Religion is Obsolete

[_keene]

Also, look at the sudden drop in crime rates about 20 years after the laws against Abortion have been eased. There was a huge crime epidemic, the nation was about to crumble under the pressure, and then, suddenly and unexplicably, the crime rate started declining.

In the book "Freakanomics," They show the statistical correlation to the number of abortions, versus the drop in crime twenty years later. The data tends to suggest that those getting abortions are the people who would not take care of their children, and who would most likely raise criminals.

There is also very similar statistical data from many other countries. In one country, it was shown that after a ban on abortion, about 20 years later, there was a vast overpopulation of teenagers, all revolting against the current government. I don't recall the nation, but if necessary I can grab the book and make the proper references.

My point isn't to say that Abortion is good or bad, but only to point out the data, and perhaps to challenge previous belief systems.

You have really understated this. The book points out that abortion is an assault upon blacks, in that it affects them and their families the most.

P

I'm not at all sure how you derived assault from what he said. The author was very clear in stating statistical fact, and in avoiding any stigma that may be attached to them.

The author stated that it was the poor who had the most abortions. Statistically true. He also stated that most criminals come from families of neglect. Also statistically true. He then stated that families in poor neighborhoods were more likely to neglect their kids. Again, statistically true. Then he said that black families make up the majority of these poor neighborhoods. That is also statistically true.

The author is also very clear to differentiate between correlation and causation. Throughout the book they are saying that causation cannot be found through statistics, but correlations can hint at it.

Any assault is when you try to derive fault. These numbers only state what is, they do not try to explain why that is. In most cases, it is through no fault of the black families that they live in those areas. Much of it would derive from the segregation of the past. But today, the lines are getting more and more fuzzy. The reason there are so many poor black families today is because there were so many before.

The book simply does not say that abortion is an assault on blacks. Although, if I recall correctly, the chapter on crack cocaine may have said something to that affect; but again, it has to do with the statistical ratio of blacks to whites in the poorer neighborhoods than any actual form of racism.

[_ozemc]

What happens, then, if when following Moroni's promise, you get a resounding "No" ? And yet again, how can you assure me that this is supernatural, and not a subconscious effect along the lines of auto-suggestion? My feelings, experiences, and revelations seem to take a very different path than yours, even though, at least for some time, our actions were very similar. This seems strange to me. Doesn't it seem strange to you?

Keene

I had a very interesting experience with some missionaries this past week.

I have read quite a bit of the Book of Mormon, and was asked by one if I thought it was true. When I replied "no", they both just looked at me like I was crazy. You see, I have a TBM wife, and have heard the plan of salvation many times, and so, they just couldn't believe that I had heard all this and still didn't believe in it.

When they left, they gave me a "challenge": to re-read the Book of Mormon and then pray about it, that the spirit will testify to its truth.

It's interesting that they didn't accept that the spirit could tell you "no, it's not true".

When I start to hear someone try to discount evolution, I get the same incredulous look on my face. I simply can't understand how someone could believe something that was so obviously true!

And yet, people do. It goes both way. In my mind, it throws a monkey-wrench into the concept of truth. What is truth? How can that be verified? Are there any tests we can create that would define truth, and weed out any untruth in any belief system?

I would think finding the answers to these questions would be the ultimate conversion tool -- if truth can be verified and tested, then it can be COMPLETELY known. This will solve our main problems of differing revelations and testimonies.

Of course, this still operates from the assumption that truth is static. If this assumption proves false, then we must simply accept that truth exists only in the mind of the individual, and grow a strong tolerance to the truth of others.

True, very true.

(Or is it truth ...?)

I do try to be as tolerant as possible.

For me, I tend to err on the side of, like you say, verifiable facts. I let the thruth of those lead me where they may.

If they cause me to have to rethink my beliefs, then so be it.

[_wenglund]

If you look at the laws from the standpoint of living them, rather than from the standpoint of exacting punishment for not living them, then, to me, making the determination is not all that problematic. As a rule of thumb: when in doubt, abide the lower law.

I am not sure that authority is required for us to live more loving and elevated lives. Do you?

Very interesting, Wade. Although, this approach would still be problematic. Especially the 'when in doubt' option. This leaves the door open for certain leaders and authority figures to oppress, even to the point where those of us who do live the higher law are held back.

I can't relate to much of what you just said because:

1) I am not sure I am yet living much of the higher law;

2) I lack the concern you seem to have for the potential "oppression" with the advent of the higher laws, to the point of supressing the living of those higher laws. I've not experienced anything close to that in the Church. Could you give an example of where that may have occured with you or in what way you see that as possible?

3) My focus is not so much on what the authority figures may or may not do, but on what I personally should or should not do.

I would definitely agree that authority is not required to live a better life. Which is why I ask what authority gives the laws, specifically, those that oppress rather than elevate. If that authority is null, then it opens the door to the elevated freedom an altruistic heart can provide.

It also seems that this particular approach (veiwing the law in the context of living them) is exactly the point I'm trying to make. I suppose on this we agree.

For the most part I agree with your logic. However, I look at higher laws in a way like I do higher education. Not everyone is prepared to receive higher education. Certainly, a child going into kindergarten, who is struggling to master the alphabet, can't reasonably be expected to be responsible for knowing trigonometry. The same is true with spiritual laws. Not everyone is prepared and able to abide the higher law of sacrifice as covenanted to in the temple. Many in the gospel are still spiritual babes and teens who are struggling to keep the lower law of tithing. So, transitioning from the lower law to higher law is not an event, but a growth process, sometimes line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept.

