Log recently provided some essential reading at Latter-day Commentary. His instruction may not help you "get ahead" in this world. But it may help you get to heaven!
It might also help you save your children.
Parents usually want "what's best" for their children. Many parents do everything they can to keep their children "safe". They supervise them. They warn them. They limit their choices. They even compel them to do the right thing.
Do you see a problem here?
No power or influence -- no lasting power or influence, anyway -- can or ought to be maintained except by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness and pure knowledge. These are the ties that bind! These are the ligatures that bring a prodigal son (or daughter) back from the brink! Back to his (or her) father and mother!
A "wayward" child may go astray no matter what you do. But the only thing that will bring someone back for good is if they see the wisdom of your instruction, if they have confidence in the truthfulness and efficacy of what you've taught them, if they know you truly love them.
Nothing else matters.
Compulsion inspires only resentment and contempt in the heart of the one so compelled. It robs the one being compelled of agency, limits their accountability, infantilizes their development and sets them up for destruction.
Indeed, damnation.
It is better to let a child fail -- by making poor choices in little things -- and to let adults fail -- even in big things! -- than to take away another's agency to act for themselves and to render that person morally, intellectually and spiritually inert.
Virtue is its own reward. But happiness does not just happen by being virtuous.
Wickedness certainly never was happiness, but being forgiven for having been wicked, after having repented, is happiness indeed!
The one infused with overwhelming gratitude for having been forgiven much is happier still than the one for whom little, or nothing, is forgiven.
When we rob our children of the chance to make mistakes, even big mistakes, and then be forgiven, we rob them of eternal joy and happiness.
First teach correct principles. Then let them govern themselves. Rinse and repeat.
Even if they disbelieve you. Even if they disobey you. Even if they waste away their entire temporal existence and inheritance which you have so unselfishly and lovingly bequeathed to them!
In the end, if you love them, if you want what's best for them, you will let them go and let them do as they desire.
Then, if you are always there for them, looking out for them, waiting patiently, even longingly, even long-sufferingly -- not "enabling" with permissive indulgence and support, not encouraging to continue in sin, certainly not condemning and distancing and disowning -- but beckoning "home" again, "waiting in the wings" as it were with a robe and a ring and a fatted calf and a party, to help "restore" that which was lost by trial and error and mistake, even as a loving father awaits the return of his prodigal son, then you may, indeed, with them find everlasting joy.
For then -- and only then! -- will righteousness be cemented and become eternal with the eternal ligature of love.
"not 'enabling' with permissive indulgence and support"
ReplyDeleteMosiah 2:21
21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.
Luke 15:12
12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
"I am a crack addict. Will you give me $10 to buy a rock?"
Delete"I'm going to rob a bank. I need to buy a gun. Can I borrow $100?"
"I know I'm 400 pounds! Give me another piece of cake, dagnabbit!"
The scriptures say we should not turn someone out to perish. We should not allow someone to go naked while we, ourselves, have clothes enough and to spare. We must not let another go hungry if we, too, have food to eat.
"[P]ermissive indulgence and support" implies "aiding and abetting". Willfully sustaining another in evil is to commit evil. It is to become an accessory to the crime. It is to become part of the "combination", secret or otherwise.
"Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" means sometimes saying "No, it's time to go to bed. You need your sleep. I will not let you use my television to entertain yourself any longer. Lights out." (Even the sun goes down eventually. Certainly God has something to do with that!) It means saying "No, I will not support your drug habit, but I will pay for your methadone treatment." (Are you really advocating, Log, that if someone were to ask you to shoot them, you would?) But it also means saying "Yes, I will bail you out of jail. Go and sin no more."
Then I suppose you won't complain when people enforce paternalistic standards upon you, right?
DeleteIt is by the wicked that the wicked are punished, after all.
DeleteSo much for "judge not," "give unto them that ask," and "thou shalt not suffer the beggar to put up his petition to you in vain."
DeleteWhere does a parent draw the line? Did you let your children refuse chores if that is what they wanted to do? Could they dismiss homework or school if they were not in the mood? Free agency is important, but some basic rules need to be enforced, right?
ReplyDeleteDo you like rules to be enforced upon you?
ReplyDeleteWhat then does the Golden Rule imply about your enforcing of rules?
Do we let our eight-year-old play in a busy street? Or allow them to "choose" to stay overnight at a pedophile's house because they find his home videos entertaining?
DeleteOf course, I'm being absurd. The truth is: most children -- not all, but practically all -- will embrace and follow "correct principles" if properly taught.
But the time comes (somewhere in adolescence) when even the best of children will begin to push boundaries. When a righteous parent "pushes" back -- it must be with persuasion -- and if that doesn't work -- long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, kindness, pure knowledge and love unfeigned. The parent is being tested, just as much as the child is.
Homework and chores will mean nothing -- they will actually be damning -- if a child "learns" to exercise unrighteous dominion by their enforcement.
So... what was the answer?
DeleteI'm waiting for you to answer!
DeleteI'm waiting for you to answer!
DeleteThere is no enforcement of rules, because I personally dislike rules being enforced upon me.
DeleteThe Golden Rule cannot be enforced.
I admit, log, I have a hard time figuring out how to implement the ideal golden rule as you are espousing with my 4 year old.
DeleteI am grateful for the structure, enforcement, and guidance, and even discipline I got as a child. I am glad I did not have a restraint-free childhood.
Well, that's something you have to work out between God and yourself. For me, these are not hard questions, because I admit to myself what my own real desires and real motivations are.
DeleteSo, I supposed my statement about gratitude for restraints as a child aren't my real desire and motivations?
DeleteI suppose it is possible, it is hard for any of us to really imagine what we would be without our past.
Right now my desire is for my 5 month old to get good naps during the day, so my 4 year old is restricted to the basement because she can't stop herself from yelling and shouting and wakes him up.
Golden rule? I don't know, but it sure seems to be required right now.
I'm really not trying to be flippant, I really like the golden rule. As with much in life, I struggle between the principle and implementation. I supposed this is why I seem to have a hard time unlocking the heavens.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs you just said on Tim's blog, "What I’ve found is if I feel the need to justify myself, it’s because my motives are impure."
DeleteI am properly convicted.
Still no closer to now how to proceed, but more contrite now.
I didn't read that as your desires as a child, nor even how you wish to be treated now, but as a retconning of your present intents and values upon your childhood. But it doesn't matter, since I'm not living your life, and I'm not you.
DeleteDo the best you can. As long as you are sincere, you will receive insight.
And when the heavens are unlocked... the full meaning of the law is, too.
Log, why don't you tell us what "the golden rule" looks like in ANY of these real-world situations mentioned above? Jesus says "Give to them who ask." So, when the guy runs at the cop and shouts "Shoot me!", should the cop comply? Should the guy shoot the cop, too? (After all, he wants to be shot himself! He just found his best friend in bed with his wife and he killed them both. Now he WANTS to die. So, in his insanity, do you "help him out"?)
DeleteBut, most importantly, how do you raise a child -- in concrete terms, not abstractions -- in your "enforcement-free" environment?
"No! I don't want to get a vaccination!"
"I don't want to eat that! Give me ice cream!"
"Hey, dad, I'm going to jump off the 3rd floor balcony with my umbrella. I don't believe you when you say it won't work. Give it back!"
I mean, really, Log. If you can't persuade your five-year-old not to lie down in the middle of the street under a blanket, you just let them do it and learn a lesson? Come on!
Now please explain yourself.
Will,
DeleteYou give up too easily. As a scientist, I would have thought you would have more intellectual curiosity.
1. Thou shalt not kill.
2. D&C 121:41-46.
3. Join them.
Do your own legwork, bro! Giving up and asking for the answers from someone else is how we got a Church in the first place.
More detail about laying down in the street with your 5-year-old.
DeleteWhen would you want to be compelled for your own good?
