Consensual And Nonconsensual Immorality: First Principles

[_Coggins7]

I've decided to move this thread back to the Terrestrial Kingdom because it seems that the Celestial Kingdom is far less frequented then the other three. Perhaps this thread will get going now and generate some interesting discussion.



This thread has the potential to turn into both the much sought after civil and philosophically critical discussion of opposing views that is spoken of here often but rarely achieved. I've gone ahead and taken the substance of the present discussion between Roger Morrison and myself out of the now floundering thread from which it came and started a new thread. Hopefully, this could turn out to be a stimulating debate.

All those (and you know who you are) who cannot meet these criteria (civility and serious philosophical thought) please remain in your seats until the ride comes to a complete stop.


Quote:
Coggins7 wrote:

Quote:
(By Guy Sajer) I think that they feel morally and intellectually superior because, well, they are compared to narrow-minded religious dogmatists who are obsessed with other people's sex lives and who attribute a grossly disproportionate importance to one's sexual orientation in the moral hierarchy.

Just what, in your opinion, is the underlying moral principle (without referencing scripture or appeal to authority) that makes homosexuality immoral?




Followed by Coggins (Bold added by RM)

Quote:
Well guy, you make many of the more general points I've been making about the liberal mind and attitude here and on another post quite clear for me, for which I should thank you.

What you have written above is just standard early seventies leftist can't of the kind I grew up hearing throughout the pop culture and media of the day. Conservatives as a whole, have never been obsessed with other people's sex lives. It is the Left and secular social liberals, beginning in the late sixties, that became obsessed and has remained obsessed with sex per se during that period up to the present. Loran, you weren't asked to analyze his thinking. You were asked to answer the Guy's question.

Now, the underlying moral principle that makes homosexuality immoral is simply the general gospel principle that marraige as a concept is only intelligable when uderstood as occuring between a man and a woman and that such a marriage has as one of its primary purposes the creation, nurturing, and raising of children. It is further a general principle that any sexual activity whatever, outside of that covenant is illegitimate, including heterosexual premarital activity, extramarital activity, and, therefore, by definition, homosexual activity which is not even compatable with natural human physiology and anatomy. He asked you to forego the the traditional tie-in to church-stuff, and here you are referring to it right after your diversionary tactic of avoidance...

Homosexuality is also, however, a perversion of appropriate sexual relations as well as immoral, or outside the boundries of human integrity that form the moral and spiritual core of such relations.



Roger


Quote:
OK, so maybe You/Loran think your above sentence is a direct response... However, IMSCO, it in no-way supports "immorality" as understood in a "moral" society. In such a society, as the one sketched in the sand by Jesus when he asked the one without sin to cast the first stone... A moral society is concerned with abuses; with inflicting pain to another; with taking away 'free-will' from others simply because they don't follow-the-leader. Yes "human integrity" is a most important aspect of an accoutable society. It must not be sacrificed to accomodate an edict.




Loran:

Quote:
I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools.

"Morality" is integrity of relationship, and that integrity does not end with only those closest too us (and it cannot so end, as the quality of our relationships with them will determine the quality of our relationships with the greater community and with the nation as a whole, as the effects of those most intimate relationships are manifested in effects through wider and wider concentric circles of societal structure). In other words, in a gospel context, acute abuse of others is only one manifestation of "immorality". Our private behavior, as with our private thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and core characterological attributes, have effects outside of those uniquely private spheres. "Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated.

This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy. In this context, anything we do to one another that hinders, retards, or in severe cases, cripples or destroys our ability to move closer to our Father in Heaven, become more like him, and eventually return to his presence as outlined in LDS theology, is immoral, since it is a relationship of disintegrity in that the consequences of such actions, even when full consent is present, is, being destructive to the happiness and ultimately, spiritual and personal fulfillment of the individual as a child of God, destructive to all involved in that consensual relationship.

In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.



Roger:

Quote:
Quote:
The core of an individual, or the collective, should be formed by a spiritual appreciation of individual differences that do not bring pain and/or injustice to others.



Loran:

Quote:
I agree with this (although I have no idea what 'the collective" means), but from an LDS standpoint, this is a fragment of a larger whole.



Roger:

Quote:
Quote:
It appears that Your moral-high-ground might simply be so in the minds of those who lack the 'charity' to live the higher laws introduced by Jesus???



Loran:

Quote:
Sexual immorality of all kinds were condemned as the grossest and most serous of sins by Jesus' Apostles, and they are the only recourse we have when deciding what Jesus actually taught in the New Testament texts. We have no book written by Jesus, nor any teachings of his that have not come down to use from his disciples. You either believe what they said Jesus taught, or you reject both them and Jesus. You can't have it both ways here.



Roger:

Quote:
Quote:
Your camp, so-to-speak, seems to dwell on "...appropriate sexual relations..." as the crux of the matter. Really, where do we find that idealism to be preached from pulpits--to a GREAT degree? Seems we've moved from lust to love, to relationships as the base for family security. Both D.O. Mackay and H.B. Lee made that the purpose of home and family in their famous quotes. Yet a long way from the norm in LDS and other sectarian religions...



Loran:


Quote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'll just say that, as far as the church goes, it is not the church that dwells on appropriate sexual relations. This is a fundamental late 20th century, post sixties misunderstanding. It is the secular world that has become preoccupied with and dwells upon sex and sexuality per se that necessitates a continuous response from those who, according to New Testament mandates and LDS theology, are obligated to warn the world and individuals within it of the ultimate consequences of these behaviors and cultural patterns.




Roger

Quote:
Could it be possible that neither you nor i (among others) know so little about "God's" ways, and fall so short of measuring-up by the "NEW" moral-code he left us with, that the world could improve IF we just gave a chance to setting aside violence and dogmatism to practice 'charity in all things'. And that ain't no Leftist Bull-S*** Bro!! Warm regards, Roger



Loran

Quote:
Your conernts here are valid, but I'm not sure how they are relevant to the crux of the matter here, which is human sexuality. Non-consensual immorality such as violence and other violations of the free agency and rights of others are a concern of the church, as is the consensual immorality that occurs when we do things to,or with each other, than cripple or truncate our relationship with our Father in Heaven.


Loran





Hi Loran, thanks for your response--especially its civility, much appreciated! Pasted from your post, into which i'll interject in italics:


Quote:
I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Possibly. However, in Jesus' words--as we have them--he seems to spend more time presenting what some call, "the social gospel" than speaking about, "fornication, adultery, and homosexuality". In the incident of the adultress brought to him, he did not endorse stoning her. He barely rebuked her. He simply said "...sin no more." He also took occassion to chide the self-righteous Pharasees, "...you think you're so pure...when you lust...you've committed adultery in your heart..."

If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. "...societal messes..." are obvious, and a challenge! However, to ascribe them all to the 'sexual revolution' i think is to ignore other social factors, old and new, that are causal of what is symptomatic as seen in infidelity and its sad, and serious, consequences.

All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools. This social morass, you well describe, unfortunately is not new. It was the focus 2,000 years ago of Jesus as he wept over the conditions of his people. His prescriptions of remedy however, have not been taken regularly; if indeed they have really been glanced at... "Two New Commandments..." have as yet not come into their own, generally speaking. Yet, we do see, and experience, "...spiritually healthy children" and adults, who are about-good-works... Loran, there is no doubt in my mind that "Family Matters". However, IMSCO, the 'family' to this point in time, has not filled its mandate well; with exceptions of course. Otherwise the social dysfunctions laid out above would not exist to the extent they do...

"Morality" is integrity of relationship, and that integrity does not end with only those closest too us (and it cannot so end, as the quality of our relationships with them will determine the quality of our relationships with the greater community and with the nation as a whole, as the effects of those most intimate relationships are manifested in effects through wider and wider concentric circles of societal structure) In total agreement! .

In other words, in a gospel context, acute abuse of others is only one manifestation of "immorality". Our private behavior, as with our private thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and core characterological attributes, have effects outside of those uniquely private spheres. Total agreement--in every social context!

"Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated. A bit garbled here, but i would say, "not necessarily so"???