To continue your analogy -- would you punish the child for being unable to learn trigonometry?

That depends upon what you mean by "punish". A nature consequence of not knowing trigonometry is not receiving the blessing derived from that knowledge. For example, one may not have the blessing of being excepted into certain graduate programs (or in other words, they may be denied admitance) because they lack the necissary prerequisite of trigonometry knowledge. Some may consider that a form of punishment. But, I don't.

Likewise, if one is unable to abide the higher spiritual laws, one is thereby denied the blessing associated with that higher law. One cannot expect to achieve Godhood without living in godly ways and abiding godly laws.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that godliness is something that needs to be achieved during this life. What I understand as important to God is not so much the level of achievement one attains in this life, but rather whether one is progressing and at a reasonable rate. (The parable of the hirlings comes to mind)

I still very strongly disagree with the assumption that the lower laws must be lived first to understand the higher laws. This bottom-up approach seems like we're going in backwards. Especially when you find that the makers of the laws did so in order to solve a higher problem. If the makers of the law saw the higher problem, and then enacted a solution, why is everyone else subjected to doing the reverse -- acting the solution only to later understand the reason for it? It seems counter-intuitive to the natural functioning of the human spirit -- the ability to problem solve.

What you are suggesting is along the lines of teaching kindergartners trigonometry prior to educating them on what numbers are and simple addition and subtraction, and doing so because the makers of trigonometry made it to solve a higher problem. Does that make sense to you?

The makers of the laws (lower to higher) and those who are subject to the laws, are worlds apart in their knowledge, understanding, and capacity to live the higher law. A bottom-up form of progression is necessitated to enable those subject to the laws to eventually become as capable of abiding the higher laws as the makers of those laws.

I also have one more slight issue with what you said, and that concerns the law of sacrifice. Although I understand the principles for it, I believe it is outdated. It's function is to create a world of equality, which on the surface seems like a very noble goal. But a goal that nonetheless defeats the power of justice, of getting what you work for. It, in my mind at least, distorts the meaning of fairness to a shallow one. This may be just my personal belief, but I believe the universe is an abundant place, and that anyone who works for their own sake will get what they work for. I believe there is plenty for any who would ask to receive -- but ask in action, not in words.

I disagree with you about the function of the law of sacrifice. It is not intended to create a world of equality (whatever you may suppose that to mean). And, while there may certainly be wonderful benefits to the world provided by those who abide this higher law, I believe that benefit is secondary to the primary function of this law, which I view as creating godly people. It is my view that one may become more godly though mastering the higher law of sacrifice. I don't see how that may somehow rob justice? You are getting what you are working for (i.e. godliness, rather than mammon). And, you aren't necessarily depriving others of the blessings in striving, themselves, for godliness or mammon.

Perhaps your reason for thinking them "unreachable" is because you are viewing the abiding of spiritual laws as an event, rather than as a growth process, and/or because you view lower and higher spiritual laws as discrete sets, rather than arrayed on a spectrum. The higher laws are reachable in much the same way that higher education is reachable, through growth in knowledge and obedience.

I do see Obedience as an event. In that context, abiding the lower laws are events.

I do see the possibility for the growth process, but I see obedience as getting in the way of that process, moreso than it helps. This again has to do with my reversal of your spectrum of higher vs. lower laws. The mind would rather work in the other way -- see a problem, seek a solution.[/quote]

One need have the capacity to grasp the higher problems before seeking a higher solution thereof. Most, if not all of us, can't even imagine, let alone grasp, the higher problems. We have a hard enough time as it is solving basic problems, like who should be first in line at recess, what our behavior should be while in class and riding the bus to and from school, whether to watch TV or not and how much and what shows, what to include as income on our taxes, how much time to spend with the wife and kids and how that time should be spent, what to do about our irratating neighbors, what obligations do we have to our most defenseless citizens--our unborn children, etc. In other words, we are having trouble solving the lower problems that the Ten Commandments were designed to fix, let alone striving to fix higher problems.

Allow me to use Tithing as an example, since you used that example earlier. With your spectrum, obedience to the law of tithing should be worked towards, until it is attained. At that point, the higher law of sacrifice should be understood well enough that perhaps more tithing than the law requires is paid. Or perhaps other charitable actions are gained. Am I correct in this reasoning?

The reasoning is somewhat correct, but the variables are not what I had in mind. It is not so much about what resources are generated through increased charity, but the change (for the better) in the nature of those who are charitable.

Now if we reverse that spectrum, and work from the top down; We first see a problem: the poor and homeless are everywhere. There are not enough churches. The meetings are boring without food. We then seek a solution: I have money, I can give it to these people. At this point, there is no minimum or maximum to the new law someone just created for themselves. Charity comes out naturally.

Again, I don't view the generation of resourses for the needy as the primary intent behind the law of sacrifice. But, even if it were, I don't see it as reasonable to expect that people who are having difficulty consecrating a 10th of their increase (I would guess that less than half the Church's active population pays a full tithe), would suddenly have the willingness and desire and capacity to concecrate 100% of their assets.

It wouldn't make sense to institute a higher law that wouldn't be abided, at the expense of lower laws that may be abided to a far greater extent, even if abiding the higher law would better solve the problem. To me, at least some revenues generated by a somewhat limited, though workable approach is better than no revenues generated by an great idea that isn't so workable.