Think on it.
It seems to me every child "grows into" self determination as they get older, they gain in capacity to choose.
DeleteIt is wisdom indeed to know where your child is on that continuum.
I certainly say "no" too often to things that don't matter, instead of persuading, reasoning together, or just letting my kids choose what they are going to do.
Enforcing and just laying down the law is certainly the "easier" way.
That is the beginnings of wisdom - to realize we are taking the "easy way." It is hard to buck our customs and do things another way.
DeleteSee? Insight is happening already.
As I just told Will, "Know Thyself."
Log,
DeleteYour penchant for terse replies leaves MUCH to be desired in this case.
I invited you to RESPOND to the "real world" examples. Do you vaccinate an uncompliant child (infant) against their will? Do you let a three year old attempt to JUMP over a campfire? (Did I understand you correctly...Do you JOIN your child in lying down in a busy street under a blanket while playing "hide and go seek"??!)
I asked you to get real, not (just) quote me scripture. I told you: We don't commit or "aid and abbet" sin. So quoting "thou shalt not kill" doesn't answer the question about "Do you give to him who asks what he asks for?". (I asked the question to demonstrate that "Give to him that asks" DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK!)
Do you fund your child's drug habit? Pay the bill for your college student to shack up with a prostitute (because he asked)? Just say "Oh well" when you show up to your house and a felon has moved in (and changed the locks!) saying to you: "I've paid to rent this place. I have a contract signed by some guy (I don't really know who it is) and now this place is mine, so get lost"?
You seem to assert that "enforcement" and "compulsion" are NEVER appropriate. I'm asking you to please give us examples of raising small children -- who are unamenable to persuasion, but who are very capable of doing great harm to themselves and others -- without "coercion" (at times)...and please don't wave away the realities of "enforcement" by calling it the "easy way out" or impugning the heart of the parent...until your naked children are running down the street and neighbors are threatening to call CPS. (Pray tell, how do you deal with that, too, without simply picking them up and compelling them to come indoors?)
You haven't answered a single critical question, but have resorted to rhetoric and abstraction. Please address the questions presented. It will be much appreciated.
Very well, Will. For you, I will play the role of prophet, as you ask me to explain the law; and I know you are dealing with me as you would not be dealt with, for you answered me not when I asked "when would you wish to be compelled for your own good?" Yet if you had answered it, you would know the answers to your own questions.
DeleteThis isn't rhetoric; the law is "ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER YE WOULD THAT MEN SHOULD DO UNTO YOU, DO YE EVEN SO UNTO THEM." Therefore, when you are unable or unwilling to answer "What are those things that I will that men should do to me," you are announcing you are unable or unwilling to keep the law.
1. I do not vaccinate unless I am compelled by law. When I am compelled by law, I have no real choice in the matter.
2. I would only wish to be compelled for my own good under two circumstances - if I am incompetent or the danger is immediate and I cannot be warned in time. So compel your 3 year old if you wish.
3. You didn't say "busy street." Why are you moving the goalposts? Hmm?
4. We do aid and abet sin. You did not apply your heart to understanding the scripture I cited, unfortunately. If even God upheld and sustained Hitler, then who are you to refrain from giving $5 from a junkie, inasmuch as you style yourself his disciple?
5. "Thou shalt not kill" answered your question about the fool who is trying to commit "suicide by cop." You have competing requests. Serve the master you desire to be rewarded by: God, or the fool. Your rhetorical question wasn't rhetorical, but actually demonstrated the principle.
6. You fund the drug habit if he asks you to. "Give to them that ask." Serve your master.
7. The prodigal's father didn't dictate where the provided funds went, did he? "Give to them that ask." Serve your master.
8. Why not say "Oh well?" "And of him who taketh thy good ask them not again." Serve your master.
9. Do I seem to assert enforcement and compulsion are NEVER appropriate? Or do I just frame the question in a way that you refrain from answering straightforwardly because it reveals that you do to others what you don't want done to you?
10. When you choose to answer my question: "When would I want to be compelled for my own good," then you can answer how to raise your small children. When you realize that laws are requests too, then you will see just how stringent and straight and narrow the Golden Rule really is.
You haven't answered the critical questions and you avoid answering them because you fear you might be shown to be wrong. I don't get it, Will. For someone willing to get tossed out of Church for merely stating his beliefs in class, what's stopping you from performing the rigorous self-analysis required to keep the Golden Rule?
And with respect to #2, only compel your suicidal 3 year old if you are unable to explain it to their understanding and the danger is immediate.
DeleteOr however you would like to be treated. Take your pick.
Or let them find out how fire really feels and see if they ever do that again. A burned finger might be the permanent solution.
Delete"Impunging the heart of the parent." Pfft. I did no such thing.
DeleteLog,
DeleteI think your question of my motivations (for not answering) are misguided. I simply didn't answer because I thought the answer was absurdly obvious! I thought your failure to answer indicated the motivations you claim of me, but, oh well!
1. Most people would consider a failure to vaccinate their children (at least for major diseases) irresponsible. But, obviously, you would not want to be vaccinated. I remember getting chicken pox at 18 years old. There was a medicine available that would have relieved all my suffering, but my mother didn't give it to me. I am amazed that some would "want" themselves (or their children) to suffer so.
2. What if the danger is not immediate...or if there's no danger at all...they're just simply running through the hotel lobby butt naked, all three of them, having fun? Do you "reason" with them and if they say, "Nah", you just let them?! Is that how you think Jesus parented?
3. Street. Busy street. Railroad track. Abandoned alleyway. Dumpster. Use your imagination. Do you really say to yourself "Hey, a car comes by here on average once every 30 minutes. One just past by. I think I'll lie down here with my kid in the street and take a nap for 20 minutes"? Get real!!!!
4. God did not say: "I'm going to extend Hitler's life to help him murder a few hundred thousand more Jews." Do you think He would say: "I'm going to give you $10 so you can go break the law by buying crack?" or "Here's $100 to buy a gun to rob a bank"? or "How about some more cake to make you even fatter and more unhealthy?" or "Sure, bro! I'll marry you to your boyfriend!" Maybe you do. I don't.
5. We agree.
(To be continued...)
6. You're wrong.
Delete7. There is no specific commandment against making porno movies. Taping yourself having sex -- and selling it -- is NOT against the commandments, per se, is it? But wouldn't doing so (in some imagined context) encourage others to commit sin? Do you think God approves of (and "supports") making porno movies? You are insinuating that God -- the giver of every "good" gift -- gives good gifts even to those who use them for bad. (And you are right.) But crack isn't a good gift! Giving $10 for crack is the same thing as giving crack. You pervert (in my view) the "right" ways of the Lord. Care to share an explicit example from the scriptures of the Lord (or any prophet) giving something to someone he knew they would use for evil? (I can think of Jesus giving Judas license -- meaning opportunity -- to betray Him. But does this mean Christ "aided and abetted" His own murder?)
But about the prodigal's father: the scriptures do not say the father gave his son his inheritance with the express understanding that he would squander it with harlots. The son's inheritance, as a matter of course, was his birthright. What the father gave to his son was intended for his good (potentially), not evil. "Here, son, go squander your riches with harlots. Believe me, in the end, it will do you good!"
Hardly.
8. Hey, Mexico! Log's house is available to all comers, no requests denied!
Why not?
Because it is not meet that ye run faster than ye are able. I appreciate your zeal. But you would be irresponsible toward your family (apparently). (Unless you trust that "God will provide" and He has said as much. Has He?) How does willfully allowing your children to become homeless -- at the hands of a thief and con man -- fulfill your parental responsibility to protect and provide for them? (You can live on the street, shirtless and foodless in service of your Lord. But there are countless examples from the scriptures of the Lord directing others NOT to acquiesce to evil.)
