Ideals Vs. Culture

[longview]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

In the plural marriage case you had canonized scripture and all Christian tradition banning plural marriage and the Prophet of God telling them differently.

Are you saying that the Bible is explicitly against plural marriage?  That the scores of plural marriage throughout (Genesis to 2nd Kings) were all invalid?  I would like for you to cite specific Bible verses against the practise.

Joseph Smith was in the process of making inspired revisions (as he was commanded to do) when he started pondering as to whether plural marriage was allowed by God.  Which led to God affirming the principle and mandating it be included among the "restoration of all things" (at least for a period of time).

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

In the Orson/Brigham issue you had an Apostle whose scripturally founded testimony of the nature of God disagreed with his priesthood head's teachings to the point he was threatened with removal.

I would be very interested if you could provide a reference to this "threat with removal."  I am already familiar with the "disputations" between BY, Heber Kimball, etc.  Since there was no unanimity (on this topic of Adam/God) in the presidency and the twelve, that concept could not be accepted.  It was not clearly and unambiguously defined.  Some have said that BY appears to have contradicted himself.

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe it is a correct principle that at some point a priesthood head (somewhere up the chain) will inevitably require something if you so against your religious beliefs that you have to decide which principle is higher.  Nephi and Laban is another.  Abraham and Isaac.  Heber/Vilate and Joseph.  I believe it's a requirement for exaltation to have your deeply held principled belief tried.

Like Job (who was nearly perfect) was further tried, tested and became even more refined.  Abraham was ironically severely tried in offering Isaac when he himself was nearly killed in his youth as a sacrifice to the pagan gods in the land of Ur.

However, I do not think Laban was an ecclesiastical leader (head).  He most likely was military commander under the jurisdiction of the King.  In what way do you think Nephi was obligated to Laban?

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, longview said:

However, I do not think Laban was an ecclesiastical leader (head).  He most likely was military commander under the jurisdiction of the King.  In what way do you think Nephi was obligated to Laban?

I was referring to God, the God that Nephi knew had commanded not to kill and was ordering him to kill.

My only point in all of this back to the original OP is that it's all well and good to say we aren't social/cultural believers but instead follow the doctrines principles of which we have testimonies. 

But what happens when those deeply held principles and beliefs are inevitably forced to be put aside, sometimes by God or his representatives?

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Your approach is an oversimplification and an untrue negative stereotype. I understand the defensive position it comes from, but it’s so unsympathetic and tone-deaf it’s mind-numbing.

Yes. It's not principled at all.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Beyond the established and orthodox elements of our liturgy (the sacrament, hymn singing, a lay clergy, priesthood ordinances, temples, etc.) I think we ought to be wary about designating this or that thing as part of Latter-day Saint culture, lest we find ourselves imposing on new converts certain non-essentials, as it were (funeral potatoes, anyone?). 

We can identify this phenomenon in the early Christian church in which certain of the Jewish Christians endeavored to impose upon new converts old-time Mosaic rites such as circumcision, even though the law of circumcision had been “done away” in Christ. 

That is the correct answer

[CV75]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

In the plural marriage case you had canonized scripture and all Christian tradition banning plural marriage and the Prophet of God telling them differently.  In the Orson/Brigham issue you had an Apostle whose scripturally founded testimony of the nature of God disagreed with his priesthood head's teachings to the point he was threatened with removal.

I believe it is a correct principle that at some point a priesthood head (somewhere up the chain) will inevitably require something if you so against your religious beliefs that you have to decide which principle is higher.  Nephi and Laban is another.  Abraham and Isaac.  Heber/Vilate and Joseph.  I believe it's a requirement for exaltation to have your deeply held principled belief tried.

I see. The context of the Restoration grants the prophet authority to change past practices, principles, teachings, etc. under the direction of the Lord that challenge deeply held traditions and beliefs that in fact may not have been all that godly. I think the root of what we hold most precious in life turns out to be the Being (or heaven forbid, that thing) we worship. Hopefully at that point where we are tested as Abraham we don't see our choice as one between following the prophet or our conscience, but that we can reform and reconcile our conscience to God.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This sounds like quite a tribal use of your religion. 