It also allows for greater solutions to come from the more creative people. Perhaps rather than give money, one person would like to build a shelter.

That kind of creativity is available under the law of tithing. While in the last half-century or so, we have become accostomed to paying tithing with money, prior to then it was not uncommon for members, particularly farmers, to give in-kind donations, like produce and so forth. I am aware of instances in the not to distance past where land/properties were given as tithes to the Church. I considered my 2-year mission, and my 1+ years as a VISTA volunteer (the domestic version of the Peace Corp) as a form of tithe to the Lord.

My question to you then, is do you think self-governance through morals/ethics can happen without religion, why or why not?

No. I have serious doubts that even with strong religious influence that people can effectively self-govern, let alone absent that influence.

Besides, governance isn't just about people getting along with people, or even individual liberty. It is also about creating communities of people that will enable its members to more effectively sustain their fundamental rights, but also enable them individually and collectively to acheive their best selves. I don't see that happening with out communal laws and government. We, individually, are incapable of achieving for each of us what we are capable of achieving together.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_keene]

I can't relate to much of what you just said because:

1) I am not sure I am yet living much of the higher law;

2) I lack the concern you seem to have for the potential "oppression" with the advent of the higher laws, to the point of supressing the living of those higher laws. I've not experienced anything close to that in the Church. Could you give an example of where that may have occured with you or in what way you see that as possible?

3) My focus is not so much on what the authority figures may or may not do, but on what I personally should or should not do.

The easiest example of the lower laws harming and oppressing myself are the restrictions in driving. The requirement for insurance and licensing is a prime example. I have the capabilities to pay for any damage I may cause, and I have never gotten into an accident. At one point, I did leave a dent in another car with my car door. I left my contact information, and paid the debt immediately. My track record speaks for itself.

But now, I'm constantly fighting to keep my license valid. Because of a ticket ages ago for driving without insurance (and no other violations), I am forced to put more and more money into the government system just to make it to work each day.

I drive responsibly. I put away my keys before ever taking a sip of alcohol. I put away a savings fund to cover for possible accidents. I drive the speed limit, always signal, and drive very defensively. But there's no place in the lower levels of the court system to take any of this into account. I have spent 3 weekends in jail, paid thousands in court fees, thousands more in insurance costs (Why, if you've had no insurance, do they punish you for having no insurance? Shouldn't they try to welcome you into the system?), and still can't seem to keep my licence valid due to the timing of court records being sent to the DMV.

I definitely should be accountable for my actions, but I don't feel I should be accountable for actions I may or may not go through in some imaginary future.

As far as it relates to religion, there are a few laws I can see as oppressive. The first and foremost in my mind is the apparent sin of homosexuality. I wonder what the higher purpose of this lower law is, and I feel it doesn't meet any needful purpose anymore, as long as the homosexual relationship is one governed by Love.

Another would be the allowance of priesthood to only males. At the time the lower law was written, what was it's purpose? Who wrote it? Could they have had bigotries, societal influences, or ulterior motives for this law? And what of those women who understand the need for love, the power of the mind, and the ability to heal, why can't they have the priesthood? The lower law inhibits the higher here.

The point I'm trying to make here is that laws do not allow for special circumstance. The problem is, EVERY circumstance is a special circumstance. If God is to judge us fairly, shouldn't the laws allow us to live fairly as well?

That depends upon what you mean by "punish". A nature consequence of not knowing trigonometry is not receiving the blessing derived from that knowledge. For example, one may not have the blessing of being excepted into certain graduate programs (or in other words, they may be denied admitance) because they lack the necissary prerequisite of trigonometry knowledge. Some may consider that a form of punishment. But, I don't.

Likewise, if one is unable to abide the higher spiritual laws, one is thereby denied the blessing associated with that higher law. One cannot expect to achieve Godhood without living in godly ways and abiding godly laws.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that godliness is something that needs to be achieved during this life. What I understand as important to God is not so much the level of achievement one attains in this life, but rather whether one is progressing and at a reasonable rate. (The parable of the hirlings comes to mind)

I still very strongly disagree with the assumption that the lower laws must be lived first to understand the higher laws. This bottom-up approach seems like we're going in backwards. Especially when you find that the makers of the laws did so in order to solve a higher problem. If the makers of the law saw the higher problem, and then enacted a solution, why is everyone else subjected to doing the reverse -- acting the solution only to later understand the reason for it? It seems counter-intuitive to the natural functioning of the human spirit -- the ability to problem solve.

What you are suggesting is along the lines of teaching kindergartners trigonometry prior to educating them on what numbers are and simple addition and subtraction, and doing so because the makers of trigonometry made it to solve a higher problem. Does that make sense to you?

Except the kindergarteners aren't trying to solve quadratic equations. Understanding love doesn't take obedience, it takes love.

I think the problem with this analogy is the difference between the laws of nature, and the laws of action. Trigonometry tries to understand the laws of nature. These laws were all understood by repeated and testable experiments. Each higher level builds on a previous level.

Laws of action, though, were created in the opposite direction. The leaders who made the laws did not gain a previous understanding of the laws -- they saw a problem and asked "How do we fix this?" This is exemplified by the fact that most laws fix symptoms, not problems. To bring back the sexual harrassment laws as an example: why are they so over-the-top? Because we have simply seen symptoms and said "Don't do that anymore!" The root cause was not addressed.

With religion, we have an excellent opportunity to address the causes of problems, rather than the symptoms. I would like to see the point of religion to be questioning the laws, rather than living in obedience to them.