This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy. In this context, anything we do to one another that hinders, retards, or in severe cases, cripples or destroys our ability to move closer to our Father in Heaven, become more like him, and eventually return to his presence as outlined in LDS theology, is immoral, since it is a relationship of disintegrity in that the consequences of such actions, even when full consent is present, is, being destructive to the happiness and ultimately, spiritual and personal fulfillment of the individual as a child of God, destructive to all involved in that consensual relationship. A very long sentence. To which i generally agree. I will extend it beyond LDS theology, as i think that is too limiting. "Children of God" are not confined to LDSism but are privy to their divine heritage wherever they abide...

In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.

,


The last paragraph demands more serious consideration than i can give it at the moment. However, i do not think anyone can escape the consequence of their actions. That is more than a priciple. It is an unavoidable reality. I'd like to pick this up later... Warm regards, Roger

[_Yoda]

{MOD NOTE}Hey, Cog---If you want me to officially move the other thread back, I will. Your other option is to keep the thread open in both forums.

Let me know what you decide, and I'll take care of it for you.

Liz

[_Mister Scratch]

I've decided to move this thread back to the Terrestrial Kingdom because it seems that the Celestial Kingdom is far less frequented then the other three. Perhaps this thread will get going now and generate some interesting discussion.

This thread has the potential to turn into both the much sought after civil and philosophically critical discussion of opposing views that is spoken of here often but rarely achieved. I've gone ahead and taken the substance of the present discussion between Roger Morrison and myself out of the now floundering thread from which it came and started a new thread. Hopefully, this could turn out to be a stimulating debate.

All those (and you know who you are) who cannot meet these criteria (civility and serious philosophical thought) please remain in your seats until the ride comes to a complete stop.

Quote:
Coggins7 wrote:

Quote:
(By Guy Sajer) I think that they feel morally and intellectually superior because, well, they are compared to narrow-minded religious dogmatists who are obsessed with other people's sex lives and who attribute a grossly disproportionate importance to one's sexual orientation in the moral hierarchy.

Just what, in your opinion, is the underlying moral principle (without referencing scripture or appeal to authority) that makes homosexuality immoral?

Please take careful note of this bolded, underlined portion of the above.

Followed by Coggins (Bold added by RM)

Quote:
Well guy, you make many of the more general points I've been making about the liberal mind and attitude here and on another post quite clear for me, for which I should thank you.

What you have written above is just standard early seventies leftist can't of the kind I grew up hearing throughout the pop culture and media of the day. Conservatives as a whole, have never been obsessed with other people's sex lives. It is the Left and secular social liberals, beginning in the late sixties, that became obsessed and has remained obsessed with sex per se during that period up to the present. Loran, you weren't asked to analyze his thinking. You were asked to answer the Guy's question.

Now, the underlying moral principle that makes homosexuality immoral is simply the general gospel principle that marraige as a concept is only intelligable when uderstood as occuring between a man and a woman and that such a marriage has as one of its primary purposes the creation, nurturing, and raising of children.

(emphasis added)

Please see above, Loran. Another point: this is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy. Thus, your assertion that homosexuality is "immoral" is based upon illogical premises.

It is further a general principle that any sexual activity whatever, outside of that covenant is illegitimate, including heterosexual premarital activity, extramarital activity, and, therefore, by definition, homosexual activity which is not even compatable with natural human physiology and anatomy. He asked you to forego the the traditional tie-in to church-stuff, and here you are referring to it right after your diversionary tactic of avoidance...

Again, the Naturalistic Fallacy. By your logic, none of us should be wearing clothes, since clothes are "not even compatable with natural human physiology."

Homosexuality is also, however, a perversion of appropriate sexual relations as well as immoral, or outside the boundries of human integrity that form the moral and spiritual core of such relations.

This sentence does not even make any sense.

Roger

Quote:
OK, so maybe You/Loran think your above sentence is a direct response... However, IMSCO, it in no-way supports "immorality" as understood in a "moral" society. In such a society, as the one sketched in the sand by Jesus when he asked the one without sin to cast the first stone... A moral society is concerned with abuses; with inflicting pain to another; with taking away 'free-will' from others simply because they don't follow-the-leader. Yes "human integrity" is a most important aspect of an accoutable society. It must not be sacrificed to accomodate an edict.

Loran:

Quote:
I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies

Pathologies such as what?

that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools.

You seem to be overgeneralizing quite a bit here, as well as engaging in the logical fallacy known as cum hoc, ergo propter hoc---that is, you assume that just because "cohabitation" and "the sexual revolution" have occurred during similar times, they are automatically related. Ironically, some of the social movements you seem to hate so much---The Civil Rights Movement, for example---actually paved the way for greater acceptance of Mormonism into the mainstream. (Stephen Prothero features an interesting discussion of this in his book American Jesus.)

Further, how would you like the stuff you've pointed to above to be applied to your beloved Church? Utah has led the U.S. in bankruptcy for quite some time. Should we therefore assume that Mormonism is somehow related to this? Or what about American polygamy, so obviously the result of the teachings and leadership of Joseph Smith? Again, is Mormonism to blame for all the problems---"bleeding the beast," welfare chiselers, child abuse, child abandonement---wrought by polygamy?

"Morality" is integrity of relationship, and that integrity does not end with only those closest too us (and it cannot so end, as the quality of our relationships with them will determine the quality of our relationships with the greater community and with the nation as a whole, as the effects of those most intimate relationships are manifested in effects through wider and wider concentric circles of societal structure). In other words, in a gospel context,

Again, see above.

acute abuse of others is only one manifestation of "immorality". Our private behavior, as with our private thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and core characterological attributes, have effects outside of those uniquely private spheres.

Such as?

"Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated.

It seems increasingly that your definition of "immorality" would require one to believe in both telepathy and telekinesis, since, in effect, you appear to be claiming that a person's thoughts can result in "immoral" harm being done to others. Or did I misinterpret what you said? I would really love to get some clarification on this issue.

This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy.

You were asked at the outset to avoid using the gospel. So much for that, eh?

In this context, anything we do to one another that hinders, retards, or in severe cases, cripples or destroys our ability to move closer to our Father in Heaven, become more like him, and eventually return to his presence as outlined in LDS theology, is immoral, since it is a relationship of disintegrity in that the consequences of such actions, even when full consent is present, is, being destructive to the happiness and ultimately, spiritual and personal fulfillment of the individual as a child of God, destructive to all involved in that consensual relationship.

In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.

Let me see if I am understanding you. You are saying that immorality occurs (within the LDS context) when there is "consensual misuse of will between individuals"? That makes sense to me, however I fail to see how and why this singles out homosexuality as being bad in particular. It makes it seem really no different from two unmarried heteros having sexual relations.

Roger:
Quote:
Quote:
The core of an individual, or the collective, should be formed by a spiritual appreciation of individual differences that do not bring pain and/or injustice to others.

Loran:
Quote:
I agree with this (although I have no idea what 'the collective" means), but from an LDS standpoint, this is a fragment of a larger whole.
Roger:
Quote:
Quote:
It appears that Your moral-high-ground might simply be so in the minds of those who lack the 'charity' to live the higher laws introduced by Jesus???

Loran:

Quote:
Sexual immorality of all kinds were condemned as the grossest and most serous of sins by Jesus' Apostles, and they are the only recourse we have when deciding what Jesus actually taught in the New Testament texts. We have no book written by Jesus, nor any teachings of his that have not come down to use from his disciples. You either believe what they said Jesus taught, or you reject both them and Jesus. You can't have it both ways here.

Roger:

Quote:
Quote:
Your camp, so-to-speak, seems to dwell on "...appropriate sexual relations..." as the crux of the matter. Really, where do we find that idealism to be preached from pulpits--to a GREAT degree? Seems we've moved from lust to love, to relationships as the base for family security. Both D.O. Mackay and H.B. Lee made that the purpose of home and family in their famous quotes. Yet a long way from the norm in LDS and other sectarian religions...

Loran:
Quote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I'll just say that, as far as the church goes, it is not the church that dwells on appropriate sexual relations. This is a fundamental late 20th century, post sixties misunderstanding.

This simply isn't correct. There was a great deal of interest in sex during the Victorian Era, during Shakespeare's time, during the Roaring Twenties...

