the past and up until now the SLT, is more and more anti-Church.

[Stone holm]

Not sure I am getting point here. But if members were engaged in such activities, the Church would not know as CIA members would not be allowed to speak of their activities. Sounds to me like the SLT, was just grandstanding, by not knowing of a case, but showing how morally superior they are as an organization. If the Church knew that members were breaking the law, then they would not hold that person in "good standing". From what I have seen in the past and up until now the SLT, is more and more anti-Church.

The Article noted a psychologist who was paid to develop the scenarios and the judge who approved them, but the Psychologist who was a Bishop resigned his position as Bishop as a result, so like I said, I feel it is unfair to blame the Church. The point, however, is whether the obsession with things sexual by Christianity, is distracting us from other elements of morality which our parents and grandparents considered important. The discussion of taking life is an example. P.O.W. are protected from being shot out of hand, and President Kimball indicated that in war killing was not murder, however, he did indicate the need to accept surrenders. In addition, it amazed me that during WWII when the allies intercepted a communication about the travelling plans of Yammamoto they actually debated the moral issue of sending a fighter squadron to shoot him down, since this would in essence be an assignation. Early on there was even a debate about the morality of carpet bombing. As the war drew on that type of debate became less frequent. Do we, however, even consider say drone strikes as involving a moral issue? How about income inequality? It's clear from the First Presidency used to consider that a potential moral issue, but when is the last time such things were seriously considered as moral issues.

[The Nehor]

If "the government" kills someone in a war, it is ok, but if they pour water into their nose or make them uncomfortable for a few hours, leaving no permanent damage, seeking to save innocent lives, that is "immoral".

Because torture has no long-term psychological or emotional repercussions on both those who have it used on them and those who use it. As long as there is no permanent physical damage it must be okay.

I suppose if the hymen is still intact sexual abuse doesn't count either?

Edited December 15, 2014 by The Nehor

[tonie]

I think the charge recently made in a Salt Lake Tribune article that the Church represented moral bankruptcy if it was turning out members in good standing who felt free to design and create and approve policies allowing governmental torture is unfair. However, I wonder if Christianity's seeming obsession with matters sexual, has resulted in a failure to discuss in a coherent fashion other matters pertaining to cultural morality such as when violence is justified.

 

Are you sure it was Salt Lake Tribune?  I have found two articles, the primary article is on the website bycommonconsent; the second article - which seems more about the commonconsent article -  is found on internationalbusinesstimes.

 

from bycommonconsent:

 

"I believe in repentance and I believe that the Lord can and will forgive these men their sins. I certainly hope he’ll do it for me. But if they represent the moral judgment of Mormonism’s best and brightest, the people who succeed in Washington and elsewhere, then we are morally bankrupt. If we can rouse ourselves to condemn young girls for wearing short skirts or or the terminally ill for wishing for a relatively quick and painless death, but we can’t find the wherewithal to come out strong and publicly against torture, then we are morally bankrupt."

 

 

I do not think we can blame the Church for what these fellow members did, i.e. creating the torture techniques and writing the legal opinions which justified the torture.  The people who did those things, are people, who just happen to be LDS or they could have had no religion or been of any other religion.

 

I do not think we are morally bankrupt because of those LDS created the basis for torturing a fellow human being; D&C 98 might provide some basis to such treatment of a fellow human being

Edited December 15, 2014 by tonie

[mfbukowski]

Because torture has no long-term psychological or emotional repercussions on both those who have it used on them and those who use it. As long as there is no permanent physical damage it must be okay.

I suppose if the hymen is still intact sexual abuse doesn't count either?

Absurd distortion of what I said. Lets let rapists go out of jail, because they might get traumatized in prison.

I'm out.

Edited December 15, 2014 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

Absurd distortion of what I said, I'm out.

 

Nope, it's a fair reading. You emphasize the absence of permanent physical damage and suggest that makes it okay.