The makers of the laws (lower to higher) and those who are subject to the laws, are worlds apart in their knowledge, understanding, and capacity to live the higher law. A bottom-up form of progression is necessitated to enable those subject to the laws to eventually become as capable of abiding the higher laws as the makers of those laws.

I highly disagree. I believe people are worlds apart as a result of the laws. The thinking has been done for them, the trust is in others. The responsibility is out of their hands. Give them the responsibility, and they'll succeed.

I disagree with you about the function of the law of sacrifice. It is not intended to create a world of equality (whatever you may suppose that to mean). And, while there may certainly be wonderful benefits to the world provided by those who abide this higher law, I believe that benefit is secondary to the primary function of this law, which I view as creating godly people. It is my view that one may become more godly though mastering the higher law of sacrifice. I don't see how that may somehow rob justice? You are getting what you are working for (i.e. godliness, rather than mammon). And, you aren't necessarily depriving others of the blessings in striving, themselves, for godliness or mammon.

The question I have then, is how does sacrifice create godly people?

One need have the capacity to grasp the higher problems before seeking a higher solution thereof. Most, if not all of us, can't even imagine, let alone grasp, the higher problems. We have a hard enough time as it is solving basic problems, like who should be first in line at recess, what our behavior should be while in class and riding the bus to and from school, whether to watch TV or not and how much and what shows, what to include as income on our taxes, how much time to spend with the wife and kids and how that time should be spent, what to do about our irratating neighbors, what obligations do we have to our most defenseless citizens--our unborn children, etc. In other words, we are having trouble solving the lower problems that the Ten Commandments were designed to fix, let alone striving to fix higher problems.

All of these examples you give is exactly the reason for the higher solutions. Each individual act should come about from the knowledge in these higher laws. Trying to solve each of these tiny problems on their own is a futile experience. No wonder one cannot think of the higher laws! They're mind is laid to waste trying to gather pebbles, rather than designing a tool to live by, to make it all so much easier.

The reasoning is somewhat correct, but the variables are not what I had in mind. It is not so much about what resources are generated through increased charity, but the change (for the better) in the nature of those who are charitable.

So how does an enforced tithe teach people charity? Could there be better ways to teach such a lesson?

<snip, all my responses to the tithing stream are dependant upon this answer.>

My question to you then, is do you think self-governance through morals/ethics can happen without religion, why or why not?

No. I have serious doubts that even with strong religious influence that people can effectively self-govern, let alone absent that influence.

Besides, governance isn't just about people getting along with people, or even individual liberty. It is also about creating communities of people that will enable its members to more effectively sustain their fundamental rights, but also enable them individually and collectively to acheive their best selves. I don't see that happening with out communal laws and government. We, individually, are incapable of achieving for each of us what we are capable of achieving together.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[darth vader] I find your lack of faith disturbing [/darth vader]

No, really. I do. My experiences have shown me that people naturally want to do what's right. It's when people gain beliefs that something wrong IS right that trouble starts to happen. As with the fundamentalism with the muslim terrorists, and with the extremes on both the left and the right of our government, these extreme beliefs have perpatuated against all reason and logic. Were neither of these beliefs taught, and each belief instead questioned, I think people would choose the path of tolerance, of community, and of progression.

But, this particular point again is highly untestable and has very little data that isn't anecdotal. I'll just kindly disagree with you. :)

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Keene

Being a woman that knew what is was like before 1973 and after 1973..and I could have aborted my oldest whom did not turn out criminal or but gay...

I am still and always will be PRO-CHOICE

Many people would have aborted their child ifthey knew they would be having a deaf child

I think your statistics are fasinating to say the least....but you will havemany that will argue

but people think that older women use abortions as a form of birth control..but the stats prove the majority of women that receive abortions are young I think under 20..check NARAL site..older women know how to protect themselves

[_Mephitus]

Keene

Being a woman that knew what is was like before 1973 and after 1973..and I could have aborted my oldest whom did not turn out criminal or but gay...

I am still and always will be PRO-CHOICE

Many people would have aborted their child ifthey knew they would be having a deaf child

I think your statistics are fasinating to say the least....but you will havemany that will argue

but people think that older women use abortions as a form of birth control..but the stats prove the majority of women that receive abortions are young I think under 20..check NARAL site..older women know how to protect themselves

that's one thing i see as a result of many schools and parents teaching such ideals as "abstinance only" in which kids are told only how to completely obstain from any and all sexual activity, rather than being taught realistic expectations on preventative choices. Parents are afraid to say/support anything more than this. I say more along these lines in the word of wisdom thread.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Sono

We are definitely seeing the backlash of the one sided teaching that we allow the schools to do..and the schools are only allowed to teach one sided....the moral majority is making those rules.....

By not being realistic with out children we leave them vunlerable to unwanted pregnancies and that awful decision as the whether to keep the pregnancy or abort...that is a position that no girl should have to be in..but at least there is still a choice for her

We fail to prepare our children to live in the sexual world that is out they, they are easy prey to all of the messages they see everywhere .....once a child is educated about the picture they are more likely to wait longer until they have sex
but for some reason we as a nation will not see our children as smart..

then we are leaving our young people open to many STA's and the killer aids...then we are still not doing enough because you can reinfect yourself with a different strain of aids...

and we are leaving out the most important lesson of all responsibility for their actions before and after....