It is the secular world that has become preoccupied with and dwells upon sex and sexuality per se that necessitates a continuous response from those who, according to New Testament mandates and LDS theology, are obligated to warn the world and individuals within it of the ultimate consequences of these behaviors and cultural patterns.

The major problem being, of course, that neither you nor LDS leaders have established what the "ultimate consequences of these behaviors and cultural patterns" actually are. Thus it winds up looking like a bunch of empty fear mongering. by the way: Have you read Foucault's History of Sexuality?

Roger

Quote:
Could it be possible that neither you nor i (among others) know so little about "God's" ways, and fall so short of measuring-up by the "NEW" moral-code he left us with, that the world could improve IF we just gave a chance to setting aside violence and dogmatism to practice 'charity in all things'. And that ain't no Leftist Bull-S*** Bro!! Warm regards, Roger

Loran

Quote:
Your conernts here are valid, but I'm not sure how they are relevant to the crux of the matter here, which is human sexuality. Non-consensual immorality such as violence and other violations of the free agency and rights of others are a concern of the church, as is the consensual immorality that occurs when we do things to,or with each other, than cripple or truncate our relationship with our Father in Heaven.

Loran
Hi Loran, thanks for your response--especially its civility, much appreciated! Pasted from your post, into which i'll interject in italics:
Quote:
I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Possibly. However, in Jesus' words--as we have them--he seems to spend more time presenting what some call, "the social gospel" than speaking about, "fornication, adultery, and homosexuality". In the incident of the adultress brought to him, he did not endorse stoning her. He barely rebuked her. He simply said "...sin no more." He also took occassion to chide the self-righteous Pharasees, "...you think you're so pure...when you lust...you've committed adultery in your heart..."

If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. "...societal messes..." are obvious, and a challenge! However, to ascribe them all to the 'sexual revolution' i think is to ignore other social factors, old and new, that are causal of what is symptomatic as seen in infidelity and its sad, and serious, consequences.

All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools. This social morass, you well describe, unfortunately is not new. It was the focus 2,000 years ago of Jesus as he wept over the conditions of his people. His prescriptions of remedy however, have not been taken regularly; if indeed they have really been glanced at... "Two New Commandments..." have as yet not come into their own, generally speaking. Yet, we do see, and experience, "...spiritually healthy children" and adults, who are about-good-works... Loran, there is no doubt in my mind that "Family Matters". However, IMSCO, the 'family' to this point in time, has not filled its mandate well; with exceptions of course. Otherwise the social dysfunctions laid out above would not exist to the extent they do...

"Morality" is integrity of relationship, and that integrity does not end with only those closest too us (and it cannot so end, as the quality of our relationships with them will determine the quality of our relationships with the greater community and with the nation as a whole, as the effects of those most intimate relationships are manifested in effects through wider and wider concentric circles of societal structure) In total agreement! .

In other words, in a gospel context, acute abuse of others is only one manifestation of "immorality". Our private behavior, as with our private thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and core characterological attributes, have effects outside of those uniquely private spheres. Total agreement--in every social context!

"Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated. A bit garbled here, but i would say, "not necessarily so"???

This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy. In this context, anything we do to one another that hinders, retards, or in severe cases, cripples or destroys our ability to move closer to our Father in Heaven, become more like him, and eventually return to his presence as outlined in LDS theology, is immoral, since it is a relationship of disintegrity in that the consequences of such actions, even when full consent is present, is, being destructive to the happiness and ultimately, spiritual and personal fulfillment of the individual as a child of God, destructive to all involved in that consensual relationship. A very long sentence. To which i generally agree. I will extend it beyond LDS theology, as i think that is too limiting. "Children of God" are not confined to LDSism but are privy to their divine heritage wherever they abide...

In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.

The last paragraph demands more serious consideration than i can give it at the moment. However, i do not think anyone can escape the consequence of their actions. That is more than a priciple. It is an unavoidable reality. I'd like to pick this up later... Warm regards, Roger

Let's recap the premises of your argument, Loran:
1. The conservative, LDS view actually is not that interested in sex at all, but is really just "reacting" to behaviors and attitudes exhibited by the Left.
2. Homosexuality is "immoral" because it is a "consensual misuse of will."
3. Homosexuality is really no different from fornication in this regard.
4. This view of morality is totally dependent upon Gospel teachings, and does not have its basis in rational thinking or logic.

If I got all those right, then I agree with you. However, I suspect that you will take issue with my labeling your view "illogical." Regardless, I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Loran, i'm glad i found this again. You said, pasted below:

In other words, in the gospel, there is nonconsensual immorality and consensual immorality. The one is based on a violation of others rights and free will. The other is based on not a denial of another's will but a consensual misuse of will between individuals. That is a matter of essential principle, not a pragmatist or utilitarian morality in which only overt trespasses against the consent of lack of such of another person carries moral weight.
* * *
The last paragraph demands more serious consideration than i can give it at the moment. However, i do not think anyone can escape the consequence of their actions. That is more than a priciple. It is an unavoidable reality. I'd like to pick this up later... Warm regards, Roger

I must admit reading your transferred material, it's hard sometimes to differentiate between the 'characters' :-)

First i'll clarify "collective": a group, community, society, association... "...involving all members of a group as distinct from its individuals..." Nothing to do with being a 'pinko'... Mormonism, a street corner gang, or a Union is a collective...

I'm not sure why you limit to: "...in the gospel..."??? I respectfully suggest morality and/or immorality is more consequential 'in-the-real/whole-world' than "in-the-gospel". LDS gospelism is simply, IMSCO, a vehicle of teaching their standards of morality/immorality.

Causal behaviour can only be consequenced by the natural laws that govern each and every human action/reaction, choice/no-choice... That Mormonism and any other human institution, can edict consequences for disobedience to 'their' rules-of-order, is a common societal 'given'; or 'taken' when we think KKK.

Loran, a consensual relationship extends FAR beyond a sexual context, as i 'think' you define "...immoralty..." One can be a partner in a licensed/sealed relationship and endure many nonconsensual demands on their physical and psyche beings. OTOH, one can be a partner in an unwed relationship that is most satisfying in all aspects of companionship and morality. As i'm sure you too have witnessed.

As I suggested earlier, most fundamentalist Christian Churches/collectives ;-) over-weigh sexual-immorality at the expense of other individual, and social immoralities such as greed, poverty and its off-shoots--crime, in-family abuses, deprivations due to gender/ethnic/social prejudices. All of which received more of Jesus' attention than did sexuality; as i read the New Testament??

Please don't read this and conclude that i advocate non-marriage, infidelity, adultery, promiscuity, child/adolescent-sex. I do not! But, i do not condemn adults for any behaviour that is not self-destructive or that negatively effects the life/lives of others. It has been my sad observation that many 'sexually-moral religious folks' are rather amoral when 'morality' is viewed in its larger context. (Could be elaborated.)

This, IMSCO, wrecks more human havoc than does cohabitation by heteral or homo sexuals. Warm regards, Roger

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Now, the underlying moral principle that makes homosexuality immoral is simply the general gospel principle that marriage as a concept is only intelligible when understood as occurring between a man and a woman and that such a marriage has as one of its primary purposes the creation, nurturing, and raising of children.

(emphasis added)

Please see above, Loran. Another point: this is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy. Thus, your assertion that homosexuality is "immoral" is based upon illogical premises.

There is no "naturalistic fallacy" committed here for the very simple reason that no argument has been made; nothing has been claimed to follow logically from evidence, either deductively or inferentially. My entire post here was explicative; that is, explanatory, not an extended argument. The difference is important. The statements made in an explicative way are certainly indicative of, or implicative of, arguments, but when no argument has been explicitly made, no logical connections between premises and conclusions exist. I'm not at all sure how Scratch can analyze a claim for the presence of logical fallacies when no attempt had been made to derive one claim in a logical way from any others.

The naturalistic fallacy has two or three forms. One is to try to derive the definition of good from nature, or to claim that ethical or moral qualities can be understood within a definition of the term good in terms of naturally occurring phenomena or conditions. In this sense, if homosexual sex, or an adulterous affair, or snorting Cocaine, are perceived to be "pleasant' experiences, they can then be defined as "good" since the natural sensations or perceptions created by engaging in them are perceived as pleasant.

Secondly, there is the claim that what is natural is right, or if something occurs naturally, it is legitimate on those grounds alone.