 

Though I do not think the reasons for the Tribune's condemnation are entirely without bias the conclusion is sound. What is wrong with people that believe it is okay to psychologically and emotionally break and degrade a child of God? I would argue that chopping off hands is more humane. Too many in the LDS faith seem almost sadistic as long as they are convinced it is practical. Captain Moroni basically apologizes for using POWs as labor during his war under the guise of expediency. Can anyone see him endorsing the torture of his "brethren" for intelligence purposes?

 

The horror stories coming out of our detention facilities are not quite as bad as Mormon's laments about his own people in Moroni 9 but give it a little time.

[The Nehor]

Lets let rapists go out of jail, because they might get traumatized in prison.

 

Now that is an absurd distortion. Thank you for demonstrating.

[Calm]

The Article noted a psychologist who was paid to develop the scenarios and the judge who approved them, but the Psychologist who was a Bishop resigned his position as Bishop as a result....

Link please..

[Calm]

"What is wrong with people that believe it is okay to psychologically and emotionally break and degrade a child of God?"

The conflict arises because they see others more deserving of protection from degradation. An ideal world no one is degraded, but this isn't an ideal world and in stopping those who degrade for gain, isn't there always some form of degradation that takes place? Arresting and imprisonment is degradation. I am reminded of Operation Underground Railroad who work with law officers of countries, not all of which have legal or prison systems we should be comfortable with. Knowing the men arrested will suffer greatly should cause one to seriously consider the consequences of one's actions as should knowing if one does not act more women and children will be living horrific lives and dying as slaves.

I don't know what the general moral choice is when faced with the fact that harming one person who is a criminal may save many from harm who aren't. The "may" of that sentence should figure greatly in our considerations of our choices. All I can think of adding is that I I were in the position of choice, I'd be spending all my spare time entreating the Lord to let me know what was his will. The scriptures themselves have a variety of circumstances that could be used for justification of a wide range of choice (ie. Nephi used shock treatment to force Laman and Lemuel to work, God did not allow anyone to step in and save the women and children from being slaughtered until some of the Lamanites themselves were appalled by their own actions and joined them, Nephi did not have to resort to torture to get what he needed from Laban and instead gave him a painless execution and the Lord protected him, the Law of Moses provided refuge cities for those accused of murder where they would be safe iirc).

Edited December 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

"What is wrong with people that believe it is okay to psychologically and emotionally break and degrade a child of God?"

The conflict arises because they see others more deserving of protection from degradation. An ideal world no one is degraded, but this isn't an ideal world and in stopping those who degrade for gain, isn't there always some form of degradation that takes place? Arresting and imprisonment is degradation. I am reminded of Operation Underground Railroad who work with law officers of countries, not all of which have legal or prison systems we should be comfortable with. Knowing the men arrested will suffer greatly should cause one to seriously consider the consequences of one's actions as should knowing if one does not act more women and children will be living horrific lives and dying as slaves.

I don't know what the general moral choice is when faced with the fact that harming one person who is a criminal may save many from harm who aren't. The "may" of that sentence should figure greatly in our considerations of our choices. All I can think of adding is that I I were in the position of choice, I'd be spending all my spare time entreating the Lord to let me know what was his will. The scriptures themselves have a variety of circumstances that could be used for justification of a wide range of choice (ie. Nephi used shock treatment to force Laman and Lemuel to work, God did not allow anyone to step in and save the women and children from being slaughtered until some of the Lamanites themselves were appalled by their own actions and began to protect them at the cost of their former allies' lives, Nephi did not have to resort to torture to get what he needed from Laban and instead gave him a painless execution and the Lord protected him, the Law of Moses provided refuge cities for those accused of murder where they would be safe iirc).

When was the last time you even heard a mention of these issues from the pulpit?

[Calm]

Given that there is IMO no general principle to cover each situation, I think the guidance taught from the pulpit to seek the Will of the Lord in all things one does is the best advice that can be given.

Edited December 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[tonie]

Link please..

 

Google results for Bruce Jessen Bishop  

[Calm]

Not the SL Tribune article….

[tonie]

Not the SL Tribune article….

