What Is The The Core Teaching Of The Gospel?

[Gray]

No.  You should figure out what he actually meant by that one statement by reading everything he has ever said about judging and calling people to repentance.

 

The various statements about judging are self-contradictory. You can't accept one at face value without reinterpreting the other. So in the end you must choose which one bears the best fruit - judging or refraining from judgement. (You can either ignore the other or find an interpretive "retcon" for it). Personally I feel closest with God when I am successful at refraining from judgement (admittedly I often fail).

Edited November 14, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Oh my gosh.

 

Please provide objective means for measuring "hurtful" "more good", "harm" and for that matter "demonstrate objectively" itself.

 

And don't forget a matrix which measures "hurtful" points equally with "good" points so they balance accurately.  Should good points be in larger gradients than bad points, or vice versa?

 

How would know how "big" to make a "point"?

 

How can one who understand situational morality make such a statement?  You decry literalism and absolutism and then say that?

 

No good points for you!

 

Obviously the framework for hurtful or helpful is subjective. It's subjective to human beings that being happy and emotionally healthy is good rather than bad. It's subjective that torturing children is bad rather than good. Most of us subjectively agree that torturing children is bad, because we value human health and happiness.

 

So please read my statement like this - "if you can objectively demonstrate that your doctrine leads to things we all agree are good (human health and happiness) rather than bad (human misery and suffering), then fine."

 

Unfortunately the "good" outcomes promised to gay people who abstain from marriage cannot be demonstrated in life.

 

Edited November 14, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

So you snatch them off a railroad track, breaking their arm thereby subjecting them to "demonstrable harm" when the train might derail first not killing them, and because you broke their arm, you have not manifested love?

 

I have to leave this.  My toes are curling backwards.  It's like fingernails on a blackboard times 100 just listening to this "logic".

 

I know.  I will make sure the door doesn't.... never mind.

 

You say the "core doctrine" is subjective for each person and then you argue it for x pages.  Good idea.

 

The problem with your analagy is no one can see the train, and no one knows if it really exists. But we can see the broken arm. The person "saved" from the train can certainly feel the broken arm. They have no way of knowing if a train was really coming.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Gray

[bluebell]

The various statements about judging are self-contradictory. You can't accept one at face value without reinterpreting the other. So in the end you must choose which one bears the best fruit - judging or refraining from judgement. (You can either ignore the other or find an interpretive "retcon" for it). Personally I feel closest with God when I am successful at refraining from judgement (admittedly I often fail).

 

I don't find them contradictory, given what I know about Christ and all of His teachings taken as a whole.  

 

If i tell my kids 'don't run in doors!' when i'm sitting in my living room and then later at a gym I tell them to 'run some laps', those statements are not contradictory, even though they appear to contradict each other.

 

This is an honest question because i sincerely don't remember, but were you one of the posters who assigned some pretty bad motives to our leaders about the reasons for new policy, one of which being that they aren't following Christ and don't love the children of gay parents?  

 

(I do NOT want to discuss the policy in this thread as i'm sure you don't either  I just want to discuss the idea that you personally refrain from judging.)

[bluebell]

Jesus is quoted as saying to do good works in secret so you can be rewarded by God, and to do your good works openly to let your light shine for others. All scripture is self contradictory. It's unavoidable, as scripture is a human product

 

First, i can't find any place where Christ said to do good works in secret.  He did say to give alms in secret and not so that people will think you are awesome so maybe that's what you meant.  

 

Do good works to glorify God.  Don't fast or give money looking for a reward or praise for people around you.  Those two commandments are not contradictory in my opinion.

[JLHPROF]

Why choose one version over the other?

 

I'm not.  You are.

Christ said we can judge if we judge righteously.  You seem to be saying that we can never judge because Christ said "Judge not" but left off the qualifiers.

We are allowed to judge in righteousness.  In my opinion that includes not allowing certain unrepentant sinful behaviors among us.

Edited November 14, 2015 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

I've never heard anyone make those kinds of arguments for either of those things. But I've personally witnessed the good fruit of committed gay relationships.