Another form of this, loosely speaking, is the "is/ought" augment, which, in a nutshell, is that what we see in nature is directly transferable to the human condition. What "is" in nature is extrapolated to what "ought" to be the case in human affairs.

In no case have I ever made arguments of this kind regarding homosexuality, human sexuality in general, or used them as the grounds upon which gospel doctrines regarding these things are based. My explicative post to Roger, describing and explaining my perceptions of the question rely on a gospel context precisely because it is the gospel that identifies eternal truths or laws to us which otherwise would be imperfectly known or unknown, from a human perspective.

I have never attempted to derive that statement "homosexuality is immoral" from premises that claim it is unnatural, nor have I attempted to claim that what is natural is right, and vice versa, and therefore homosexuality is wrong. This precise argument was used by the Social Darwinists in the early 20th century to support their ideas. It can be used to support eugenics. The immorality of homosexuality is not supported by any claim that what "is" in nature "ought" to be that which obtains in human terms. If this were the case, we would be justified, again, in leaving car accident victims to die on the street since this is precisely what many herd animals do, allowing the weak or crippled to die so as not to slow down the herd and use up precious resources that will otherwise be used to maintain healthy members of the herd.

I use the observation that homosexuality in unnatural not as a premise from which a conclusion about homosexuality, or any other sexual deviation, is derived, and therefore substantiated, but as circumstantial evidence. The gospel identifies truths to human beings, whether they be moral absolutes, ethical prescriptions, or metaphysical truths. One may certainly say that the truths identified by gospel teachings are "natural", in that they are inherent states of affairs in an external universe within which we are embedded. But I have not attempted, in this thread or others, to logically substantiate claims of the immorality of this or that by appeal to its naturalness. The naturalness of a truth, it it is accepted as a truth, is a given. My post here was explicative, intended to define and describe gospel doctrines relative to Roger's opposing viewpoint. It was not an attempt to derive a conclusion "homosexuality is immoral" from other propositions, and hence, no logical fallacies were committed.

The immorality of homosexuality, as with other forms of sexual immorality and many fundamental gospel principles in general, are based in knowledge obtained through revelation to prophets, and confirmed by the same spirit to anyone who cares to seek for such knowledge. This includes the Sprint of Christ that all have when they come into this world and which intimates that which is right and wrong. We call this our "conscience" and it is kind of our own internal moral literacy that all of us (at least those of normal intelligence and mental faculty) possess.

All the arguments made as to the "natural family" and the perversity of homosexuality re the manner in which such deviant practices depart from normative forms are, while quite persuasive (especially when one looks at the historical social science data and the literature, art, politics, and other cultural artifacts produced by such deviant subcultures) are ultimately supportive material to the fundamental insight derived from revealed religion. And even these 'natural law" arguments do not claim that what is natural is right in human affairs, nor that what is good can be derived from definitions derived from what is observed in nature. What they do claim is that there are 'natural" sexual and family relationships in the sense of their being an optimum form of such relations that are ordained of God and which are an inherent aspect of the human being understood as both a natural, organic being and a spiritual being created in the "image of God". When one deviates from this optimum (in sexual matters as in all things that really count within the context of the human condition), one moves from the realm of "natural" defined as that which is naturally optimum in human affairs (the ultimate source of which is the Gospel, which is ultimately known by revelation, not through a process of logical deduction from logically necessary initial propositions or axioms) to the realm of 'unnatural" defined as what is less than optimum, or grossly out of harmony with what is optimum. This has no relation to what is natural in the sense of "the natural world understood as the natural organic world around us, the relation upon which most of the various forms of the naturalistic fallacy rest (except one, in which subjective perceptions of the "good" are used, in an organismic sense, to define what is moral or right. "Natural" here seems to be connected to subjective organismic perceptions of pleasure or or other psychosomatic phenomena, but not as directly as with the other forms, in which things in human affairs are derived more directly from the natural organic world).

Quote:
It is further a general principle that any sexual activity whatever, outside of that covenant is illegitimate, including heterosexual premarital activity, extramarital activity, and, therefore, by definition, homosexual activity which is not even compatible with natural human physiology and anatomy.

Again, the Naturalistic Fallacy. By your logic, none of us should be wearing clothes, since clothes are "not even compatible with natural human physiology."

No such fallacy is committed here, as no logical argument as been attempted, and no claim, even if I had made one, would have been based on the idea that what we observe in the natural, organic world (such as naked animals, or parasitism, or cannibalism) is a ground for extrapolation of such phenomena into human affairs, not the least of which are moral human affairs).

Quote:
Homosexuality is also, however, a perversion of appropriate sexual relations as well as immoral, or outside the boundaries of human integrity that form the moral and spiritual core of such relations.



This sentence does not even make any sense.

Such as statement is not supposed to make sense to those of the world. To the worldly, the preaching of the gospel is "foolishness" as Paul said. Its all quite incomprehensible.


Quote:
Roger

Quote:
OK, so maybe You/Loran think your above sentence is a direct response... However, IMSCO, it in no-way supports "immorality" as understood in a "moral" society. In such a society, as the one sketched in the sand by Jesus when he asked the one without sin to cast the first stone... A moral society is concerned with abuses; with inflicting pain to another; with taking away 'free-will' from others simply because they don't follow-the-leader. Yes "human integrity" is a most important aspect of an accountable society. It must not be sacrificed to accommodate an edict.

Loran:

Quote:
I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies

Pathologies such as what?

This is common knowledge for which mountains of social science data as well as generations of observation and analysis exist, so I'm not going bother with this here. There is a voluminous literature, sociological, philosophical, and political, that exists on this subject that Scratch is apparently unaware of, in which case attempting to educate him here would use up so much bandwidth as to be utterly prohibitive. I could post links to hundreds of links to papers, scholarly essays, op-eds, book chapters, lectures etc that would make the case but know better than to waste my time with things that will not make any serious impression, or will simply be disregarded a priori..

Quote:
that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools.

You seem to be overgeneralizing quite a bit here, as well as engaging in the logical fallacy known as cum hoc, ergo propter hoc---that is, you assume that just because "cohabitation" and "the sexual revolution" have occurred during similar times, they are automatically related. Ironically, some of the social movements you seem to hate so much---The Civil Rights Movement, for example---actually paved the way for greater acceptance of Mormonism into the mainstream. (Stephen Prothero features an interesting discussion of this in his book American Jesus.)

There may be a formal logical fallacy here if the argument were based only upon formal logical considerations. That, however, is not the case. The roughly 500% rise in violent crime, the massive breakdown of the family, traditional marriage and male/female sexual boundaries with respect to these institutions, the dramatic rise in recreational drug usage, the general coarsening and vulgarizing of American culture, all date precisely from the mid-sixties at the point at which a huge shift in values and ideology took place whose focal points were antagonism toward and a successful culture wide campaign to overturn as much of those older values as possible. Senator Moynihan sounded a warning before the sixties were even over, and some of the best minds in American society have applied themselves to this problem for decades. We know that here, the correlation exists because of a causal relationship because we have come to know, sense then, just what lifestyles and attitudes tend to produce social pathology, especially in a broad, general sense across much of a subpopulation, and which tend to work against the development and incontinence of social pathology. The Left has generated some very clever, if implausible excuses for why the cultural revolution of the sixties and seventies was really a good thing, and had no causal connection to the decline of western civilization since that time (in a similar way in which they have attempted to explain away their ghastly mistakes in foreign policy and international relations) but serious, inquiring minds aren't buying it.


Further, how would you like the stuff you've pointed to above to be applied to your beloved Church? Utah has led the U.S. in bankruptcy for quite some time. Should we therefore assume that Mormonism is somehow related to this? Or what about American polygamy, so obviously the result of the teachings and leadership of Joseph Smith? Again, is Mormonism to blame for all the problems---"bleeding the beast," welfare chiselers, child abuse, child abandonment---wrought by polygamy?

Quote:
"Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated.

It seems increasingly that your definition of "immorality" would require one to believe in both telepathy and telekinesis, since, in effect, you appear to be claiming that a person's thoughts can result in "immoral" harm being done to others. Or did I misinterpret what you said? I would really love to get some clarification on this issue.