[_wenglund]

The easiest example of the lower laws harming and oppressing myself are the restrictions in driving. The requirement for insurance and licensing is a prime example. I have the capabilities to pay for any damage I may cause, and I have never gotten into an accident. At one point, I did leave a dent in another car with my car door. I left my contact information, and paid the debt immediately. My track record speaks for itself.

But now, I'm constantly fighting to keep my license valid. Because of a ticket ages ago for driving without insurance (and no other violations), I am forced to put more and more money into the government system just to make it to work each day.

I drive responsibly. I put away my keys before ever taking a sip of alcohol. I put away a savings fund to cover for possible accidents. I drive the speed limit, always signal, and drive very defensively. But there's no place in the lower levels of the court system to take any of this into account. I have spent 3 weekends in jail, paid thousands in court fees, thousands more in insurance costs (Why, if you've had no insurance, do they punish you for having no insurance? Shouldn't they try to welcome you into the system?), and still can't seem to keep my licence valid due to the timing of court records being sent to the DMV.

I definitely should be accountable for my actions, but I don't feel I should be accountable for actions I may or may not go through in some imaginary future.

I am not sure it is reasonable to consider car insurance as "oppressive", but nevertheless, there are a number of factors that your example above fails to take into consideration, not the least of which is it is self-centric, and only factors in your side of the equation. The rule makers, and the rest of the driving public, have no practical way of destinguishing between the kind of driver that you claim to be, and the many irresponsible drivers on the road. Sure, they can take your driving record into consideration, your age, your marital status, and other such things as indicators of low risk, and perhaps adjust the insurance rates accordingly, but past performance isn't a perfect predictor of future performance. There are responsible drivers who have later, on occasion, made poor choices, particularly when alcohol or elements of old age are involved. Furthermore, who is to say that you won't suddently have a debilitating medical issue while driving, and cause a serious, multi-car accident that you lack the savings to entirely pay for?

So, while you may have formulated opinions about yourself and your ability to abide a higher law of driving, the rest of the drivers out there and the rule makers may think it in the interest of all parties concerned to mandate insurance and licencing. Is that oppression? I don't think so.

In fact, viewing things in terms of what may be in everyone's best interest may, in its own way, be a way of abiding a higher law than that of looking out for self interest. ;-)

In other words, from a societal standpoint, even were there individual within the society who may be able to abide the higher law, the society itself, of necessity, must govern according to the level of law that most of it's citizens are at, and even to some degree govern according to the lowest common denominator.

Is that oppression? I don't think so. Rather, I view it as in the best interest of the whole.

As far as it relates to religion, there are a few laws I can see as oppressive. The first and foremost in my mind is the apparent sin of homosexuality. I wonder what the higher purpose of this lower law is, and I feel it doesn't meet any needful purpose anymore, as long as the homosexual relationship is one governed by Love.

I am not sure you correctly or fully understand the reason that homosexuality has been and still is a sin, regardless whether Love is supposedly governing the relationship or not (to my way of thinking, Christlike love is incompatible with homosexuality, and that, in large part, is why it is a sin.)

Why do you suppose homosexuality is a sin?

In what way is homosexual love a higher law?

Another would be the allowance of priesthood to only males. At the time the lower law was written, what was it's purpose? Who wrote it? Could they have had bigotries, societal influences, or ulterior motives for this law? And what of those women who understand the need for love, the power of the mind, and the ability to heal, why can't they have the priesthood? The lower law inhibits the higher here.

If women are abiding the higher law of faith, and striving to perfect themselves as women (the height of which is I view as motherhood), then what need have they to be given the priesthood that, as I see it, is designed to enable men to perfect themselves as men (the height of which is fatherhood)? How, to your way of thinking, is shouldering mothers with fatherly responsibilities somehow a higher law?

The point I'm trying to make here is that laws do not allow for special circumstance. The problem is, EVERY circumstance is a special circumstance. If God is to judge us fairly, shouldn't the laws allow us to live fairly as well?

Actually, it is the people who are yet incapable of handling "special circumstances", and the laws and means of governance are there to help them manage what they are capable of handling, to the degree they are as a people capable of handling, and to also enable them to grow such that they may be able to handle more.

You seem intent on subjecting mankind to higher laws, and burdening them with the increase responsibility and accountability associated therewith, which they may lack the capacity to abide at this time. To me, that would be unmerciful and unjust--even as it would be to hold a kindergartener accountable to know trigonometry.

I will address the remainer of you post in my next post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_keene]

I am not sure it is reasonable to consider car insurance as "oppressive", but nevertheless, there are a number of factors that your example above fails to take into consideration, not the least of which is it is self-centric, and only factors in your side of the equation. The rule makers, and the rest of the driving public, have no practical way of destinguishing between the kind of driver that you claim to be, and the many irresponsible drivers on the road. That is my point exactly. Because the law can't take the context of the full situation into account, then "One size fits all" method simply restricts everyone until they're all on the same level. This is unjust to those who are ready to go farther. Sure, they can take your driving record into consideration, your age, your marital status, and other such things as indicators of low risk, and perhaps adjust the insurance rates accordingly, but past performance isn't a perfect predictor of future performance. There are responsible drivers who have later, on occasion, made poor choices, particularly when alcohol or elements of old age are involved. Furthermore, who is to say that you won't suddently have a debilitating medical issue while driving, and cause a serious, multi-car accident that you lack the savings to entirely pay for?