9. I've told you before: I DON'T want to continue in (or perpetrate) evil. Anyone HELPING me commit evil isn't really be doing me any favors -- except in the sense that "tasting good and evil" helps me choose the good. But God doesn't give "evil" gifts, does He?
10. "When would I want to be compelled for my own good?" When it benefits me.
You wrote: "You haven't answered the critical questions and you avoid answering them because you fear you might be shown to be wrong."
I didn't know you were a mind reader, Log!
What else is there to say to a student who claims they are competent but asks you to do their homework for them, as you have of me?
Delete1. Apparently you think God omitted vaccinations from his design plan for the human body. If you think you are competent to tell him he screwed up and you're going to improve upon his invention, you go, guy. You go, indeed. As for me, I don't harbor quite such a low estimation of his handiwork. If you believe you would like people to compel you to be vaccinated, and you sincerely act on that, then present your case to God at the judgement. If, on the other hand, you aren't sincere, then I would rethink. That's just me, though.
2. What if? Adam and Eve ran around naked, so yeah, I think that's how Jesus parented. You got better information?
3. I am not going to rewrite your challenges for you, and me and mine have, in fact, laid in the street together stargazing. Not a big issue. Cannot see why someone would make it one. Get real, indeed.
4. He didn't? How do you know? You seem to make an awful lot of questionable assumptions.
5. Congratulations.
And I'll continue right now. You are not applying the rule in a consistent manner. You are trying to bend the rule to fit preconceived judgements.
6. We shall see. You should have done your own homework rather than pressed me to give you the answers.
Delete7. It's like you haven't read the textbook.
" 43 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
8. It's like you haven't read the textbook.
" 28 ¶Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life."
9. It's like you haven't read the textbook. I already cited the relevant section, though.
10. Then that's how you will be dealt with at the end. You and I value different things. I value freedom.
A mind reader? No. Just an observer and a rememberer of patterns. The simplest explanation of reluctance to answer straightforward questions.
I don't get it, Will. You cannot be naive enough to think I will say "Gee, Will's logic-chopping and philosopher's nit-picking questions sure are making me rethink my commitment to honoring the Savior's teachings!" You cannot be naive enough to think I will say "gee, the consequences of honoring the Savior's teachings are so negative and unpleasant that I will not do this thing to that other person even though it is something the Savior had asked me to do and it is something I wish others would do to me." I mean, imagine if Jesus said "You know, this Atonement thing is really unpleasant and people are just abusing me anyways, screw it all."
DeleteYou cannot think even if you appear to "win" in an argument with me that I will cease doing what I do, unless you really don't know me. But you do.
So you cannot rationally be thinking to sway me. Therefore who, exactly, are you seeking to convince?
But if you shrink from unpleasant circumstances and consequences, maybe discipleship is not your cup of tea. Maybe you'd like religion? Maybe you'd like someone to preach to you? Maybe you'd like a hierarchy to submit to which can guarantee your exaltation in some kind of heaven?
I mean, they have a church or two set up just like that already, if that's your cup of tea. I think the Catholics would agree Jesus's teachings are just an example of divine hyperbole, too.
And, finally, if you do not see how the positions you have staked out in disagreement here in the comments actually contradict your own words in the post up at the top, then maybe there is a more fundamental problem here.
DeleteWhat's going on?
"Therefore, when you are unable or unwilling to answer "What are those things that I will that men should do to me," you are announcing you are unable or unwilling to keep the law." = "Impugning the heart of the parent".
DeleteNo, Will. I am saying you have no good reason for failing to do your own homework; that you refused to answer the question because you seek to hide your counsel while impugning mine.
DeleteAnd my last word on this thread is this: the law is simple. It only looks ridiculous when you start with an incompatible judgement and seek to wrest the law to fit your preconceived judgement. Then you may wax outraged that I say the law implies this or that which is incompatible with your judgements, because your judgements represent your immoveable pegs. Your judgements are your starting positions to which everything else must conform.
That's not how it is for me. For me, the law is the immoveable peg, and everything else revolves around it. The law is not partial, therefore I cannot be. I cannot withhold from my enemies and be in compliance with the law. I cannot compel competent moral agents. If they can become competent through instruction, then I must instruct. If they are not correctably incompetent, I may compel them in as light a manner as possible for their own safety.
These aren't hard questions IF you start with the law. If you start anywhere else, you will find that the law contradicts you. This is, of course, only a problem if following the law is in fact your goal.
I sought to give you opportunity (for the benefit of everyone reading here) to describe for us what application of the principles you espouse would "look like" in the real world. Were there any instances in which compulsion would be justified? Thank you for clarifying that. (I think you are far more permissive than most people -- or prophets! -- would tolerate, but I wouldn't call that a sin. In fact, I'd like to see how that works for you.) I'm glad you took the time to explicate your understanding for us.
DeleteI perceive, however, that, in some matters, your "application" of the "rule" you espouse is almost a perverse exaggeration, or unintended-by-God application of the rule. But that may just be my perception.
And, I must say, I do not understand how you can justify giving crack to drug addicts by citing "do good to them that hate you". Care to clarify?
I'm not trying to dissuade you from following the Savior's teachings. I'm just not sure the Savior's teaching are what you say they are (your quotations of His words, notwithstanding). To quote the Dread Pirate Roberts (Wesley): "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Just as you don't know anything until you experience it...and just as you decline to infer understanding unless and until it is clearly spelled out for you (by discounting "intuition"), your application of the Lord's commandments, at times, lacks nuance. It is literalistic. Which isn't bad. But that doesn't make it "right" either. There is more to the story.
My effort is (in part) to explore "what more" there might be to the story.
I was too tired (or "busy"!) last night to continue this discussion. I don't find it acrimonious or contentious at all, but perhaps even a playful "exercise", so I'll continue:
Delete1. God apparently "forgot" to integrate some kind of "antibacterial" protection sufficient to overcome infections as might be encountered during amputations, etc., during the Civil War. Are surgeons today "remiss" for taking such precautions as sterilizing instruments and washing hands with soap and water before operating? Or does that demonstrate a lack of faith in God's "perfect" creation? God also neglected to provide cars in the Garden of Eden. Does that mean we should walk?
2. So Jesus would let His children run around naked, like Adam and Eve. But don't I recall hearing somewhere something about Him making coats of skins for them? Then again, David was a man "after the Lord's own heart" and he put on his own bare-chested display. I'm almost hesitant to gaze into heaven, now, Log, afraid of what images I might find there! ;o)
3. Children do any number of dumb and dangerous things. Should we let them? Obviously not! But to you it is apparently not so obvious. Then again, you say compulsion is warranted when the danger is great, the opportunity to teach insufficient, or the agent is incompetent. And, in theory, I would agree with you. Too often, spanking (or whatever other compulsion is imployed, for minor indiscretions) is, in fact, taking "the easy way out". So there. We agree! (You're just more permissive, ap-parent-ly!)
4. And this demonstrates (as I see it) your great strength / weakness: you can focus like a laser on a gnat -- and circumscribe the great whole with an over-arching doctrine or dictum (your strength); but you sometimes fail to intuit basic verities, that are implicitly understood (your weakness).
For example, I say God did not / could not / would not say "Sure, bro! I'll marry you to your boyfriend!" (among other such evils). The scriptures don't actually explicitly state that God would refuse to marry two men to each other. So you say "Why not?" (as if that makes a valid an argument).
Well, in the immortal words of South Park episode 712: "dum-da-dum-dum!"
(To be continued...)
The conversation has moved away from your disputations. See the final comment in the thread below.
DeleteSometimes bankrobbers, drug dealers, even terrorists enlist little children to do their bidding. Jesus said we must become as little children. So you, it would seem -- that the law might not be broken -- have God Himself, at the behest of others, act like a "little child" and facilitate and conspire to rob banks, deal drugs and murder! And that, my friend, is absurd.