Scratch's limited intellect and imagination are on the verge of actually grasping something that should, at all events, be rather obvious. Thoughts influence behavior which in turn influences attitudes, perceptions, and, over time, charaterological patterns that, if pathological or dysfunctional, will inevitably effect others with whom we have relationships and, when a critical mass of such individuals are reached in a given society, effect the larger society as a whole. I do not see anything controversial or obtuse in this observation.

Quote:
This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy.

You were asked at the outset to avoid using the gospel. So much for that, eh?

Although I didn't mention it to Roger, what he is en essence asking me to do here is ignore the epistemological and philosophical template that forms the core of the way in which I perceive the world and which forms the scaffolding upon which my perception of various issues are built. I see know reason why I should do this as neither Roger or Scratch have ever offered to argue for their own views outside of the fundamental assumptions that are the basis of their own perceptions of the matters at hand. If one wants to debate the validity of those fundamental assumptions and beliefs, then so be it, but I don't argue my position using the frame of reference of those who are hostile to it. That's a capitulation to my philosophical opponents at the outset. One does not let his opponents set the terms and frame of reference of the debate, epistemologically or psychologically.

Let me see if I am understanding you. You are saying that immorality occurs (within the LDS context) when there is "consensual misuse of will between individuals"? That makes sense to me, however I fail to see how and why this singles out homosexuality as being bad in particular. It makes it seem really no different from two unmarried heteros having sexual relations.

Scratch is going around the sugar bowl again. Did he read the post? Homosexuality, in a gospel context (a system of knowledge that identifies instances of truth to mortal human beings) is immoral because it will, if engaged in without repentance to the end of physical life, produce alienation from God in this life and the serious curtailing of eternal opportunities, potential, and happiness in the next phase of human existence. Hence, if morality is defined as "the integrity of relationship", then any kind of relationship which distracts, negates, or obviates our eternal progression is a relationship of disintegrity; it is one in which we are actually destroying one another rather than supporting each other's eternal progression toward becoming more like God. Hence, it is immoral, or lacking the moral integrity that is inherent in relationships that bring us closer to God and promote obedience to his counsel.

Hence. Fornication and, especially, adultery, are immoral because they destroy us spiritually, even if not having immediate consequences psychologically or emotionally (such as with fornication. Adultery is the betrayal of another's deepest trust and emotional commitment, and so involves a much more immediate kind of immorality that can end with severe psychological, emotional , and legal consequences long preceding the ultimate spiritual collision with reality).

[Dr. Sunstoned]

You seem to be overgeneralizing quite a bit here, as well as engaging in the logical fallacy known as cum hoc, ergo propter hoc---that is, you assume that just because "cohabitation" and "the sexual revolution" have occurred during similar times, they are automatically related. Ironically, some of the social movements you seem to hate so much---The Civil Rights Movement, for example---actually paved the way for greater acceptance of Mormonism into the mainstream. (Stephen Prothero features an interesting discussion of this in his book American Jesus.)

Just an aside I couldn't resist pointing out. Here is another of Scratch's classic left wing tactics of attempting to morally smear an philosophcal opponent thourgh innuendo. I have never, in any post anywhere, indicated either a hatred for or even mild dislike of "the civil rights" movemnent. But perhaps the "civil rights movement" I'm thinking of isn't the one Scratch has in mind. He'd do well to define that movement and its guiding intellectual and political lights before making any claim for my hatred of it.

[_Coggins7]

I must admit reading your transferred material, it's hard sometimes to differentiate between the 'characters' :-)

First i'll clarify "collective": a group, community, society, association... "...involving all members of a group as distinct from its individuals..." Nothing to do with being a 'pinko'... Mormonism, a street corner gang, or a Union is a collective...

I'm not sure why you limit to: "...in the gospel..."??? I respectfully suggest morality and/or immorality is more consequential 'in-the-real/whole-world' than "in-the-gospel". LDS gospelism is simply, IMSCO, a vehicle of teaching their standards of morality/immorality.

Causal behaviour can only be consequenced by the natural laws that govern each and every human action/reaction, choice/no-choice... That Mormonism and any other human institution, can edict consequences for disobedience to 'their' rules-of-order, is a common societal 'given'; or 'taken' when we think KKK.

Loran, a consensual relationship extends FAR beyond a sexual context, as i 'think' you define "...immoralty..." One can be a partner in a licensed/sealed relationship and endure many nonconsensual demands on their physical and psyche beings. OTOH, one can be a partner in an unwed relationship that is most satisfying in all aspects of companionship and morality. As i'm sure you too have witnessed.

As I suggested earlier, most fundamentalist Christian Churches/collectives ;-) over-weigh sexual-immorality at the expense of other individual, and social immoralities such as greed, poverty and its off-shoots--crime, in-family abuses, deprivations due to gender/ethnic/social prejudices. All of which received more of Jesus' attention than did sexuality; as i read the New Testament??

Please don't read this and conclude that i advocate non-marriage, infidelity, adultery, promiscuity, child/adolescent-sex. I do not! But, i do not condemn adults for any behaviour that is not self-destructive or that negatively effects the life/lives of others. It has been my sad observation that many 'sexually-moral religious folks' are rather amoral when 'morality' is viewed in its larger context. (Could be elaborated.)

This, IMSCO, wrecks more human havoc than does cohabitation by heteral or homo sexuals. Warm regards, Roger

I'll only say here that I see no reason to believe that the average, serious, committed Christian of any denomination is somehow involved in a preoccupation with human sexuality over the other problems you mention. This is by no means obvious, as the numerous Christian philanthropic organizations and ministries dedicated to feeding, clothing, housing, and comforting the poor around the world attests.

Now I will reiterate: the Christian/Conservative concern with sex (actually, its misuse and bastardization) is not a function of any obsession with sex on their part but is a critique of the pervasive cult of eroticism that arose beginning in the late sixties and has come to permeate virtually every aspect of our society, and in particular, out pop culture. It is the obsession with sex and sexuality per se (and hence it deracination) that has provoked and maintained the conservative response. I suspect that what secular liberals really object to here is just the fact that there is any moral critique of their behavior and values at all. Consequence free sex was, after all, one of the holy grails of the sixties cultural revolution (and the holy sacrament of the sexual revolution).

Further, one of the aspects of the cultural Left that has always bothered me the most is the dramatic demarcation line between the private morality that really defines character and the public, political morality of the supporting of fashionable and, at least, in some cases, noble causes ("ending" hunger, poverty, war, disease etc) in the public square. Many liberals have placed heavy emphasis on public agitation and support for lofty, idealistic, and, in many cases, sociologically or materially impossible goals (such as achieving world peace, ending all hunger and poverty etc.) while blithely ignoring the personal morality that is not only the center of their own character and value as a member of society but stands at the causal center of much of the war, poverty, hunger, and human misery in far away places that so exercise the affluent, western leftist imagination.

An ancient Chinese philosopher (I believe it was King Fu Tze (Confucius) said it best:

When there is righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character.
When there is beauty in the character, there will be harmony in the home.
When there is harmony in the home, there will be order in the nation.
When there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world.

Probably Leftism's greatest failing is its perception of large scale human problems as matters of large scale political intervention as opposed to matters of the individual heart, where all of these problems have their origin.

Loran

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Loran, you say, into which i'll inject, boldly ;-):

I'll only say here that I see no reason to believe that the average, serious, committed Christian of any denomination is somehow involved in a preoccupation with human sexuality over the other problems you mention. You might be correct. I do tend to generalize in discussions more opinionated than... This is by no means obvious, as the numerous Christian philanthropic organizations and ministries dedicated to feeding, clothing, housing, and comforting the poor around the world attests. Once more you make a good point. I'll not argue a per-capita-member or proportion of net income of the more wealthy churches. Like every little bit helps...