For anthropologists, tribe and culture go together.  The anthropologist is not passing judgment on the tribe, but only describing tribal characteristics.  Religion is merely one aspect of culture.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

You don’t see it as likely that someone who has lived the majority of their life, especially their formative childhood, youth, and often early adulthood as Saints and whose family remain Saints feels still intimately connected with the culture and faith?  And feels like now there is little reason to consider their speech as representative of members, so might say things differently?

If an American moves in later life to another country, but loves American food and films even though they love their new country’s as well and still has all their family there so visits from time to time, don’t you see it as likely they will still maintain an interest in the States, what is politically happening, disasters or achievements, how their families might be affected, etc?  But perhaps having experienced the country from outside looking in, they might express different views than when their sole experience was living in the States?

Suppose one were to recast your analogy to make the comparison more apt. 
 

Let’s say the person in your scenario does not just move out of the country but renounces his/her citizenship, openly disparages the country, supports upending the Constitution, agrees to take up arms against the United States if required by government edict to do so. 
 

Contrast that individual with a newly naturalized citizen of the United States who has worked hard to meet the requirements of citizenship, who vows allegiance to the nation, reveres her Constitution, pledges to take part in defending her against all enemies, foreign and domestic, etc. 

Kindly disposed though I might be toward the former, I’m telling you that between the two, the kinship I feel as an American is going to be with the newly minted citizen. Again, ideals, not shared culture or background, make the difference for me. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Suppose one were to recast your analogy to make the comparison more apt. 
 

Let’s say the person in your scenario does not just move out of the country but renounces his/her citizenship, openly disparages the country, supports upending the Constitution, agrees to take up arms against the United States if required by government edict to do so. 
 

Contrast that individual with a newly naturalized citizen of the United States who has worked hard to meet the requirements of citizenship, who vows allegiance to the nation, reveres her Constitution, pledges to take part in defending her against all enemies, foreign and domestic, etc. 

Kindly disposed though I might be toward the former, I’m telling you that between the two, the kinship I feel as an American is going to be with the newly minted citizen. Again, ideals, not shared culture or background, make the difference for me. 

What shared ideals are assured by church membership?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What shared ideals are assured by church membership?

I invite you to read (or re-read) the OP. 

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For anthropologists, tribe and culture go together.  The anthropologist is not passing judgment on the tribe, but only describing tribal characteristics.  Religion is merely one aspect of culture.

Sure, and religion isn't necessarily a reliable measurement of core principles. 

Over time, I feel the most kinship with people with intellectual humility and honesty, who are kind. To me, the ideals that matter the most to goodness in this life cannot be assured by association.

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I invite you to read (or re-read) the OP. 

That is not helpful. Membership in the church, converted or not, is not an assurance of the ideals you listed. So again, what ideals are assured by church membership?

[Meadowchik]

What you describe is normal and human. People like to feel like they are part of something big and meaningful. Church membership can provide those nice feelings. However, it is shaky ground to rely on church membership to know if someone is with you or not.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That is not helpful. Membership in the church, converted or not, is not an assurance of the ideals you listed. So again, what ideals are assured by church membership?

When a person receives baptism, I accept in good faith — unless I’m given good reason to think otherwise — that he/she embraces the doctrines, principles, teachings, policies and standards of the Church. That’s what I mean by shared ideals. If the person is insincere or fraudulent in his declaration or intent, then obviously we don’t have shared ideals. You are begging the question. 
 

Just like when a person takes the oath of citizenship, I accept in good faith that he/she means it. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This sounds like quite a tribal use of your religion. 

What an odd remark. 
 

You didn’t say what post this has reference to or what you mean by “tribal use,” but it seems to me the tribalist would be the one who places a higher priority on common culture and/or genealogical lineage than on shared ideals. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes. It's not principled at all.

Having ideals shared with others is not principled? Another odd remark. 