DeleteWe must be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. God does not intend for us to become the servant of evil -- even though we, like Ammon, may serve those who are evil.
Yet Ammon did not commit evil, but good. He protected the king's flocks -- even by violence! (So violence can be good?) And he attended to the (evil) king's horses and chariots.
But he did NOT go on marauding missions at the king's behest, or acquire for the king fair young maidens to serve as the king's royal mistresses.
"How do you know he didn't?" you might ask. And I would say: there again is the stunning "black hole" in your reasoning! You only accept what you experience...and what you read explicitly in scripture. It appears that if it's not there -- and you can't answer the question "Why not?" satisfactorily to your mind -- you assume it could be there...in this case, to input evil actions and evil gifts to the Lord.
I strongly disagree with you.
(Hold it...I'm having an epiphany here...you don't involve yourself with intent...you don't judge. You just give!)
Evil actions arise from the evil intents of the agent to whom the good gift is given, not with God, who is simply the giver. (I don't think you seriously argue that God can be evil!) Good gifts are given by God that good might be done. (Otherwise the agent from whom the good gift was withheld could say, "I had no power or opportunity to do good!") And you would agree with me on that (I think).
But a servant of God must decline to give a gift when he knows (like Mormon did, regarding his military service offered to an oppressive and offensive regime) that the gift would be used for evil. It is profanity to say God gives evil gifts for evil, or even good gifts for evil, because He is bound by some higher law (in this case, the Golden Rule you champion) which would make even the devil himself God's "master"!
That's insane!
Quote scriptures all you want. I think you wrest them to make this point. Consistently applying a rule for a rule's sake is not wisdom; it is being pedantic and legalistic. It violates the spirit of the law. "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" one would argue. The exception to "the rule" -- not to "work" on the sabbath, but to nonetheless do good -- answers to the spirit of the law, not the letter.
(To be continued....)
6. You would (ap-parent-ly) administer poison, buy guns, heck, even load bullets because someone asks you -- knowing that evil would ensue...because they told you it would! (Or am I missing something?)
DeleteThe scriptures say "Do not drink wine to excess". How about to get high? How about to just feel "normal"? Or even to feel "good" again?
Does administering poison to those accustomed to it (even dependent upon it) do them "good" or "evil"?
That's a good question. Maybe we should follow the Spirit (and not the "letter of the law") in this matter.
That's just my humble opinion.
7. The key phrase (you even quoted it!) is "do good to them".
An addict, to some degree, is incompetent. (By definition! They're an addict! They have forfeited agency! They are enslaved!) Do you strengthen their chains? Or -- by benign neglect and dissent -- help break them?
I lean toward the latter. You lean toward the former. Or rather, you do not concern yourself with intent. You don't judge. You simply give. An interesting approach! "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian!" (Acts 26:28.)
But, forgive me, if your argument, to me, seems to parrot that of the airline copilot. The pilot's plane is "caught" in a nosedive. So the copilot tells him: "The sooner we hit the ground, the faster we'll get out of this nosedive! So full speed ahead!" And he gives the pilot's engines more thrust.
I don't think that is wise.
(To be continued...)
8. Peter was commanded to leave all and follow Christ. Have you been?
Delete9 & 10. (Wrapping things up here.) I believe your dictums "not to judge" and "to give freely to him who asks", while running counter to intuition, may, in fact -- no, probably are, in fact -- the Lord's will, strange as it seems, in virtually all cases.
But there is more to it than merely following dictums. And it is not wisdom to give away the store (as Joseph Smith did) but to sell it (as Joseph of Egypt did!).
Ah, now I'm playing with you.
I don't care who "wins" this "argument". I just want to learn what's right. Thanks, my friend. I see your point and appreciate its simplicity and universal application. You are teaching Einsteinian physics while I am mired in Newtonian mechanics. Thanks for sharing.
Does God never paternalistically decide what's best for us, and say "no"?
DeleteIs that not what He did when He denied these requests?
(From Moses) And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send. (Exodus 4:13, JST.)
(From Elijah) But he himself went a day's journey into the wilderness, and came and sat down under a juniper tree; and he requested for himself that he might die; and said, It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers. (1 Kings 19:4, JST.)
(From Paul) And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Cor. 12:7-9, JST.)
It would seem that God denied all these requests because He knew what was best, and exercised what some would call paternalism.
But if this kind of paternalism is contrary to the golden rule, why hasn't God ceased to be God?
Anonymous, are you requiring something from others you are not doing yourself? Do you do chores cheerfully and invite your children to join you? Do they see you as a lifelong learner who studies in the evening after a busy day? Or do you hold others to a different standard than you do yourself? (I'm not assuming you do or don't. These are the questions I ask myself under the circumstances you describe.)
ReplyDeleteI take it back; I will contribute further. There is profit to be had from this conversation.
ReplyDeleteI asked when you wanted to be compelled. You said this.
"10. "When would I want to be compelled for my own good?" When it benefits me."
That's paternalism. That's the rule you follow. That's not the Golden Rule. That's why what I say seems wrong or perverse to you. That's the rule the hierarchy follows.
The guy in the premortal existence who proposed we should follow the rule of paternalism lost the support of the Council.
Now, how would it be to be in a society of people who all thought they were justified in imposing themselves, their values, their views, and their solutions upon you just as soon as they thought you might be benefited from it?
That is, what would it be like in a society where others interfered with and compelled you anytime they thought you were wrong?
But wait - isn't that essentially what we have now?
Is that a society you'd really like to keep, eternally, worlds without end?
Well, because God keeps the Golden Rule, he's going to give you the society you say you want at the end. The one where everyone follows the same rule you do in relating to others.
Paternalism is what is undermined by the commandment "Man shall not smite, neither shall he judge."
DeleteBrilliant, Log. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
DeletePlease forgive me - I don't play with this stuff, and I cannot tell - are you serious?
DeleteOf course I'm serious. You've changed my mind, touched my heart and rocked my world...again. You have my gratitude.
DeleteI hope I do not soon forget what has taken me so many decades to hear and learn from you. (Mastery, alas, if ever to be achieved by me, will undoubtedly require many more years.)
At least I can now get started.
Agency is the right to choose the rules one is going to follow, the values one is going to act upon, the power one wishes to yield to. Agency is, in other words, self-determination.
ReplyDeleteThe addict has not, in fact, forfeited agency. He's acting according to his values, and yielding to the power he's chosen to submit to.
John Stossel once disguised himself as a beggar, and sat on the street with a tin cup and a sign that read "need beer money, please help," and people gave him money, but were they keeping the golden rule by doing that? What if the sign had said "heroine addict, need money for fix," and people still put money in his cup, would they be keeping the golden rule? Would they be being (wrongly) paternalistic if they decided that giving the admitted heroine addict money for a fix wasn't in his best interest? If you past such an addict on the street, I doubt that you (in your present state of mind) would want anyone to give you money for a fix, and I know that Jesus wouldn't want anyone to give him money for such a purpose. But it is true that the addict wouldn't be asking you for drug money if he didn't want it, and some might say that if you were in his condition (in his state of mind) you would want that money for the same thing. That it's "paternalism" for you to decide what's best for him, that you wouldn't want someone else deciding what's best for you, and that therefore the golden rule requires you to give the addict whatever money he asks you for, for whatever reason he says he wants it, as long as you have it to give. That the golden rule, in fact, requires all requests be granted (unless they explicitly violate some commandment of God, the way mercy killing would explicitly violate "thou shalt not kill.") Is that true, or could there perhaps be some reason Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," instead of "do unto others as they would have you do unto them"? Does "as you would have them do unto you" imply "as 'you,' with your values, and in your state of mind" would have them do unto you? Or does "would have them do unto you" imply as you "would" want done if you had their values, and were in their state of mind?
Delete"[C]ould there perhaps be some reason Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," instead of "do unto others as they would have you do unto them"? -- Anonymous
DeleteGood point, Anonymous! (Now please use another screen name!