The risks for driving are well known. If I were in an accident, and gained an injury that the other driver couldn't pay for, then I would accept what he could pay for, and work the rest out myself. Chances are, that's what I'd have to do anyway. I understand that risk, and wouldn't step anywhere near a car otherwise. I would hope other people understand the risk for driving; rather than try to shoulder me (or, more realistically, the faceless "others") with the responsibility for their safety.

So, while you may have formulated opinions about yourself and your ability to abide a higher law of driving, the rest of the drivers out there and the rule makers may think it in the interest of all parties concerned to mandate insurance and licencing. Is that oppression? I don't think so.

There are many, many drivers who pay thousands in insurance every year, but who never even get in a fender-bender. These laws bring us to equality without fairness. And it takes the responsibility out of the hands of the people who need it.

In fact, viewing things in terms of what may be in everyone's best interest may, in its own way, be a way of abiding a higher law than that of looking out for self interest. ;-)

In other words, from a societal standpoint, even were there individual within the society who may be able to abide the higher law, the society itself, of necessity, must govern according to the level of law that most of it's citizens are at, and even to some degree govern according to the lowest common denominator.

Is that oppression? I don't think so. Rather, I view it as in the best interest of the whole.

If the leaders were truly looking out for the self interest of others, I believe they would go about things in a much different manner. Too much law is addressed to merely cover up the symptoms of societal unrest.

On the surface, I can see how these laws are looking out for the best interest of everybody. But if you go any deeper, these laws create a structure of reassurance for the people -- which brings me back to what I said earlier with Gazalem's description of the Holy Ghost... Reassurance, to me, is a hollow goal that leaves no room for motivation or progression. Looking out for people truly would motivate them to become better than what they are, rather than reward them with safety for remaining the same.

This goes to one of my core beliefs as I addressed in my Articles of Faith: One is fully responsible and accountable for their own mind, body, feelings, and circumstance. As soon as someone takes on that responsibility, change always happens for the better. If any structures are set up to take that responsibility from people, then there becomes no reason to change.

I am not sure you correctly or fully understand the reason that homosexuality has been and still is a sin, regardless whether Love is supposedly governing the relationship or not (to my way of thinking, Christlike love is incompatible with homosexuality, and that, in large part, is why it is a sin.)

Why do you suppose homosexuality is a sin?

In what way is homosexual love a higher law?

I would agree with you that I don't understand the reason homosexuality is a sin. At the core, this still relates to the conversation I was having with Gaz (which I do hope he'll continue to respond to), in that, when The Spirit revealed it to me, I was revealed something very different than what you or Gaz where revealed. Perhaps, if Gaz can no longer answer that line of question, you could continue it? I'll recap my questions really quickly:

Given that we both followed Moroni's promise;
1.) How can it be that we both received startlingly different revelations?
2.) How can we tell which revelation, if any, is true? Gaz's response was to check it against the prophets of old. Do you agree?
3.) If Gaz's response is correct, which prophets? And how do we know? Gaz's response was to try Moroni's promise, but that brings us right back to the top of the list.

Why do I suppose homosexuality is a sin? Fear and ego. Fear of something strange, and an emotion one doesn't understand, and ego that someone might suggest that they too feel that way.

On a religious context, I haven't seen any statement that makes sense to me.

I would say Homosexual love is a higher law in much the same way that ANY love is a higher law -- it leads to treating other people kindly with a heart of service, and a motivation to bring themselves and yourselves a better life. Why do you say that homosexuality is not compatable with Christ-like love? What is christ-like love to you?

If women are abiding the higher law of faith, and striving to perfect themselves as women (the height of which is I view as motherhood), then what need have they to be given the priesthood that, as I see it, is designed to enable men to perfect themselves as men (the height of which is fatherhood)? How, to your way of thinking, is shouldering mothers with fatherly responsibilities somehow a higher law?

What if the woman doesn't desire to be a mother?

I suppose my problem with this statement is that of "Should." Men "Should" hold the priesthood, women "Should" be mothers. This leaves no room for personal desire. It again takes the responsibility of how to live your life out of your hands. It's already been decided, you just obey.

Actually, it is the people who are yet incapable of handling "special circumstances", and the laws and means of governance are there to help them manage what they are capable of handling, to the degree they are as a people capable of handling, and to also enable them to grow such that they may be able to handle more.

You seem intent on subjecting mankind to higher laws, and burdening them with the increase responsibility and accountability associated therewith, which they may lack the capacity to abide at this time. To me, that would be unmerciful and unjust--even as it would be to hold a kindergartener accountable to know trigonometry.

But why are the people still incapable of handling special circumstances? I believe it is a direct cause of the laws dulling their desire and ability to think about the special circumstances.

And you're very, very correct in my intention to "burden" people with responsibility and accountability. I have faith that, if given the challenge, with no safety nets, people will rise to the challenge, take their responsibility upon themselves, and be much freer and happier because of it. Freedom comes at a cost of responsibility. As soon as you give that responsibility to others, you become bonded. And each bond is comforting, because it brings safety. Until you're in a nice, comforting box, with no room to move, nothing to see, nothing to do, until you start to take that responsibility back.

Your trigonometry analogy is flawed. The current system of trigonometry is based on our rather basic arithmetic. But trigonometry itself is merely an understanding of the relationship between items. You're calculating trigonometry every time you walk. Every time you bring a glass up to your lips to take a drink. Every time you catch a ball, you're making the trigonometric calculations without even thinking about it.