Now I will reiterate: the Christian/Conservative concern with sex (actually, its misuse and bastardization) is not a function of any obsession with sex on their part but is a critique of the pervasive cult of eroticism that arose beginning in the late sixties (ever glimpsed ancient Asian erotica? Greek, Roman art?) and has come to permeate virtually every aspect of our society, and in particular, out pop culture. Especially advertising! It is the obsession with sex and sexuality per se (and hence it deracination: pull up by the roots--? ) that has provoked and maintained the conservative response. I suspect that what secular liberals really object to here is just the fact that there is any moral critique of their behavior and values at all. Could be? Not being a "secular liberal"... Consequence free sex was, after all, one of the holy grails of the sixties and the "Roaring 20's" cultural revolution (and the holy sacrament of the sexual revolution). Nice prose. But was there as much "free sex", NA wide as in little enclaves of Flower Children? Didn't affect me or my family. What about your personal involvement?

Further, one of the aspects of the cultural Left that has always bothered me the most is the dramatic demarcation line between the private morality that really defines character and the public, political morality of the supporting of fashionable and, at least, in some cases, noble causes ("ending" hunger, poverty, war, disease etc) in the public square. I have trouble with hypocracy too, from wherever. However, if we waited for purity to rein before charity is demonstrated... Many liberals have placed heavy emphasis on public agitation and support for lofty, idealistic, and, in many cases, sociologically or materially impossible goals (such as achieving world peace, ending all hunger and poverty etc.) "Oh ye of little faith..." while blithely ignoring the personal morality that is not only the center of their own character "...beam-in-eye???" and value as a member of society but stands at the causal center of much of the war, poverty, hunger, and human misery in far away places that so exercise the affluent, western leftist imagination. As You see it.

An ancient Chinese philosopher (I believe it was King Fu Tze (Confucius) said it best:

When there is righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character.
When there is beauty in the character, there will be harmony in the home.
When there is harmony in the home, there will be order in the nation.
When there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world.

Love it!! Thanks!! Makes one wonder how, where and why Judeo-Christianism messed up!? Maybe we should have...
Probably Leftism's greatest failing is its perception of large scale human problems as matters of large scale political intervention as opposed to matters of the individual heart, where all of these problems have their origin. Maybe the Left simply grew impatient cuz it wasn't being done Right???

Loran Roger

I may be wrong, but i always sense the 'blame' for our obvious social/cultural/political/religious dysfunctions is always directed to 'them', to 'others'. Seldom do i recognize Loran, and Associates, being a part of the problem? Am i wrong in that observation?

Marx wasn't born until 1818, died 1883. His treatise wasn't popularized until 1850; yet you seem to hold his philosophy responsible for every manner of social injustice and suffering. Why so? Not to derail the thread, but...

Back to...what is we are discussing? Oh yes. You state, a fornicator, or an adulteryist can never know peace of mind or be a fit and reponsble member of society. IF i recall some of your claims correctly??

If so, i respectfully disagree. Cuz Jesus said that isn't so... Warm regards, Roger

[_Mister Scratch]

Now, the underlying moral principle that makes homosexuality immoral is simply the general gospel principle that marriage as a concept is only intelligible when understood as occurring between a man and a woman and that such a marriage has as one of its primary purposes the creation, nurturing, and raising of children.

(emphasis added)

Please see above, Loran. Another point: this is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy. Thus, your assertion that homosexuality is "immoral" is based upon illogical premises.

There is no "naturalistic fallacy" committed here for the very simple reason that no argument has been made; nothing has been claimed to follow logically from evidence, either deductively or inferentially. My entire post here was explicative; that is, explanatory, not an extended argument. The difference is important. The statements made in an explicative way are certainly indicative of, or implicative of, arguments, but when no argument has been explicitly made, no logical connections between premises and conclusions exist. I'm not at all sure how Scratch can analyze a claim for the presence of logical fallacies when no attempt had been made to derive one claim in a logical way from any others.

The naturalistic fallacy has two or three forms. One is to try to derive the definition of good from nature, or to claim that ethical or moral qualities can be understood within a definition of the term good in terms of naturally occurring phenomena or conditions. In this sense, if homosexual sex, or an adulterous affair, or snorting Cocaine, are perceived to be "pleasant' experiences, they can then be defined as "good" since the natural sensations or perceptions created by engaging in them are perceived as pleasant.

Secondly, there is the claim that what is natural is right, or if something occurs naturally, it is legitimate on those grounds alone.

Another form of this, loosely speaking, is the "is/ought" augment, which, in a nutshell, is that what we see in nature is directly transferable to the human condition. What "is" in nature is extrapolated to what "ought" to be the case in human affairs.

In no case have I ever made arguments of this kind regarding homosexuality, human sexuality in general, or used them as the grounds upon which gospel doctrines regarding these things are based. My explicative post to Roger, describing and explaining my perceptions of the question rely on a gospel context precisely because it is the gospel that identifies eternal truths or laws to us which otherwise would be imperfectly known or unknown, from a human perspective.

I have never attempted to derive that statement "homosexuality is immoral" from premises that claim it is unnatural, nor have I attempted to claim that what is natural is right, and vice versa, and therefore homosexuality is wrong. This precise argument was used by the Social Darwinists in the early 20th century to support their ideas. It can be used to support eugenics. The immorality of homosexuality is not supported by any claim that what "is" in nature "ought" to be that which obtains in human terms. If this were the case, we would be justified, again, in leaving car accident victims to die on the street since this is precisely what many herd animals do, allowing the weak or crippled to die so as not to slow down the herd and use up precious resources that will otherwise be used to maintain healthy members of the herd.

I use the observation that homosexuality in unnatural not as a premise from which a conclusion about homosexuality, or any other sexual deviation, is derived, and therefore substantiated, but as circumstantial evidence. The gospel identifies truths to human beings, whether they be moral absolutes, ethical prescriptions, or metaphysical truths. One may certainly say that the truths identified by gospel teachings are "natural", in that they are inherent states of affairs in an external universe within which we are embedded. But I have not attempted, in this thread or others, to logically substantiate claims of the immorality of this or that by appeal to its naturalness. The naturalness of a truth, it it is accepted as a truth, is a given. My post here was explicative, intended to define and describe gospel doctrines relative to Roger's opposing viewpoint. It was not an attempt to derive a conclusion "homosexuality is immoral" from other propositions, and hence, no logical fallacies were committed.

The immorality of homosexuality, as with other forms of sexual immorality and many fundamental gospel principles in general, are based in knowledge obtained through revelation to prophets, and confirmed by the same spirit to anyone who cares to seek for such knowledge. This includes the Sprint of Christ that all have when they come into this world and which intimates that which is right and wrong. We call this our "conscience" and it is kind of our own internal moral literacy that all of us (at least those of normal intelligence and mental faculty) possess.

It seems you are backpedaling into a corner wherein you will have no choice but to admit that your views are illogical, or, at the very least, "a-logical."

All the arguments made as to the "natural family" and the perversity of homosexuality re the manner in which such deviant practices depart from normative forms are, while quite persuasive (especially when one looks at the historical social science data and the literature, art, politics, and other cultural artifacts produced by such deviant subcultures) are ultimately supportive material to the fundamental insight derived from revealed religion.

So you *do* want to use logical premises to support your argument (or "explanation," as it were). I'm not sure what "literature, art, politics, and other cultural artifacts" you're referring to.... If anything, the participation of homosexuals in culture and the arts has been enormously enriching to humankind. Surely you can't be claiming that gays have been bad for the arts....

And even these 'natural law" arguments do not claim that what is natural is right in human affairs, nor that what is good can be derived from definitions derived from what is observed in nature. What they do claim is that there are 'natural" sexual and family relationships in the sense of their being an optimum form of such relations that are ordained of God and which are an inherent aspect of the human being understood as both a natural, organic being and a spiritual being created in the "image of God".

Again, this is simply a variation of argumentum ad antiquatatem. Alternative family forms---the research indicates---are different rather than deficient. Unless, of course, you want to rely upon the old saw vis-a-vis "revelation," which, it must be admitted (as you appear to be doing above), is not premised upon logic.

When one deviates from this optimum (in sexual matters as in all things that really count within the context of the human condition), one moves from the realm of "natural" defined as that which is naturally optimum in human affairs (the ultimate source of which is the Gospel, which is ultimately known by revelation, not through a process of logical deduction from logically necessary initial propositions or axioms) to the realm of 'unnatural" defined as what is less than optimum, or grossly out of harmony with what is optimum. This has no relation to what is natural in the sense of "the natural world understood as the natural organic world around us, the relation upon which most of the various forms of the naturalistic fallacy rest (except one, in which subjective perceptions of the "good" are used, in an organismic sense, to define what is moral or right. "Natural" here seems to be connected to subjective organismic perceptions of pleasure or or other psychosomatic phenomena, but not as directly as with the other forms, in which things in human affairs are derived more directly from the natural organic world).