 

You just need to read opinion news and blogs more often.  It'll make you feel crazy though.

 

I personally know of someone who got pregnant out of wedlock (two people actually) and that led to some pretty good fruit (babies are pretty darn good!) some of which was a renewed testimony of the church and a complete change in lifestyle for the (much!) better.

 

But that still does not mean that breaking the law of chastity and having babies as a teenager is a good tree.

 

How do we know if something is good or bad to begin with? Examine the fruit. It's clear to me that gay marriage is not against the commandments. It's not a sin. Jesus said to live his teachings and you'll find out that way if they are true or not. Experience counts in determining right from wrong.

 

Honestly, i don't know of any foolproof way.  Cody Brown (an infamous polygamist with a t.v. show-not FLDS) said that the reason he left the LDS church to live polygamy was because his parents became polygamists and he saw the good fruit of those relationships.  And his family could definitely be used as an example of the good fruit of polygamy.

 

Does that convince you that God wants you to practice polygamy?  It doesn't convince me of that.  So, i don't know how much experience really counts when we've convinced ourselves that something is good (or bad i guess).  

 

I personally try to follow the scriptures and the prophets of the LDS church because i've had a witness that they are called of God and that this church is lead by Christ.  And that, mixed with my experience and looking for the fruit, is how i personally judge whether something is good or not.

 

Oh, and wickedness never was happiness.

 

 

Eternally, that's very true.  In this world?  Well, there's a reason the popular saying is 'eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.'  It's possible to be happy while committing sin (like i said, read some blogs and see just how happy people describe themselves while committing adultery, for example)-it's just not the kind of happiness that is compatible with the happiness we get from following Christ.

 

But I've personally observed that the church's path for gay people often leads to misery, while gay marriage leads to real happiness. That's why I've come to the conclusions I have come to. The gospel isn't just about a laundry list of thou shalt nots. It's also about taking broadly applicable principles and using them to develop good moral reasoning.

 

 

Then believe that.  I don't.  

 

Edited to add smiley because the tone was snarkier than it was intended.

Edited November 14, 2015 by bluebell

[filovirus]

All things are spiritual, right? No division between the spiritual and the temporal. Or at least Joseph Smith thought so.

Is this what you were talking about: (BTW, that is God speaking, not Joseph Smith)

D&C 29

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

Are you claiming God gave a commandment that gay marriage is his law? If he did, can you show me? Or is it that gay marriage is man's law? If it is man's law, it wouldn't be spiritual.

[Gray]

Oh yes I guess you are right.

 

Dang.

 

I thought sexual mores had something to do with all religions.  My bad.  And clearly sexual mores are irrelevant to Mormonism- no Mormons are concerned with them or anything.

 

I forgot that part.  And clearly this thread has nothing to do with sexual mores.

 

Can't figure out for the life of me why I even brought it up.  OOPS here comes that door.... !  Got me!

 

I guess I think right and wrong should be a bit more deeply considered than whatever tribal taboos and norms we've inherited. Sometimes tribal taboos are misguided. It was once a tribal taboo to marry outside your own group/race.

[Gray]

Is this what you were talking about: (BTW, that is God speaking, not Joseph Smith)

D&C 29

34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.

35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

Are you claiming God gave a commandment that gay marriage is his law? If he did, can you show me? Or is it that gay marriage is man's law? If it is man's law, it wouldn't be spiritual.

 

I don't think we have any examples of a first person statement from God. My view of God is not orthodox, clearly. I think the "voice of God" can be heard in the principles that arise from the spiritual quest, the quest toward greater compassion and humanity. God doesn't speak in words, IMO.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Charity, the pure love of Christ. Which both embraces and corrects the wayward sinner.

[filovirus]

I don't think we have any examples of a first person statement from God. My view of God is not orthodox, clearly. I think the "voice of God" can be heard in the principles that arise from the spiritual quest, the quest toward greater compassion and humanity. God doesn't speak in words, IMO.