Also, you asked about specifics for within families.
ReplyDeleteI found this in your blogroll: http://2ndwitness.com/4/post/2015/04/first-things-first-real-power-without-force.html
Good stuff.
This post and the comments have been a great help to me, as I've pondered, prayed, and struggled over this idea (that of not compelling and following the Golden Rule) for some time now in relation to my small children. I have been programmed to think paternalistically, and thinking outside that box is still difficult.
ReplyDeleteLog, you said that you would want to be compelled if you were incompetent. That opens up the question of how do I determine if someone is incompetent? Aren't small children incompetent? Competence is such a subjective thing that it seems to put me right back where I started, wondering what I should do.
One scripture that came to mind while thinking over this was the following:
38 ¶Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word.
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. (Luke 10)
Here, Christ refuses to do what Martha asked him to do, seemingly disobeying His own counsel. Yet, the situation is more complicated because it involves the agency of not one, but two people. Martha essentially asked Christ to compel Mary. How does this fit into the picture?
Also, was Captain Moroni justified in compelling the kingmen to take up arms? (Alma 51:14-15) or to compel the Lamanites to bury their dead? (Alma 53:1). If he was unjustified (and therefore sinned) in doing so, then why does it say "if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men." (Alma 48:17)?
What principle was Christ operating under when we overthrew the tables of the moneychangers in the temple? (Matthew 21:12)
What am I missing here?
First, did you read the blog I linked to from Will's blogroll? It's got a lot of gold in it.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I simply ask myself questions.
Q: When would you actively desire to be compelled?
A: If I were incurably incompetent. Thus small children and the ignorant are saved.
Q: What is competence?
A: Competence means understanding the consequences of one's choices.
Q: What is incurable competence?
A: Incurable incompetence means neither instruction nor experience gives understanding sufficient to produce an optimal decision. More or less.
Q: How can you tell when someone is incurably incompetent?
A: Neither instruction nor experience relevantly changes their decisionmaking processes. Babies are incurably incompetent. Small children become progressively curably competent. Brain-damaged individuals or others with certain developmental disabilities may be incurably incompetent.
Q: How can you tell when someone is curably incompetent?
A: Instruction or experience relevantly changes their decisionmaking processes.
Q: How can you tell when someone is competent?
A: The ability to recognize a correct answer is the same capacity required to produce a correct answer in the first place. You have to be competent to recognize competence.
Q: What happens if all available teachers are incompetent?
A: Then you better be good at learning from experience.
What you are missing is that either the temple is only figuratively the house of God, or it literally is.
Also, there is no cookie-cutter morality. If you follow the golden rule perfectly, you and I may well do something different when confronted with the same situation, though neither of us would sin.
We are all special unique snowflakes. Quit trying to make everything fit in boxes.
If the golden rule really implies that all requests be granted (except when granting a request would violate an explicit commandment, such as "thou shalt not kill, and now maybe when someone is incurably incompetent), how could we both keep the golden rule perfectly, and do different things when confronted with the same situation? Say an addict with trac marks all over his arms asks both of us for drug money. And (since I was once asked for money by a belligerent street beggar with a very large pair of scissors in his hand, in Newark New Jersey, in 1970 or 80 something, and I still don't know if he was trying to mug me), let's also say this addict has something that could be taken as a weapon when he makes his request, he's a little shaky, and either of us could easily disarm him. I drive him to a twenty four hour rehab, and get him to check himself in (because he really has no place else to go, and because he knows he'll be facing a criminal charge if he doesn't.) You give him the money, and continue on your way relatively unconcerned about what he does with it. If we both have perfect understanding of the golden rule, I don't see how we could both be perfectly keeping it (and both be without sin.) Either it implies his request should be granted (because he wants you to grant it), or it doesn't (because I know it's not in his best interest.) And the question of what it does actually require seems pretty important, because you've said that if we don't keep it perfectly we'll be cast out.
DeleteOr, if you want, you can try to make everything fit in a box, you know, one-size-fits-all, but that's not going to work too well.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor the beginning of what I think about Moroni, there's this.
ReplyDeletehttp://latterdaycommentary.com/2014/10/23/contend-against-no-church-save-it-be-the-church-of-the-devil/
As for the kingmen example, it appears the kingmen were, by law, required to defend their homelands. Moroni asked for, and received, legal authority to compel them to honor the law. When they fought against him rather than yield to the law, he cut them down.
The law is a request, too.
13 And it came to pass that when the men who were called king-men had heard that the Lamanites were coming down to battle against them, they were glad in their hearts; and they refused to take up arms, for they were so wroth with the chief judge, and also with the people of liberty, that they would not take up arms to defend their country.
14 And it came to pass that when Moroni saw this, and also saw that the Lamanites were coming into the borders of the land, he was exceedingly wroth because of the stubbornness of those people whom he had labored with so much diligence to preserve; yea, he was exceedingly wroth; his soul was filled with anger against them.
15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.
16 For it was his first care to put an end to such contentions and dissensions among the people; for behold, this had been hitherto a cause of all their destruction. And it came to pass that it was granted according to the voice of the people.
17 And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.
18 And it came to pass that the armies did march forth against them; and they did pull down their pride and their nobility, insomuch that as they did lift their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni they were hewn down and leveled to the earth.
19 And it came to pass that there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword; and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period.
20 And the remainder of those dissenters, rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country.
21 And thus Moroni put an end to those king-men, that there were not any known by the appellation of king-men; and thus he put an end to the stubbornness and the pride of those people who professed the blood of nobility; but they were brought down to humble themselves like unto their brethren, and to fight valiantly for their freedom from bondage.
I never have been able to make sense how this was justified. But, the Golden Rule makes a mess out of Nephi/Laban, too.
DeleteSure goes back to the idea that this is all for internal application only.
The golden rule implies all requests should be granted. When there are conflicting requests, choose the person you wish to be rewarded by.
DeleteThe kingmen were in defiance of their own laws in the first place, which they had agreed to , and raised the weapons of war against those who were in legal enforcement of the law.
Alma 1:14
14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.
So the execution of the penalty is just - they agreed to it when they acknowledged the law, which carried the penalty.
As for Laban and Nephi, again, God made a request. But, then, "do not kill" is also God's request. Not killing Laban would have led to a very big problem, since Laban undoubtedly would have went after Lehi &. co, and the Lord explicitly said this:
1 Nephi 4:13
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
That's the Lord's math and his call to make, right? So, you tell me how the Golden Rule works out - in favor of one wicked man vs. an entire nation?
Helaman 7:23
23 For behold, thus saith the Lord: I will not show unto the wicked of my strength, to one more than the other, save it be unto those who repent of their sins, and hearken unto my words.
After all...
Doctrine and Covenants 82:10
10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.
If we really have a problem with Laban getting whacked, I wonder if we would likewise have a problem with the wholesale destruction of the wicked which shall occur at the coming of the Lord.
As Joseph said, "When the Lord commands, do it."
DeleteI think it very likely that it was the kingmen who were responsible for escalating to violence, at least the text makes that implication. If they hadn't began attacking Moroni's army perhaps things would've turned out much differently.
I've never really had a problem reading Nephi/Laban, just thought it was another example of the nuance that the Golden Rule, and God's commands, can take.
Thanks, Log, these last number of comments have been immensely helpful for my understanding.
Alma 43:46
ReplyDelete46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
This are helpful examples of putting the Golden Rule into context. Thank you, Log.
DeleteAnd if I may point out one other subtlety that escaped me until recently, the reason why it was so important that there be no legal restriction on the freedom of speech was so that there could and can be no legal excuse to persecute, silence, and slay the prophets.
ReplyDeleteAs the law is a request, someone could have appealed to it to justify silencing them. Since no such law existed, either in America or ancient Israel, that justification is not possible.