The same can be said for responsibility. It will take a learning curve up front, and it will be hard. Just like riding a bike or learning to walk. And there will be mistakes along the way. But if you fall and scrape your knee, do you stop trying to ride a bike? Do you make a law against falling over? No, you kiss the boo-boo and get back on the bike. The reward is freedom, and is definitely worth it.

The way to learn is not through understanding the laws. You can sit there and study trigonometry all day, but will it teach you how to throw a ball? The way to learn is through experimentation and failure. It's something you have to try, it's something you have to THINK about. But if you keep the training wheels on, then you'll never continue. You'll fall over again once you take the wheels off. One will never be ready for the higher laws until they give up the lower ones and just start living the higher laws immediately, with no hesitation, and no safety net.

I will address the remainer of you post in my next post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay.

Thanks, -Keene Maverick-

[_wenglund]

That depends upon what you mean by "punish". A nature consequence of not knowing trigonometry is not receiving the blessing derived from that knowledge. For example, one may not have the blessing of being excepted into certain graduate programs (or in other words, they may be denied admitance) because they lack the necissary prerequisite of trigonometry knowledge. Some may consider that a form of punishment. But, I don't.

Likewise, if one is unable to abide the higher spiritual laws, one is thereby denied the blessing associated with that higher law. One cannot expect to achieve Godhood without living in godly ways and abiding godly laws.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that godliness is something that needs to be achieved during this life. What I understand as important to God is not so much the level of achievement one attains in this life, but rather whether one is progressing and at a reasonable rate. (The parable of the hirlings comes to mind)

I still very strongly disagree with the assumption that the lower laws must be lived first to understand the higher laws. This bottom-up approach seems like we're going in backwards. Especially when you find that the makers of the laws did so in order to solve a higher problem. If the makers of the law saw the higher problem, and then enacted a solution, why is everyone else subjected to doing the reverse -- acting the solution only to later understand the reason for it? It seems counter-intuitive to the natural functioning of the human spirit -- the ability to problem solve.

What you are suggesting is along the lines of teaching kindergartners trigonometry prior to educating them on what numbers are and simple addition and subtraction, and doing so because the makers of trigonometry made it to solve a higher problem. Does that make sense to you?

Except the kindergarteners aren't trying to solve quadratic equations.

Exactly, nor should they be expected to. But, esentially, that is what you would be doing by obligating people to abide the higher laws prior to their growing to the point where they can abide it.

Understanding love doesn't take obedience, it takes love.

You evidently have quite a different understanding of love than I do. As I understand Christ-like love, it is the epitomy of obedience to the two great commandments upon which all the laws and the prophets rest, it entails obedience to the laws and commandments of God, and it is a state of being or a way of life that is achieved through obedience. In short, Christ-like love does not exist nor can it be achieve absent obedience. (For biblical references, please see HERE.

I think the problem with this analogy is the difference between the laws of nature, and the laws of action. Trigonometry tries to understand the laws of nature. These laws were all understood by repeated and testable experiments. Each higher level builds on a previous level.

The difference that you just noted is irrelevant to the point that the analogy was intended to make. Try looking for the similarities in principle, rather than the material differences, and perhaps you will get the point.

Laws of action, though, were created in the opposite direction. The leaders who made the laws did not gain a previous understanding of the laws -- they saw a problem and asked "How do we fix this?" This is exemplified by the fact that most laws fix symptoms, not problems. To bring back the sexual harrassment laws as an example: why are they so over-the-top? Because we have simply seen symptoms and said "Don't do that anymore!" The root cause was not addressed.

If the problem is that mankind, for the most part, is in the spiritual valley of carnal, sensual and devilishness, and the hope and desire for them is to reach the top of the spiritual mountain of godliness, then it would seem far more reasonable to me to take them step-by-step, through graduated levels laws, to the top rather than expecting them to make it in a single bound by obliging them to abide the higher law of godliness--which they may, as yet, be incable of abiding.

With religion, we have an excellent opportunity to address the causes of problems, rather than the symptoms. I would like to see the point of religion to be questioning the laws, rather than living in obedience to them.

By doing so, you would, ironically, be addressing the symptom rather the cause of the problem. You would, by your own "reasoning", be challenging the efforts to address the supposed symptoms, rather than addressing the problem itself (whatever it is that you suppose the problem to be).

I wonder, too, if you correctly or fully understand what the problem really is? You have mentioned povert as a problem. But, isn't that really a symptom of ungodliness--i.e. greed, laziness, ineptitude, and lack of faith and hope? Isn't the role of religion to address the problem of ungodliness, rather than thwart societies efforts to deal with the symptom that is poverty? Doesn't religion fulfill that role and address the problem of ungodliness by providing a graduated level of laws that enable mankind to become godly? By there so doing, wouldn't that eventually help eliminate the symptom of poverty? Wouldn't obliging mankind to abide a level of law they, as yet, are incapable of abiding, actually produce the very ungodly effects of hopelessness and faithlessness and poverty the religious and secular laws are intended to overcome? In other words, wouldn't your suggestion actually contribute to the problem, rather than fixing it?

The makers of the laws (lower to higher) and those who are subject to the laws, are worlds apart in their knowledge, understanding, and capacity to live the higher law. A bottom-up form of progression is necessitated to enable those subject to the laws to eventually become as capable of abiding the higher laws as the makers of those laws.

I highly disagree. I believe people are worlds apart as a result of the laws. The thinking has been done for them, the trust is in others. The responsibility is out of their hands. Give them the responsibility, and they'll succeed.

