Unapproved Good?

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Adultery is one of those malum in se kind of things.  God has forbidden it.  Categorically.  So it's rather hard to conceptualize a motive that evades that.

What if someone who commits adultery doesn't know that God has forbidden that, though?  A likely scenario, I think, for some people in this world the way it is now.  Even if people have told them that it isn't good, how are they supposed to know God doesn't approve of it?  Do you think people are supposed to take someone else's word for what God says as what God has said, as if that person is speaking for God?  Considering people say God says a lot of things that God hasn't said, at least not necessarily?

I believe it is impossible to sin in ignorance.  I believe that in order to sin, someone has to know or intuit God's will and then choose to go against God's will anyway. That if a man who is doing what another man knows is a sin, while not knowing it for himself, then it is not a sin for that man even though it is sin to the other man who knows it is. That we are accountable for only what we know about what is good and evil, not for what another man or woman knows.  I could go on but maybe you are catching my drift by now.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Ahab

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

Adultery is one of those malum in se kind of things.  God has forbidden it.  Categorically.  So it's rather hard to conceptualize a motive that evades that.

What if someone who commits adultery doesn't know that God has forbidden that, though? 

Then he has "ignorantly sinned" (Mosiah 3:11).  Such a person would be judged by God as to the light and knowledge under which he did that (including the "Light of Christ").

In the main, malum in se stuff is usually hard to pass off as "Hey, nobody told me" kinds of things.

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

A likely scenario, I think, for some people in this world the way it is now.  Even if people have told them that it isn't good, how are they supposed to know God doesn't approve of it? 

Light of Christ.  Marital vows.  Familial influences.  Common sense.

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Do you think people are supposed to take someone else's word for what God says as what God has said, as if that person is speaking for God? 

No.  They should seek out light and knowledge for themselves.  Nobody is supposed to wallow in ignorance.

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I believe it is impossible to sin in ignorance. 

How do you account for Mosiah 3:11?

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I believe that in order to sin, someone has to know or intuit God's will and then choose to go against God's will anyway.

What about parental influence?  What about the Light of Christ?  What about the laws of the land?

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That if a man who is doing what another man knows is a sin, while not knowing it for himself, then it is not a sin for that man even though it is sin to the other man who knows it is.

I'm not particularly interested in splitting such hairs.

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That we are accountable for only what we know about what is good and evil, not for what another man or woman knows.  I could go on but maybe you are catching my drift by now.

I think you are advocating something like intentional ignorance.  That argument has very limited utility.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A charitably-motivated gift is "good," a grudgingly-motivated gift is not.

Good for whom? I think we're looking at a false dichotomy here. I believe there are multiple levels of charitably-motivated and multiple levels of grudgingly motivated. The focus seems to be on the benefit to the giver while ignoring the benefit to the receiver.

I'm reminded of the challenge for parents to teach children how to share. Sharing is almost always done grudgingly at first, and the recipient of the sharing gets to play with a toy. The parent then teaches the recipient to "share back." Often there are screams and tears, but with patience and persistence, parents teach their children how to share. The first share, even if done grudgingly, opens the door. The first payment of a fast offering might be done grudgingly, but I will argue that it is good for the family who needs the assistance. Hopefully the donor will transition toward the charitably-motivated mindset, but during the transition, the donation itself is doing good.

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then he has "ignorantly sinned" (Mosiah 3:11).  Such a person would be judged by God as to the light and knowledge under which he did that (including the "Light of Christ").

In the main, malum in se stuff is usually hard to pass off as "Hey, nobody told me" kinds of things.

Light of Christ.  Marital vows.  Familial influences.  Common sense.

No.  They should seek out light and knowledge for themselves.  Nobody is supposed to wallow in ignorance.

How do you account for Mosiah 3:11?

Mosiah 3:11.  I'm glad you brought it up.  

11 For behold, and also his ^ablood ^batoneth for the sins of those who have ^cfallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the ^dwill of God concerning them, or who have ^eignorantly sinned.

12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he ^arebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the ^bLord Jesus Christ.

From that scripture I understand that bad things people do without realizing they are bad are forgiven automatically through the blood and power of our Lord's atonement.  He forgives people when they do things they should not do when they don't know they should not do those things.  Those "sins" are a different kind of sin than the kind that involves open rebellion against God, doing something they know God doesn't approve of even though they know God doesn't want them to do it.  I'm not advocating that people remain in ignorance of God's will for them, what they should do and what they should not do to be in harmony with God's will.  It's simply a fact that sometimes people don't know they are doing something they should not do, that God doesn't want them to do.

So I guess we now have our answer.  We don't need to worry about people who do things they don't know they should not be doing.  No need to worry when we know God will forgive them when they "ignorantly sin", as King Benjamin called it.  Our Lord' will forgive them for all of those things.  We could try to help them get out of their ignorance by educating them, though. Doing what they should not be doing may rob them of receiving some blessings they can receive by doing what they should be doing, instead of them dong what they should not be doing, so the faster we can give them knowledge about all that they're missing the more blessings they will be able to receive by doing what they, and we, should be doing.

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about parental influence?  What about the Light of Christ?  What about the laws of the land?

How are people supposed to know the difference between what God says is good or evil and what other people say is good or evil, when there is a difference?

Parental influence isn't necessarily good.  Some parents are bad examples of how people should be.  Not all parents say bad is bad, and good is good.  Some parents call good evil and evil good.