You are waffling, my friend. You want logical and material consequences to be applied to this subject, but continue to insist that your epistemological frame somehow "transcends" logic, and its exempt from the things that ratiocination can tell us.

Quote:
It is further a general principle that any sexual activity whatever, outside of that covenant is illegitimate, including heterosexual premarital activity, extramarital activity, and, therefore, by definition, homosexual activity which is not even compatible with natural human physiology and anatomy.

Again, the Naturalistic Fallacy. By your logic, none of us should be wearing clothes, since clothes are "not even compatible with natural human physiology."

No such fallacy is committed here, as no logical argument as been attempted, and no claim, even if I had made one, would have been based on the idea that what we observe in the natural, organic world (such as naked animals, or parasitism, or cannibalism) is a ground for extrapolation of such phenomena into human affairs, not the least of which are moral human affairs).

You made an axiomatic claim! Did you not?

Quote:
Homosexuality is also, however, a perversion of appropriate sexual relations as well as immoral, or outside the boundaries of human integrity that form the moral and spiritual core of such relations.

This sentence does not even make any sense.

Such as statement is not supposed to make sense to those of the world. To the worldly, the preaching of the gospel is "foolishness" as Paul said. Its all quite incomprehensible.

No... the sentence does not make sense grammatically. You should have written, "Homosexuality is also, however, a perversion of appropriate sexual relations, and it is also immoral, or outside....[etc.]" Better, eh? The way you wrote it makes it seem as if the verb "perversion" is attempting to refer to the word "immoral." But after looking over the sentence a couple more times, I now see what you're saying.

And again, Loran, I find you falling back on this weird, feather bed of an argument. It really does seem to be a conflation of the Naturalistic Fallacy and argumentum ad antiquatatem. No matter what your opposition says, you will just fall back to saying, in effect, "You don't get it because it comes from God." "This isn't logical, it's based on revelation." These seem awfully shaky premises upon which to craft an argument. Ah, but then, as you've said, you are not crafting an "argument" at all!

I believe this is known as "sophistry."

Quote:
Roger

Quote:
OK, so maybe You/Loran think your above sentence is a direct response... However, IMSCO, it in no-way supports "immorality" as understood in a "moral" society. In such a society, as the one sketched in the sand by Jesus when he asked the one without sin to cast the first stone... A moral society is concerned with abuses; with inflicting pain to another; with taking away 'free-will' from others simply because they don't follow-the-leader. Yes "human integrity" is a most important aspect of an accountable society. It must not be sacrificed to accommodate an edict.

Loran:

Quote:
I think your understanding of what a moral society rather lacks both philosophical depth and a substantive understanding of the the New Testament texts actually say about specific instances of immorality such as fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. If a moral society is concerned with abuse, then a moral society is most certainly going to be quite concerned with both cohabitation and adultery, two features of the 'sexual revolution" that have generated vast social pathologies

Pathologies such as what?

This is common knowledge for which mountains of social science data as well as generations of observation and analysis exist, so I'm not going bother with this here. There is a voluminous literature, sociological, philosophical, and political, that exists on this subject that Scratch is apparently unaware of, in which case attempting to educate him here would use up so much bandwidth as to be utterly prohibitive. I could post links to hundreds of links to papers, scholarly essays, op-eds, book chapters, lectures etc that would make the case but know better than to waste my time with things that will not make any serious impression, or will simply be disregarded a priori..[/quote]

No, Loran. I merely asked you to name a couple of "pathologies" which you think are the result of the "sexual revolution." I don't need to see any data just yet. I just want you to name these so-called "pathologies." Or are you equivocating?

Quote:
that have victimized not only the the intimate others involved but indirectly, all other members of society as they must bear the burdens, cultural, financial, and political, of cleaning up the societal messes left be the critical mass of those engaging in such behavior. All must endure the socio-cultural effects of the breakdown of the family, marriage, parental authority, and Judeo/Christian sexual boundaries and the violence, alienation, crime, lost future economic prosperity, and the vast sums of money spent on alcohol and drug rehab, the processing and warehousing of people in the criminal justice system, and psychologist's and psychiatrist's couches that would have better been spent in productive economic activity or in taking intact, successful families to Disneyland and putting psychologically and spiritually healthy children into quality private schools.

You seem to be overgeneralizing quite a bit here, as well as engaging in the logical fallacy known as cum hoc, ergo propter hoc---that is, you assume that just because "cohabitation" and "the sexual revolution" have occurred during similar times, they are automatically related. Ironically, some of the social movements you seem to hate so much---The Civil Rights Movement, for example---actually paved the way for greater acceptance of Mormonism into the mainstream. (Stephen Prothero features an interesting discussion of this in his book American Jesus.)

There may be a formal logical fallacy here if the argument were based only upon formal logical considerations. [/quote]

See this neat little trick? This seems like a "get out of jail free card." If I say, "The Church is an fraudulent institution," and then claim that I don't need any evidence, or to use logic, because my argument is premised on something that "transcends" "logical considerations", would that seem very legitimate to you?

That, however, is not the case. The roughly 500% rise in violent crime,

"500% rise" since when? All the statistics I've seen indicate that crime has been declining on the whole ever since the 1970s. In fact, there is a provocative argument in a popular book called Freakanomics which notes a parallel between legalized abortion and a decrease in crime. I.e., since lower class women were able to abort the babies which they would have done a poor job raising, these "future criminals" never came to be.

the massive breakdown of the family,

I am unaware of any evidence for this.

traditional marriage and male/female sexual boundaries with respect to these institutions,

Provided that these were ever totally good and healthy things to begin with. (And how funny that you are using the word "traditional" here. Yet another argumentum ad antiquatatem. Or is this another one of those times in which logic does not apply?)

the dramatic rise in recreational drug usage,

Would you include alcohol in that?

the general coarsening and vulgarizing of American culture,

This seems totally subject, and awfully over-generalized. You said yourself that you enjoyed Fusion music, which appeared after the '60s.

all date precisely from the mid-sixties at the point at which a huge shift in values and ideology took place whose focal points were antagonism toward and a successful culture wide campaign to overturn as much of those older values as possible. Senator Moynihan

Moynihan's views, especially his unfortunate and narrow-minded "Moynihan Report" (which has been almost totally discredited), are hardly "authoritative."

sounded a warning before the sixties were even over, and some of the best minds in American society have applied themselves to this problem for decades. We know that here, the correlation exists because of a causal relationship because we have come to know, sense then, just what lifestyles and attitudes tend to produce social pathology, especially in a broad, general sense across much of a subpopulation, and which tend to work against the development and incontinence of social pathology.

Again, what "pathology"? You seem unwilling to name anything specifically, and for that reason I am left with the suspicion that you are equivocating.

The Left has generated some very clever, if implausible excuses for why the cultural revolution of the sixties and seventies was really a good thing, and had no causal connection to the decline of western civilization since that time

Perhaps that is because the "decline of western civilization" is a figment of the Right Wing imagination. Or is this yet another of those times when "logic does not apply"?

(in a similar way in which they have attempted to explain away their ghastly mistakes in foreign policy and international relations) but serious, inquiring minds aren't buying it.

You mean like Iran Contra? Salvador? The Iraq War?

Further, how would you like the stuff you've pointed to above to be applied to your beloved Church? Utah has led the U.S. in bankruptcy for quite some time. Should we therefore assume that Mormonism is somehow related to this? Or what about American polygamy, so obviously the result of the teachings and leadership of Joseph Smith? Again, is Mormonism to blame for all the problems---"bleeding the beast," welfare chiselers, child abuse, child abandonment---wrought by polygamy?

Quote:
"Abuse" then, involves a definitional problem when the secularist attempts to deal with gospel contexts and concepts. Your definition seems to include exclusively the imposition of the will of one on another such that a given behavior occurs at the expense of the free will or rights of another; or in other words, when another's consent has been violated.