 

Oh, ok.

 

I too would like to know what Salt Lake Tribune article the OP is referring too.   I have not found a Salt Lake Tribune discussing the torture report and claiming that the Church or its people are morally bankrupt.

[Stone holm]

Given that there is IMO no general principle to cover each situation, I think the guidance taught from the pulpit to seek the Will of the Lord in all things one does is the best advice that can be given.

So we just let the really important moral issues of the day fall off into an undiscussed gray area and focus 75% of our time on sex? And then we wonder why so many young people believe religion is not worth their attention? There is a reason that Pope Francis has captured their interest, he is discussing important moral issues on a wide scale without lowering the Catholic standards regarding sexual morality.

[The Nehor]

"What is wrong with people that believe it is okay to psychologically and emotionally break and degrade a child of God?"

The conflict arises because they see others more deserving of protection from degradation. An ideal world no one is degraded, but this isn't an ideal world and in stopping those who degrade for gain, isn't there always some form of degradation that takes place? Arresting and imprisonment is degradation. I am reminded of Operation Underground Railroad who work with law officers of countries, not all of which have legal or prison systems we should be comfortable with. Knowing the men arrested will suffer greatly should cause one to seriously consider the consequences of one's actions as should knowing if one does not act more women and children will be living horrific lives and dying as slaves.

I don't know what the general moral choice is when faced with the fact that harming one person who is a criminal may save many from harm who aren't. The "may" of that sentence should figure greatly in our considerations of our choices. All I can think of adding is that I I were in the position of choice, I'd be spending all my spare time entreating the Lord to let me know what was his will. The scriptures themselves have a variety of circumstances that could be used for justification of a wide range of choice (ie. Nephi used shock treatment to force Laman and Lemuel to work, God did not allow anyone to step in and save the women and children from being slaughtered until some of the Lamanites themselves were appalled by their own actions and joined them, Nephi did not have to resort to torture to get what he needed from Laban and instead gave him a painless execution and the Lord protected him, the Law of Moses provided refuge cities for those accused of murder where they would be safe iirc).

 

Yes, prison is degrading but it is nothing like Guantanamo. There is a reason the government carefully put it beyond the reach of the law. Even our prisons go too far. There is a need to protect the public from people and punish people. The fact that people laugh and make jokes about prison rape shows that we as a people are okay with people suffering unnecessarily. The fact that I hear that prisons are too soft and need to be made more terrible is worrying.

 

Torture is something else. We are raised on movies where the hero (?) shows up and tortures the bad guy for a half hour and gets what he needs to disarm the bomb or save the innocent in the nick of time. The government is not full of Jack Bauers saving the day. We are talking years of suffering for many people convicted of no crime. We do not give them the rights of being criminals or the rights of being a POW. We put them in a nebulous grey area somewhere between. That area may need to be created but for some reason we do not seem willing to give them any rights in said grey area. This is very troubling.

 

This nation boasts in its strength and rushes out to destroy its enemies in disproportionate vengeance. If Mormon was one of the Joint Chiefs would he have resigned and sworn an oath not to lead our military again because of our hate? I wonder.

[Calm]

So we just let the really important moral issues of the day fall off into an undiscussed gray area and focus 75% of our time on sex? And then we wonder why so many young people believe religion is not worth their attention? There is a reason that Pope Francis has captured their interest, he is discussing important moral issues on a wide scale without lowering the Catholic standards regarding sexual morality.

You do like the drama play.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think there can be any real dispute about Christianity's current obsession with matters sexual, as proof I would just refer you to the comment above yours. I would except from that Pope Francis who seems to be concentrating on things other than sex.

I was thinking that over time, many churches and synagogues have become much less concerned with sexual mores and gender, and now often accept female or gay pastors/rabbis,   Perhaps you are too young to have noticed the obvious shift.  Observers often comment on this shift.  There has clearly been a shift away from obsessive-compulsive focus on sexuality, and even a shift away from christian religious zeal -- particularly in Europe.