Laws of the land aren't always a useful guide either, especially these days when we have laws that uphold sinful behavior and actions.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Ahab

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

A charitably-motivated gift is "good," a grudgingly-motivated gift is not.

Good for whom?

I am speaking of the morality of gift-giving.  A charitably-motivated gift is "good," a grudgingly-motivated gift is not.

13 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I think we're looking at a false dichotomy here. I believe there are multiple levels of charitably-motivated and multiple levels of grudgingly motivated.

Sure.

13 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The focus seems to be on the benefit to the giver while ignoring the benefit to the receiver.

Actually, I was not thinking of the benefit at all.  I was thinking of the motive of the giver.  That's it.

Again, a Columbian drug load, Pablo Escobar, was famed for his purported philanthropy. But since those efforts (building schools, football fields, etc.) were apparently intended to curry favor amongst the poor of Columbia so as to grease the skids of his drug cartel, I do not think those actions were "good."

What do you think?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Mosiah 3:11.  I'm glad you brought it up.  

11 For behold, and also his ^ablood ^batoneth for the sins of those who have ^cfallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the ^dwill of God concerning them, or who have ^eignorantly sinned.

12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he ^arebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the ^bLord Jesus Christ.

From that scripture I understand that bad things people do without realizing they are bad are forgiven automatically through the blood and power of our Lord's atonement. 

I think I can go along with that.

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

He forgives people when they do things they should not do when they don't know they should not do those things. 

More to the point, it appears that he atones for those things.  "His blood atoneth for the sins of those ... who have ignorantly sinned."

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Those "sins" are a different kind of sin than the kind that involves open rebellion against God, doing something they know God doesn't approve of even though they know God doesn't want them to do it. 

I'm not sure we have sufficient light and knowledge to make such differentiations ("a different kind of sin").

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm not advocating that people remain in ignorance of God's will for them, what they should do and what they should not do to be in harmony with God's will.  It's simply a fact that sometimes people don't know they are doing something they should not do, that God doesn't want them to do.

I agree with this.

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So I guess we now have our answer.  We don't need to worry about people who do things they don't know they should not be doing. 

I don't think we are situated to be able to categorize people in this way.  So i think we need to worry about our brothers and sisters who sin in ignorance.  Those sins are still wrong.  Those sins have (or can have) adverse effects.  Those sins still require atonement.  Those sins still require recompense (that recompense being the suffering of Jesus Christ).

So I think we do need to think about people who are sinning ignorantly, and to encourage them to stop.

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No need to worry when we know God will forgive them when they "ignorantly sin", as King Benjamin called it. 

Meanwhile, all sorts of bad things can happen as a consequence of those sins.

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Our Lord' will forgive them for all of those things. 

In the end, yes.  But He will also forgive those who knowingly sin, and then repent.

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We could try to help them get out of their ignorance by educating them, though. Doing what they should not be doing may rob them of receiving some blessings they can receive by doing what they should be doing, instead of them doing what they should not be doing, so the faster we can give them knowledge about all that they're missing the more blessings they will be able to receive by doing what they, and we, should be doing.

Sounds like we agree on a lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think I can go along with that.

More to the point, it appears that he atones for those things.  "His blood atoneth for the sins of those ... who have ignorantly sinned."

Better said that I did.  Well done, counselor.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure we have sufficient light and knowledge to make such differentiations ("a different kind of sin").

1) the kind of sin which we don't know is a sin which Jesus atones for automatically even if we don't repent (turn away) from them because we don't even know that those things are "sins" or that we need to repent (turn away) from them

2) the kind of sin which we know is a sin which Jesus will atone for only if we repent (turn away) from those sins, because we know we should repent from them and therefore our reward in heaven is based on whether or not we repent from those sins

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with this.

I don't think we are situated to be able to categorize people in this way.  So i think we need to worry about our brothers and sisters who sin in ignorance.  Those sins are still wrong.  Those sins have (or can have) adverse effects.  Those sins still require atonement.  Those sins still require recompense (that recompense being the suffering of Jesus Christ).

So I think we do need to think about people who are sinning ignorantly, and to encourage them to stop.

So like when I tell someone they are doing something that is evil, and a sin, that they should repent from, because I know it is evil and a sin and that they need to stop doing that.  I am encouraging them to stop when I do that.  So I am doing a good thing, then, you think?

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, all sorts of bad things can happen as a consequence of those sins.

Yes, like people of the same sex continuing to have sex with each other.  And people committing adultery.  And killing unwanted babies.  And other forms of murder.  And stealing.  And telling lies.  And all others kinds of evil things.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the end, yes.  But He will also forgive those who knowingly sin, and then repent.

Sounds like we agree on a lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, I think so too.

[Thinking]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I was not thinking of the benefit at all.  I was thinking of the motive of the giver.  That's it.

That was my point.

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, a Columbian drug load, Pablo Escobar, was famed for his purported philanthropy. But since those efforts (building schools, football fields, etc.) were apparently intended to curry favor amongst the poor of Columbia so as to grease the skids of his drug cartel, I do not think those actions were "good."

What do you think?

That's an extreme example.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, a Columbian drug load, Pablo Escobar, was famed for his purported philanthropy. But since those efforts (building schools, football fields, etc.) were apparently intended to curry favor amongst the poor of Columbia so as to grease the skids of his drug cartel, I do not think those actions were "good."

I would say that is more cynical than grudging. To go back to the child learning to share that is the equivalent of the child choosing to share because the child thinks it will win brownie points with the parents they can use as a weapon against other siblings and to secure a larger allowance.