I disagree with you about the function of the law of sacrifice. It is not intended to create a world of equality (whatever you may suppose that to mean). And, while there may certainly be wonderful benefits to the world provided by those who abide this higher law, I believe that benefit is secondary to the primary function of this law, which I view as creating godly people. It is my view that one may become more godly though mastering the higher law of sacrifice. I don't see how that may somehow rob justice? You are getting what you are working for (i.e. godliness, rather than mammon). And, you aren't necessarily depriving others of the blessings in striving, themselves, for godliness or mammon.

The question I have then, is how does sacrifice create godly people?

By "godly people", I mean people becoming like God. So, if God is the epitomy of charitable love and selfless sacrifice, then one cannot become like him without growing to epitomize the characteristics of charitable love and selfless sacrifice. Obviously.

One need have the capacity to grasp the higher problems before seeking a higher solution thereof. Most, if not all of us, can't even imagine, let alone grasp, the higher problems. We have a hard enough time as it is solving basic problems, like who should be first in line at recess, what our behavior should be while in class and riding the bus to and from school, whether to watch TV or not and how much and what shows, what to include as income on our taxes, how much time to spend with the wife and kids and how that time should be spent, what to do about our irratating neighbors, what obligations do we have to our most defenseless citizens--our unborn children, etc. In other words, we are having trouble solving the lower problems that the Ten Commandments were designed to fix, let alone striving to fix higher problems.

All of these examples you give is exactly the reason for the higher solutions. Each individual act should come about from the knowledge in these higher laws. Trying to solve each of these tiny problems on their own is a futile experience. No wonder one cannot think of the higher laws! They're mind is laid to waste trying to gather pebbles, rather than designing a tool to live by, to make it all so much easier.

You seem to presume that the knowledge entailed in the higher laws is somehow inherent in each of us and fully understood by each of us at any or all times, rather than something that is learned and developed through personal growth over time. It is like thinking that a kindergartner is somehow already possessed with the knowledge of trigonometry, and that it is somehow wasting their minds for educators to have the children gather the pebbles of simple addition and subtraction and solve each of their tiny problems in graduated succession. Does that really make sense to you?

The reasoning is somewhat correct, but the variables are not what I had in mind. It is not so much about what resources are generated through increased charity, but the change (for the better) in the nature of those who are charitable.

So how does an enforced tithe teach people charity?

In much the same way, in principle, that enforced education teaches people trigonometry. Through learning about, practicing, and applying the charitable principle of tithing, one may become charitable to that extent, just as learning about, practicing, and applying the principles of trigonometry, one may become a trigonomitrist. Obviously.

Could there be better ways to teach such a lesson?

The lessons are best taught to the students at their level. Teaching kindergarten children at a trigonometry level doesn't work. In fact, it would be quite counterproductive--i.e. it would likely drastically decrease the children's desire and hope and faith in ever learning trigonometry. The same is true for teaching the principle of charity at the level of the law of sacrifice to those yet unable to fully and correctly understand the principle at a tithing level.

However, for those who, through graduated learning, have achieved at trigonometry level of understanding, it is best to teach them at that level, rather than at the level of basic addition and subtraction. The same is true for teaching the principle of charity to those rare few who have attained a christ-like level of love.

My question to you then, is do you think self-governance through morals/ethics can happen without religion, why or why not?

No. I have serious doubts that even with strong religious influence that people can effectively self-govern, let alone absent that influence.

Besides, governance isn't just about people getting along with people, or even individual liberty. It is also about creating communities of people that will enable its members to more effectively sustain their fundamental rights, but also enable them individually and collectively to acheive their best selves. I don't see that happening with out communal laws and government. We, individually, are incapable of achieving for each of us what we are capable of achieving together.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[darth vader] I find your lack of faith disturbing [/darth vader]

No, really. I do. My experiences have shown me that people naturally want to do what's right. It's when people gain beliefs that something wrong IS right that trouble starts to happen. As with the fundamentalism with the muslim terrorists, and with the extremes on both the left and the right of our government, these extreme beliefs have perpatuated against all reason and logic. Were neither of these beliefs taught, and each belief instead questioned, I think people would choose the path of tolerance, of community, and of progression.

But, this particular point again is highly untestable and has very little data that isn't anecdotal. I'll just kindly disagree with you. :)

[Mary Antoinette]"Let them eat cake[/Mary Antoinette]

While I believe that your heart is in the right place, and your desires for improving the human condition are laudable, I see your understanding of laws and love and godliness and even humanity, to be astonishingly niave.

I agree that, for the most part, people want to do what is right. However, their grasp of what is right, and their capacity for doing right, is quite another thing, and may be a far cry from the highest level of what God grasps as right and is capable of doing. For examle, a child may be able to grasp that it is right to share her toys with others, and may also be capable of acting on that understanding, but may naturally lack the capacity to graps or be capable of doing what is right in say...providing for her own family, or feeding a nation of starving people, etc. The same is true for spiritual precepts. A spiritual teen (of whatever age) may bearly be able to grasp and act on the charitable principle of tithing (some spiritual children are not even able to abide tithing), let alone be expected to have the level of Christ-like love needed to abide the law of sacrifice.

As such, one does not get them to the point of abiding the highest level of law by simply expecting them at first and all along to abide it (i.e. "let them eat cake"), but rather through growth and development in understanding and ability faciliated, in part, by graduated levels of law. In fact, as previously noted, expecting people to abide a level of law they do not undersand nor have the capacity of abiding, is unmerciful and counterproductive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-