I guess that's one of the good things about the Gospel and agency, we can all worship according to the dictates of our own conscious. As long as you understand the LDS church's stance on the matter.

[busybee]

Should I instead ingore Jesus' teachings that plainly say do not judge?

No. Go ahead. Don't judge. Ask the paedophile next door to babysit your kids. You can't judge him.

 

The only reason you wouldn't do that is because, using righteous judgement, you have decided that he is not the kind of person you should have babysitting your kids.

 

We make righteous judgments every day of our lives when we decide who to allow into our lives and who to stay away from. And that's how it should be. Doesn't mean we hate them, we just don't agree with what they choose to do and won't allow it to influence our lives/families

Edited November 14, 2015 by busybee

[MiserereNobis]

Charity, the pure love of Christ. Which both embraces and corrects the wayward sinner.

 

I want to remind all of us that we are all wayward sinners.  (this is not directed at you personally, BookofMormonLuvr).

 

If I begin to think that I am not a wayward sinner, then I'm starting to rely on myself and my own "righteousness" rather than on God and Christ and the Atonement.  That's a dangerous path...

[MiserereNobis]

No. Go ahead. Don't judge. Ask the paedophile next door to babysit your kids. You can't judge him.

 

The only reason you wouldn't do that is because, using righteous judgement, you have decided that he is not the kind of person you should have babysitting your kids.

 

We make righteous judgments every day of our lives when we decide who to allow into our lives and who to stay away from. And that's how it should be. Doesn't mean we hate them, we just don't agree with what they choose to do and won't allow it to influence our lives/families

 

I tend to think the "judge not" injunction by Christ has to do with judging a person's soul and their state before God.  To apply this to your example, it would be wrong of me to make some sort of "eternal" judgement on the pedophile next door.  If I say that he is going to hell, he is a lost cause, he's a hypocrite in his conversion to God story, he's a <etc, etc>, then I have broken Christ's command.  I should probably look at my own sinfulness and realize that maybe he's going to make it to heaven and I'm not.

 

But if I have a very reasonable precaution to keep him away from my children -- that's not eternal judgement, that's just being practical.

 

Practical judgements are different from eternal judgements.  I can't play God, and as Jesus taught, however I judge others is how I will be judged.  I'd prefer to think that everyone is going to heaven in the hopes that's how God will end up judging me

[busybee]

I tend to think the "judge not" injunction by Christ has to do with judging a person's soul and their state before God.  To apply this to your example, it would be wrong of me to make some sort of "eternal" judgement on the pedophile next door.  If I say that he is going to hell, he is a lost cause, he's a hypocrite in his conversion to God story, he's a <etc, etc>, then I have broken Christ's command.  I should probably look at my own sinfulness and realize that maybe he's going to make it to heaven and I'm not.

 

But if I have a very reasonable precaution to keep him away from my children -- that's not eternal judgement, that's just being practical.

 

Practical judgements are different from eternal judgements.  I can't play God, and as Jesus taught, however I judge others is how I will be judged.  I'd prefer to think that everyone is going to heaven in the hopes that's how God will end up judging me

Exactly. We are commanded to judge righteously, not eternally. We don't have the authority (or the ability, for that matter) to make eternal judgments. That is God's right and His alone. However we are required to make situation specific judgments regarding people every day,

 

BTW I've run out of rep points for the day otherwise I would have given you one 

Edited November 14, 2015 by busybee

[Gray]

 

You just need to read opinion news and blogs more often.  It'll make you feel crazy though.

 

I personally know of someone who got pregnant out of wedlock (two people actually) and that led to some pretty good fruit (babies are pretty darn good!) some of which was a renewed testimony of the church and a complete change in lifestyle for the (much!) better.

 

But that still does not mean that breaking the law of chastity and having babies as a teenager is a good tree.

 

 

Honestly, i don't know of any foolproof way.  Cody Brown (an infamous polygamist with a t.v. show-not FLDS) said that the reason he left the LDS church to live polygamy was because his parents became polygamists and he saw the good fruit of those relationships.  And his family could definitely be used as an example of the good fruit of polygamy.