Therefore, whose requests are, or were, the persecutors obeying? Thus they receive their reward from him whom they listed to obey - the devil.
And that is what the gay marriage fight was all about - criminalizing speech. And we have lost thus far, and the fight is being waged right now in the Supreme Court. And if we lose there, it will be legal to persecute, cast out, and slay the prophets again.
Also I acknowledge that I am not yet perfect, for I do tend to upbraid when confronted with questions that I both may not have perfect answers for and also sometimes I am like "why ask me instead of working it out?"
ReplyDeleteAlso, Darren's question on Mary Vs. Martha could have been augmented by a reference to another incident.
Luke 12
13 ¶And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.
14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?
15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
(See the rest. One of the lessons seems to be that the core doctrine of Babylon - "limited resources," or "economic scarcity" - is false.)
Charity is impartial. For God to command someone to do something at someone else's request breaks the rule, for it infringes on their agency. Nobody likes that. Right? You get to choose whether, and whose, requests to grant. God has asked us to give unto them that ask (it is an implication of the Golden Rule made explicit), but that only matters if you want to honor God's requests.
So here we have an another example of Jesus not answering someone's request! Interesting.
Delete"Also I acknowledge that I am not yet perfect, for I do tend to upbraid when confronted with questions that I both may not have perfect answers for and also sometimes I am like 'why ask me instead of working it out?"
DeleteI thank you for that.
I know I'm not perfect, and I thank you for admitting you're not.
If you're at all interested in feedback, I think you make some good points sometimes, but I think you take them too far.
You seem to me to oversimplify, and then defend your unqualified statements, and even attack those who have questions.
God does not always use the wicked to punish the wicked (i.e. the angels who rained down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah were not wicked), He does sometimes enforce rules, and He doesn't always grant the requests made of Him (even when granting one creature's request wouldn't violate some other creature's agency--Paul asked Him to remove his thorn in the flesh three times, and He didn't do it.)
To rightly charge Will with breaking the Golden Rule "by imposing paternalistic standards on others," and to make the charge stick, you'd have to show that the same charge cannot be made against God.
But God does sometimes deny requests.
Moses wanted Him to send someone else to Egypt, Elijah wanted Him to take his mortal like, and Paul wanted Him to remove his thorn in the flesh.
Paul made that request of Him three times, and God denied it, and He told Paul why He denied it--He said "my grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness."
In other words, He knew what was best, and Paul didn't.
Would you call that "paternalistic"?
And does that kind of paternalism really violate the Golden Rule?
Yes - God cannot deny agency without ceasing to be God. So, requesting that someone else be made to do something doesn't get answered.
ReplyDeleteAs a parent, sometimes I still do ask one child or another to stop bugging the other one on request. Such is life.
Also, by coming down here and experiencing what we do, we are being rendered presumptively competent, by experience, to choose the society we'd like to keep.
ReplyDeleteIf, in the end, we want paternalism and hierarchy, we get it. If we want friendship and peace, we get it. If we want love and freedom, we get it.
And those who know love and freedom, who refuse the sacrifices commanded, who betray God and their brethren, who turn and rend others, and to cover their betrayal accuse God, well. That is a choice, too.
Because we know what we're asking for. And the golden rule means we get it.
Log,
ReplyDeleteWould you go as far as to say that these states of existence or of a desire to exist within a certain system--paternalism and hierarchy, friendship and peace, love and freedom--could describe separate glories?
That's kinda what I'm thinking.
ReplyDeleteIf "Compulsion inspires only resentment and contempt in the heart of the one so compelled," why does scripture say "Withhold not correction from the child; for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. (Proverbs 23:13-14, Joseph Smith Translation.)
ReplyDeleteAnd:
...whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (Hebrews 12:6-11, Joseph Smith Translation.)
I realize it's not politically correct, but that is what the Joseph Smith Translation of The Bible says.
And was the Baltimore mother, who publicly slapped down her son for participating in a riot, wrong?
Human parents can sometimes be mistaken when they do what they think is best for their children, but God actually knows what's best.
Is it wrong for Him to be "paternalistic"?
"It is by the wicked that the wicked are punished, after all."
ReplyDeleteAlways? Didn't Moses, and Joshua, and Samuel, and Nephi, and Alma, and Captain Moroni punish the wicked?
Didn't they even implement capital punishment?
Moses killed the Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew, and I believe (after inquiring of God) he ordered a lawbreaker executed.
Joshua ordered the guy who secretly too some forbidden spoil from Jericho executed.
Samuel personally killed some Philistine king Saul failed to execute.
Nephi is said to have beheaded Laban.
Alma is said to have had a lawbreaker executed, and I believe captain Moroni is supposed to have executed both Nephites and Lamanites.
Were they all wicked men?
Joshua ordered the guy who took the stuff from Jericho executed (and I think his name was Achan), were Joshua and the others wicked?
ReplyDeleteJST Matthew 7
ReplyDelete9 Go ye into the world, saying unto all, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come nigh unto you.
10 And the mysteries of the kingdom ye shall keep within yourselves; for it is not meet to give that which is holy unto the dogs; neither cast ye your pearls unto swine, lest they trample them under their feet.
11 For the world cannot receive that which ye yourselves, are not able to bear; wherefore ye shall not give your pearls unto them, lest they turn again and rend you.
12 Say unto them, Ask of God; ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
13 For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and unto him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
I've asked, and I believe God has shown me (thru the scriptures, and your own words) that your interpretation of the Golden Rule is false.
ReplyDeleteAs you yourself have said, for a charge of moral impropriety to stand, it must be such that the same charge could not rightly be made against God--and God Himself could be charged with breaking the the Golden Rule given your interpretation of it.
Jesus did not say "do unto others as they would have you do unto them," but God did say, "no, I know best" to the Apostle Paul.
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Cor. 12:7-9, JST.)
Your charges of "paternalism" to those who disagree with your interpretation cannot stand, because they would condemn God Himself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"I've asked, and I believe God has shown me (thru the scriptures, and your own words) that your interpretation of the Golden Rule is false."
ReplyDeleteExcellent. Then you have no reason to pursue me as you have been, and will leave me be in peace, finally?
I'm not Roman Catholic.
ReplyDeleteAgain: As you yourself have said, for a charge of moral impropriety to stand, it must be such that the same charge could not rightly be made against God--and as God Himself could be charged with breaking the Golden Rule given your interpretation of it, your interpretation cannot be true.
ReplyDeleteJesus did not say "do unto others as they would have you do unto them," but God did refuse a request (made three times by The Apostle Paul) based on knowing what was best.
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Cor. 12:7-9, JST.)
Your charges of "paternalism" (made against those who disagree with your interpretation of The Golden Rule) cannot stand, because they would condemn God Himself.
You may repeat yourself as often as you care to. But I see now you were not telling the truth when you said you believed God had shown you the error of my ways - if so, you would have no reason to pay any attention to me whatsoever; those who have knowledge from God can let others depart in their errors (see John 6). But yet, you do pay attention to me. Therefore, your statement of belief is really unconvincing, being belied by your behavior.
ReplyDeleteIf that were true, your behaviour would belie your statement of belief, because you didn't walk away and leave Will in his error.
DeleteBut we both know that being content to leave others in their errors isn't charity, don't we?
Will and I know each other; and he can be helped. You cannot be because you will not do the one thing necessary.
DeleteAnd yes, it is charity to let people go on their own way. See John 6.
Delete"Jesus did not say "do unto others as they would have you do unto them,"
ReplyDeleteAnd I never said he did; and if you are not claiming hereby that I did, then why do you persist in bringing it up? And if you are claiming hereby that I did, I hereby call you a liar.
That's what you take it to mean when you repeatedly say that the Golden Rule implies all requests should be granted.
DeleteDoing unto others as you would have them do unto you doesn't imply that.