It seems increasingly that your definition of "immorality" would require one to believe in both telepathy and telekinesis, since, in effect, you appear to be claiming that a person's thoughts can result in "immoral" harm being done to others. Or did I misinterpret what you said? I would really love to get some clarification on this issue.

Scratch's limited intellect and imagination are on the verge of actually grasping something that should, at all events, be rather obvious. Thoughts influence behavior which in turn influences attitudes, perceptions, and, over time, charaterological patterns that, if pathological or dysfunctional, will inevitably effect others with whom we have relationships and, when a critical mass of such individuals are reached in a given society, effect the larger society as a whole. I do not see anything controversial or obtuse in this observation.[/quote]

Except for the fact that it is a logical fallacy, and, if applied to Mormonism, reveals some extraordinarily disturbing and ugly "truths."

Quote:
This is one valid definitional perspective, but far too limited in the context of LDS doctrine and philosophy.

You were asked at the outset to avoid using the gospel. So much for that, eh?

Although I didn't mention it to Roger, what he is en essence asking me to do here is ignore the epistemological and philosophical template that forms the core of the way in which I perceive the world and which forms the scaffolding upon which my perception of various issues are built. I see know reason why I should do this as neither Roger or Scratch have ever offered to argue for their own views outside of the fundamental assumptions that are the basis of their own perceptions of the matters at hand. If one wants to debate the validity of those fundamental assumptions and beliefs, then so be it, but I don't argue my position using the frame of reference of those who are hostile to it. That's a capitulation to my philosophical opponents at the outset. One does not let his opponents set the terms and frame of reference of the debate, epistemologically or psychologically.

I am not "setting the terms," Loran. These "terms" derive from Classical Rhetoric. If you want to claim that good old fashioned Rhetoric and Logic are antithetical to your religious views, then so be it, but don't try to claim that I am somehow inventing new terms here. You are rejecting long-standing philosophical and rhetorical traditions.

Let me see if I am understanding you. You are saying that immorality occurs (within the LDS context) when there is "consensual misuse of will between individuals"? That makes sense to me, however I fail to see how and why this singles out homosexuality as being bad in particular. It makes it seem really no different from two unmarried heteros having sexual relations.

Scratch is going around the sugar bowl again.

You know what Loran? You claim to really crave "deep philosophical" conversation, and yet you continue to dole out these little cheap shots. Why?

Did he read the post?

Yes, and I especially read the title of the thread, which lays out the basis for your condemnation of homosexuality.

Homosexuality, in a gospel context (a system of knowledge that identifies instances of truth to mortal human beings) is immoral because it will, if engaged in without repentance to the end of physical life, produce alienation from God in this life and the serious curtailing of eternal opportunities, potential, and happiness in the next phase of human existence. Hence, if morality is defined as "the integrity of relationship", then any kind of relationship which distracts, negates, or obviates our eternal progression is a relationship of disintegrity; it is one in which we are actually destroying one another rather than supporting each other's eternal progression toward becoming more like God. Hence, it is immoral, or lacking the moral integrity that is inherent in relationships that bring us closer to God and promote obedience to his counsel.

Hence. Fornication and, especially, adultery, are immoral because they destroy us spiritually, even if not having immediate consequences psychologically or emotionally (such as with fornication. Adultery is the betrayal of another's deepest trust and emotional commitment, and so involves a much more immediate kind of immorality that can end with severe psychological, emotional , and legal consequences long preceding the ultimate spiritual collision with reality).

Well, so we agree then, eh? I *did* get your proposition correctly. You are saying that homosexuality is no different, qualitatively and doctrinally speaking, than adultery, fornication, etc.

Just an aside I couldn't resist pointing out. Here is another of Scratch's classic left wing tactics of attempting to morally smear an philosophcal opponent thourgh innuendo. I have never, in any post anywhere, indicated either a hatred for or even mild dislike of "the civil rights" movemnent. But perhaps the "civil rights movement" I'm thinking of isn't the one Scratch has in mind. He'd do well to define that movement and its guiding intellectual and political lights before making any claim for my hatred of it.

Some "guiding lights": Martin Luther King; Malcolm X; Chief Justice Warren; Cesar Chavez; various women involved in the push for equal gender rights (such as Betty Friedan). Etc. People involved in the push to get everyone to realize that "tradition" isn't necessarily a good thing to base one's life upon.

Care to name your "pathologies"?

In any case, let's summarize. I believe you are saying:

1. Homosexuality is bad because the Gospel says so.
2. The Gospel is not logical.
3. A critique of your views really isn't possible, since your views transcend logic.
4. You are not making an argument, you are merely "explaining."
5. Some kind of "rejection" of the Gospel took place during the mid-sixties, which produced a number of "pathologies," about which tons of "literature" has been written.

Correct? Or off? Also, can you really complain if the sixties cultural revolution involved opposition to something which is not logical?

[_Coggins7]

An ancient Chinese philosopher (I believe it was King Fu Tze (Confucius) said it best:

When there is righteousness in the heart, there will be beauty in the character.
When there is beauty in the character, there will be harmony in the home.
When there is harmony in the home, there will be order in the nation.
When there is order in the nation, there will be peace in the world.

Probably Leftism's greatest failing is its perception of large scale human problems as matters of large scale political intervention as opposed to matters of the individual heart, where all of these problems have their origin.

Maybe the Left simply grew impatient cuz it wasn't being done Right???

This implies that the Left, or anyone else for that matter, without recourse to divine revelaton, has some oracle through which they have come to know how to "do it right". The gospel see's the major problems of the human condition as attributable to human weaknesses engendered through the Fall, and hence resolvable through the Atonement of Jesus Christ on an individual basis. When a critical mass of individuals who have accepted that Gospel and Atonement are reached, resolution of the world's primary problems would be attainable. The "Left" is a political catagory and a secular religion that sees human problems primarily as the result of forms of conditioning and oppression imposed on others by vast, impersonal cultural forces or in-group conspiracies against various groups. Hence, while the Gospel emphasizes free will and the individual's response to the claims of the Gospel, while the World emphasizes social control, coercive manipulation, and collectivism (enforced equality of condition) in an attempt to create the "heaven on earth" that is the goal of their impatient righteous indignation.

The utter, and many times disasterous failure of everthing the "Left" has ever tried to accomplish is its own best refutation.

I may be wrong, but i always sense the 'blame' for our obvious social/cultural/political/religious dysfunctions is always directed to 'them', to 'others'. Seldom do i recognize Loran, and Associates, being a part of the problem? Am i wrong in that observation?

As long as we're speaking of mass social or political movements or philosophies, then yes, I take no blame for much of what has transpired in the world during my life time. I have always voted in a manner such that some of those problems could be minimized. As an individual, I have never claimed perfection or that I have not contributed, at least in my own limited environment, as an individual to larger social problems by being one element of the larger whole. But again, that is a problem for the Gospel and for philosopy, not politics (unless of course, one breaks serious laws, and must be sacntioned by government for the safety of others).

Marx wasn't born until 1818, died 1883. His treatise wasn't popularized until 1850; yet you seem to hold his philosophy responsible for every manner of social injustice and suffering. Why so? Not to derail the thread, but...

I've never made such a claim. Marx does have to be credited, however, with the fomentation and popularizatoin of some of the most catastrophic ideas about economics and human social organization in human history. Much of our modern woes, none the least of which is the abject ignornace and superstition surrounding economics, is, at the present moment, not so much attributable to Marx directly as to Antonio Gramsci and the later Frankfurt School of "Cultural Marxism" that grew up around further refinements of his philosophy and the pushing of its major concepts into other areas. The sixties were the Cultural Marxist moment in modern history. The Cultural Marxists extended Marxian economic and historical analysis into the whole of western culture, which became, for modern leftists the by now quite familar triumvate of race, class, and gender. Other catagories that became ripe for revolutionary consciousness over the last 40 years or so are, or course, sexual orientation, age, disability, ethinicity (an ideological subcatagory of race, for all intents and purposes), and anything else that can be found to be an ideological foil for the dreaded white eurocentric patriarchal capitalist male.

Back to...what is we are discussing? Oh yes. You state, a fornicator, or an adulteryist can never know peace of mind or be a fit and reponsble member of society. IF i recall some of your claims correctly??

I've never made any such statement.