 

Does that convince you that God wants you to practice polygamy?  It doesn't convince me of that.  So, i don't know how much experience really counts when we've convinced ourselves that something is good (or bad i guess).  

 

I personally try to follow the scriptures and the prophets of the LDS church because i've had a witness that they are called of God and that this church is lead by Christ.  And that, mixed with my experience and looking for the fruit, is how i personally judge whether something is good or not.

 

 

Eternally, that's very true.  In this world?  Well, there's a reason the popular saying is 'eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.'  It's possible to be happy while committing sin (like i said, read some blogs and see just how happy people describe themselves while committing adultery, for example)-it's just not the kind of happiness that is compatible with the happiness we get from following Christ.

 

 

Then believe that.  I don't.  

 

Edited to add smiley because the tone was snarkier than it was intended.

 

Sometimes you will get positive outcomes out of unwise choices, granted. But by and large, I think we've seen mostly negative fruit from polygamous groups (dishonestly, child abuse, etc). Kids born to single women who aren't prepared to be mothers don't fare as well, and often deal with poverty and crime.

 

The fruit of gay marriage, however, seems much more clearly positive, at least it does to me.

 

Regarding happiness, you don't think righteousness leads to happiness? I'm not talking mere pleasure, I'm talking lasting happiness. The church's program for gay people seems to lead to lasting misery, while gay marriage seems to lead to lasting happiness. There may be some exceptions on either side, but that seems to be how it goes for most people.

 

Why is that? Maybe it's because the church's program for gay people is the opposite of the church's program for straight people. I'm very happy to be a husband and father. It turns out the church was right about the importance of committed monogamous marriage and family life. But it was wrong when it tried to say that it doesn't apply to gay people too. 

[Gray]

No. Go ahead. Don't judge. Ask the paedophile next door to babysit your kids. You can't judge him.

 

The only reason you wouldn't do that is because, using righteous judgement, you have decided that he is not the kind of person you should have babysitting your kids.

 

We make righteous judgments every day of our lives when we decide who to allow into our lives and who to stay away from. And that's how it should be. Doesn't mean we hate them, we just don't agree with what they choose to do and won't allow it to influence our lives/families

 

That's a very challenging situation, where you have someone who might prey on children. Children must be kept safe. Unfortunately some people treat gay people as if they were dangerous predators too.

 

But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what I was talking about. 

[JLHPROF]

That's a very challenging situation, where you have someone who might prey on children. Children must be kept safe. Unfortunately some people treat gay people as if they were dangerous predators too.

 

But I'm not sure what any of that has to do with what I was talking about. 

 

It shows that there ARE conditions on how love you have for your fellow man is to be expressed.  Loving someone does not require "accepting them" by turning a blind eye to sin.

There is no requirement to tolerate a sin contained within God's love.  However, there is a requirement to use love to help people in overcoming sin.

[Gray]

It shows that there ARE conditions on how love you have for your fellow man is to be expressed.  Loving someone does not require "accepting them" by turning a blind eye to sin.

There is no requirement to tolerate a sin contained within God's love.  However, there is a requirement to use love to help people in overcoming sin.

 

I suppose the difference is that the harm that a pedophile inflicts is clear and demonstrable. We have a moral obligation to protect children from sexual violence. But there is no demonstrable harm from gay marriage, and arguably much demonstrable good. Ergo, no sin. But I get your point. And yet we still have the two conflicting statements from Jesus on judging. That's where we must pick a hermeneutical approach, and decide what it means to judge. 

 

If you decide to go with righteous judgement, a good place to start might be with "where is the demonstrable harm occurring?"

[CV75]

"eternal" judgement on the pedophile next door.

Interesting you should use that comparison. Matthew 18:1-6 supports the idea that, by living in sin or changing/perverting the marriage covenant, a same-gender couple is offending the child on a very fundamental level.

Edited November 15, 2015 by CV75