[Meadowchik]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When a person receives baptism, I accept in good faith — unless I’m given good reason to think otherwise — that he/she embraces the doctrines, principles, teachings, policies and standards of the Church. That’s what I mean by shared ideals. If the person is insincere or fraudulent in his declaration or intent, then obviously we don’t have shared ideals. You are begging the question. 
 

Just like when a person takes the oath of citizenship, I accept in good faith that he/she means it. 

Frankly the citizenship process is more rigorous than the church membership process.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Frankly the citizenship process is more rigorous than the church membership process.

Beside the point. I’m inclined to accept either in good faith unless I encounter a good reason not to. 

[Meadowchik]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What an odd remark. 
 

You didn’t say what post this has reference to or what you mean by “tribal use,” but it seems to me the tribalist would be the one who places a higher priority on common culture and/or genealogical lineage than on shared ideals. 

 

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Having ideals shared with others is not principled? Another odd remark. 

By tribalism, I refer to you using group membership as a proxy for a person's character and then therefore a measurement of whether they are friend or not. 

It's easy and human, but not reliable.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Beside the point. I’m inclined to accept either in good faith unless I encounter a good reason not to. 

It is an unreliable and dangerous method. And even if you share their ideals,  that can have very little to do with their integrity, or even more importantly, whether they are your friend at a given moment. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/14/2020 at 11:40 AM, Meadowchik said:

What you describe is normal and human. People like to feel like they are part of something big and meaningful. Church membership can provide those nice feelings. However, it is shaky ground to rely on church membership to know if someone is with you or not.

 

“Normal and human” or not, it is common sense to hold shared ideals in higher esteem than culture and tradition. 
 

And my experience so far is that the vast majority of those I’ve encountered in the Church are sincere in their baptismal and other covenants. For those who are not, well, it’s on them. Their behavior has not really harmed me thus far. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It is an unreliable and dangerous method. And even if you share their ideals,  that can have very little to do with their integrity, or even more importantly, whether they are your friend at a given moment. 

See my last post before this one. 
 

And there’s no way you can be altogether certain regarding the oath of citizenship either, for that matter, notwithstanding what you say about the citizenship process being “more rigorous.”

Edited June 14, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

By tribalism, I refer to you using group membership as a proxy for a person's character and then therefore a measurement of whether they are friend or not. 

It's easy and human, but not reliable.

Since there is no way I can become intimately acquainted with each and every member of the Church, the baptism and other covenants they make are the best indicator I have. And as I already stated, it has been a reasonably good one for me thus far. 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Normal and human” or not, it is common sense to hold shared ideals in higher esteem than culture and tradition. 
 

And my experience so far is that the vast majority of those I’ve encountered in the Church are sincere in their baptismal and other covenants. For those who ate not, well, it’s on them. Their behavior has not really harmed me thus far. 

Well of course your personal experience does not prove the rule, does it? 

The worship table is not the only place life happens, and there are innumerable ways our fellow human beings can be our kin. It certainly does not depend on religious affiliation.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well of course your personal experience does not prove the rule, does it? 

The worship table is not the only place life happens, and there are innumerable ways our fellow human beings can be our kin. It certainly does not depend on religious affiliation.

Your cynicism doesn’t prove the rule either. 
 

You seem to be missing my point. Rarely does one make baptismal covenants insincerely and when it happens, it harms me not at all. It is a matter between the person and God. And you can be harmed at least as readily by relying too much on shared culture as by excessive reliance on the perception of shared religious beliefs. Affinity fraud comes in all flavors and varieties. 
 

The rest of your comment is irrelevant to my point about shared ideals being of greater value to me than shared culture or traditions. 

Edited June 14, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well of course your personal experience does not prove the rule, does it? 

The worship table is not the only place life happens, and there are innumerable ways our fellow human beings can be our kin. It certainly does not depend on religious affiliation.

I take it you have found an alternative to Church membership as a means to find a sense of belonging and contribute to the world around you in a manner that is generally viewed in a positive way by members of the Church as well, and without identifying as a "cultural Mormon." Is this an informal group of like-minded people,or a more formal organization?