Case in point:
Some men like to be agreed with, but the author of Proverbs said "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."
If he were alive today, and he were dealing with people who hated criticism as much as some baby boomers ("me" generation, and gen xers) do, would it be right to simply treat them the way they wanted him to (and either agree with them, or keep his thoughts to himself), or would he disagree with them when he thought they were wrong?
If he really valued criticism, doing unto others as he would have them do unto him would require him to speak up and criticise (whether those he criticised liked it or not), don't you think?
You are a liar.
DeleteMy dear friend, Log. Please do not call Mike (or Anonymous) a liar. It is one thing to disagree. It's another to say he is lying.
DeleteMike (or whomever): Log has a very literal, logical and linear way of thinking. Quite frankly, he doesn't "see", write or reason the way most people do. When you "argue" with Log, you are arguing with someone who probably is very different from you.
Truthfully, the way Log sees things, he may (very well) be right. You may simply not understand him. There is no need to argue here. He is operating (in my opinion) on a very different level from most of us. And, for him, the Golden Rule means exactly what it says. Don't fault him for that. I know he is a man of integrity who stands by what he believes -- to a fault.
But Mike (or whomever you are), you have valid points. Let's respectfully consider them. Einstein sucked as a physics teacher -- and he wasn't right about everything. But he was still brilliant, revelatory and a great boon to mankind.
So is Log.
I welcome you both here. Now keep it civil!
"Excellent. Then you have no reason to pursue me as you have been, and will leave me be in peace, finally?"
ReplyDeleteYou've been teaching a particular interpretation of scripture, and all I've done is disagree with that interpretation, and quote passages that simply cannot be made to fit that interpretation.
If I were you, I would like to think that I'd welcome anyone who could show me where I was wrong.
If I'm misquoting, or misinterpreting scripture, or if my logic is flawed, I ask you to show me where I'm wrong.
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6, Joseph Smith Translation.)
Those who enter into a covenant with God agree to do his will in all things; in return, he agrees to do to them what will make them what he is.
ReplyDelete"Mosiah 3:19
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."
In other words, we agreed to it by covenant. It is not imposed. And the purpose of what he does to us is to make us what he is. As he said to Paul.
" 27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.
28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness."
Mike, you do not understand the scriptures, because you WILL not call upon the name of God until he answers you, confessing and repenting of all your sins. Thus you will ever be left out, unable to make sense of conversations like these, because they rest in the end upon knowledge and experience you do not and will not have.
Will not - because you choose to accuse rather than simply do.
If then I am false, and you aren't lying about what you believe, then depart.
If not, then why not go do someone some good instead of pestering me?
"Those who enter into a covenant with God agree to do his will in all things; in return, he agrees to do to them what will make them what he is."
DeleteThis might be one of the best summaries of the gospel and covenants that I've ever read. I know you do not want to be the answer man, but I appreciate what you have given.
"Those who enter into a covenant with God agree to do his will in all things; in return, he agrees to do to them what will make them what he is...In other words, we agreed to it by covenant. It is not imposed. And the purpose of what he does to us is to make us what he is. As he said to Paul."
DeleteSo it was o.k. for God to paternalisticly decide what was best for Paul because Paul agreed to let Him make such decisions?
But if there was a pre-mortal existence, and we were all on the right side of the war in heaven before we got here, wouldn't we all have agreed to that before we got here?
So we all decided, and agreed (before we were born), that we don't want our requests granted when granting our requests is not in our best interests, right?
So paternalism isn't some evil principle intrinsically opposed to the golden rule, is it?
BenB quoted Log thusly:
Delete"Those who enter into a covenant with God agree to do his will in all things; in return, he agrees to do to them what will make them what he is."
This might be one of the best summaries of the gospel and covenants that I've ever read. I know you do not want to be the answer man, but I appreciate what you have given.
I concur with BenB. See what I mean, Log? The "back and forth" between you and Mike (or with Anonymous), as distressing as it may be for you, produces fruit! I, too, found your synopsis to be startlingly clear and concise: a treasure trove of pithy truth! (Much like Lorenzo Snow's "As man is, God once was...", etc.) One might well meditate upon your dictum and add it to all holy writ! It is POWERFUL! And you would never have written it had Mike (or whomever) not "provoked" it out of you.
The strength of an argument is measured by what is required to defeat it. By confronting "darkness", you are letting your "light" so shine. So keep it up, boys!
As for Mike, you have a formidable "opponent" in Log. I have gone "round and round" with him, and more often than not (if not always), I have found him to be correct.
But perhaps you are BOTH missing something here? We can all acknowledge that God DOES deny requests on occasion. (He has certainly denied a few of mine!) Now let's consider when and why He does that (if we can). Let's see if the Golden Rule really does "hold up", as Log suggests, as the "be all and end all" Log makes it out to be -- making the devil himself, as it were, to be, by law, God's master and God himself to be Satan's minister.
After all, according to Log (if I'm not mistaken), God must grant every request, by whomever (assumably so long as doing so does not compel one to commit sin, which God cannot or will not do, being God, a perfect and holy Being).
Could that be true? Could the God of the universe submit to the devil himself so long as He is not compelled to sin?
Let's see.
What say either of you?
You have one direction to go for answers. I will not be your answerman, and I will not produce a systematic theology for you.
ReplyDeleteEither you're lying about your belief that God has shown you I am false, in which case you will continue to pester me, or you're telling the truth in which case you will leave me alone, unless you simply are an enemy to me.
To you, Mike, there is only one message that is needed.
ReplyDeleteTurn from all your abuse of your fellow man, keep the commandments, and pray unto God in the name of Christ until he receives you.
Unless you do these things, you cannot be helped. I can do nothing for you.
I am not abusing you.
DeleteAnd you take The Golden Rule to mean "do unto others as they would have you do unto them" every time you say that the Golden Rule implies all requests should be granted.
Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you doesn't imply that.
Case in point:
Some men hate being disagreed with, but the author of Proverbs said "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."
If he were alive today, and he were dealing with people who hated to be disagreed with, would the Golden Rule require him to leave them in their error, or would it require him to give them the criticism he himself valued so highly?
Unless you read into it "doing unto others as they would have you do unto them" (which is what I believe you do) it would require him to speak up when he believed they were wrong (just as he'd want them to speak up if he were wrong), wouldn't it?
I believe your teaching perverts the meaning of the Golden Rule.
And, if I'm right, you should welcome my criticism.
And if I'm wrong, you should (out of charity) be willing to reason with me, and show me where I'm wrong.
You are a liar, and you are abusing me. I have asked you directly to stop.
DeleteYou lied about your belief that God has shown you the error of my ways. You pester me still, showing either that you have no such knowledge, or you are simply an enemy to me.
You lie continually each time you repeat this: "And you take The Golden Rule to mean 'do unto others as they would have you do unto them'."
As long as you bear false witness against me and lie against me, you are abusing me, for you would not wish men to do that to you.
And you abused me - by your own admission - when you asked me for money after recounting how much you resented giving to a bum under what you claimed were false pretenses; the entire point of your request was to make me out to be a hypocrite if I should refuse you as you wish to refuse the man who pesters you.
DeleteYou pester me everywhere you can, just like that bum pesters you for money.
So yes, you abuse me - by your own lights. You do to me what you resent mightily being done to you.
And your whole point is you wish to be released from the obligation to give to those who you judge unworthy of your substance, that you might retain it, because the Golden Rule implies that all requests should be granted.
You really, really don't want to honor their requests because you have no faith in God and you judge them; therefore, you judge me.
You cannot escape by trying to prevail against me.
"Luke 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again."
You have a choice, Mike.
You can obey the Savior's words, directly, and take your medicine - all of use who choose the path of discipleship do.
Or you can pester and lie against me, a man who has done you no wrong, doing to me what you despise when it is done to you, in a futile attempt to excuse yourself from God's teachings.
All I did was show how that teaching is derived from the Golden Rule and the fact that I want my requests granted; what does what I want have to do with what you want? Who knows.
When you see fit to admit that you don't want your requests granted, then I shall see fit to admit either that you're lying, or that you keep the Golden Rule, and not both.
"And you abused me - by your own admission - when you asked me for money after recounting how much you resented giving to a bum under what you claimed were false pretenses; the entire point of your request was to make me out to be a hypocrite if I should refuse you as you wish to refuse the man who pesters you."
DeleteWhen you sent me the money I asked for, didn't I send you twice as much back?
And the last time I saw the young man you refer to, I tried to buy him (another) $50.00 gift certificate at Burger King (only to have our credit card declined.)
But I still gave him the seven dollars I had in my pocket, and used the card to buy him lunch.
So you analysis is flawed.
"And your whole point is you wish to be released from the obligation to give to those who you judge unworthy of your substance, that you might retain it."
That's not true.
I had problems myself when I was that young man's age.
I'm unable to work now, I have an 82 year old father who needs my full time care, and the only personal income I have is $470 a month in SSI, and $90 a month in food stamps.
Everything else is Dad's (who's a stroke survivor on a fixed income.)
There is no substance I'm trying to retain, I'm probably more generous than I should be with a household income that isn't really mine, and I'm happy just to get thru the month with enough food, ensure, depends, blue pads, and other supplies for Dad (and enough gas to get him to his doctor's appointments.)
I just happen to believe that your interpretation of the Golden Rule is wrong (and unless you think you're able to read my heart, you, by your own lights, are breaking the Golden Rule by judging me.)
Now let's get back to Scot--the young man you referred to.
I never said he was unworthy of my help, and he's never (directly, explicitly) asked me for drug money, but I'm not at all sure that giving him money when he asked for it (and I had it to give) always helped him.
And what if he does come right out and ask me for drug money?
Does the Golden Rule really require me to give him money so he can go and shoot up?
"Luke 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again."
It doesn't say to give to every man that asketh of thee whatever they ask of thee (and I think Scot was asking for cash when I gave him that first $50.00 BK gift certificate.)
I still believe you're taking the Golden Rule to mean we must do unto others as they would have us do unto them, and I still believe that's a misinterpretation (or, at least an oversimplification.)
"...oversimplification..."
DeleteI tend to agree with you on that, Anonymous. (Would you please use another screen name, though?)
Log does appear to interpret the Golden Rule as "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them", whereas Jesus taught: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
So Log would give the money to the drug user to buy drugs...because that's what the drug user has asked for and wants.
But I, on the other hand, would be loathe to do so because if I were "trapped" (as all addicts are) in addiction, though I might ask to sate my addiction (to consume it upon my lusts) I would want someone to deliver me, rather, from my addiction, not feed it! And God, in His mercy, has refrained (at least for a time) from giving me what I've wanted desperately, what I've asked for, because it wasn't good for me.
But, like the time He acquiesced to Joseph Smith, who asked to deliver the 116 pages three times, God finally consented to my request, and withdrew His spirit from me...and I paid the price.
So there. It goes both ways.
There is no "perfect" answer here, I imagine. And it is futile to impugn "sin" to either action.
By not giving the addict the money he asks for, you may be "encouraging" him to steal (or kill!) for it. He's addicted! He has forfeited much of his agency! He almost can't help himself! But by buying him his "fix", he might be quelled -- and refrain from greater sin. See? You might be "helping" him out after all!
At least one can reason thusly -- and would that be a "sin"?
Would Log give a gun to a man who asked for one (as he walked into a 7-11)? :o)
Would Log grant the request of a man asking him to "star" in a movie in which Log had to appear naked so long as the man promised that no one would look upon Log to "lust after" him? (And that's the truth, I can assure you!)
(I'm trying to come up with outlandish requests here, just for argument's sake.)
I think Log would try to fulfill any request -- so long as it did not involve him sinning. And there's the rub. The Jews excused themselves from killing Christ because they had the Romans do it. Jesus "let" Judas go and, because he "asked", allowed Judas to betray Him with a kiss.
You will do FAR BETTER by falling on the side of granting ALL requests than you will be judging and withholding our substance, time, talents, etc.
However, do not be as the commander building the bridge on the River Kwai and end up supporting evil in your quest to uphold virtuous principles.
We must ALWAYS follow God (and His spirit) regardless of what the scriptures say. (The devil is a master at quoting scriptures!)
P.S. your interpretation of the Golden Rule would condemn the author of Proverbs, wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteI mean we all like being kissed better than being hit upside the head, right?
So when he says "Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" he's suggesting treating others in a way they might not like.
"You lie continually each time you repeat this: 'And you take The Golden Rule to mean 'do unto others as they would have you do unto them'."
ReplyDeleteI believe that's exactly how you take it, and how you're trying to persuade other people to take it, and I deny bearing false witness against you.
If I have misrepresented your teaching, show us how the statement that "the Golden Rule implies all requests should be granted" (which you've repeated many times) doesn't imply treating people the way they want to be treated?
There is no "if" about it: you lie against me.
DeleteHell, there's no reason to even impute it to me: just declare you don't want your requests granted and be done with it - the Golden Rule lets you off the hook.
After all, if you DON'T want your requests granted, then the golden rule implies you shouldn't grant others' requests.
Unless, of course, you're lying when you say you don't want your requests granted. Then you're actually on the hook.
So, which is it, Mike? Do you want others to grant all your requests, or do you really want all your requests denied?
"...showing either that you have no such knowledge, or you are simply an enemy to me."
ReplyDeleteDid you ever read that quote from Proverbs?
Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. (Proverbs 27:6, Joseph Smith Translation.)
And I haven't lied to you about anything.
I believe God gave us the scriptures to learn from, I believe He speaks to us thru them, and I believe they clearly show your emphasis to be wrong.
If you do not like being called a liar, please stop calling me one.
I don't like it either, and I request you stop.
You are a liar, Mike. Until you cease from lying against me, I will continue to proclaim you to be a liar.
ReplyDeleteYou lie when you say I said the golden rule implies treating others as they want you to treat them.
You lied about your belief that God has shown you the error of my ways. You pester me still, showing either that you have no such knowledge, or you are simply an enemy to me.
But you said you weren't my enemy.
One of the two is a lie, then.
Don't like being called a liar? Don't lie. Simple solution to a simple problem. That's kind of the point. I'm warning others about you.
And I warn you.
"Revelation 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
"And you abused me - by your own admission - when you asked me for money after recounting how much you resented giving to a bum under what you claimed were false pretenses; the entire point of your request was to make me out to be a hypocrite if I should refuse you as you wish to refuse the man who pesters you."
DeleteWhen you sent me the money I asked for, didn't I send you twice as much back?
You didn't accept it all, but you got back what you sent, and I tried to send you more, didn't I?
"You are a liar, Mike. Until you cease from lying against me, I will continue to proclaim you to be a liar."
Did I lie there Log?
"You lied about your belief that God has shown you the error of my ways. You pester me still, showing either that you have no such knowledge, or you are simply an enemy to me."
I've lied about nothing, and my disagreeing with you doesn't make me your enemy.
"Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." (Proverbs 27:6, Joseph Smith Translation.)
"And your whole point is you wish to be released from the obligation to give to those who you judge unworthy of your substance, that you might retain it..."
The last time I saw the young man you refer to, I tried to buy him (another) $50.00 gift certificate at Burger King (only to have our credit card declined.)
But I still gave him the seven dollars I had in my pocket, and used the card to buy him lunch.
So you analysis is flawed.
"You pester me everywhere you can, just like that bum pesters you for money."
I don't think I ever called him a bum.
I had problems myself when I was that young man's age.
I'm unable to work now, I have an 82 year old father who needs my full time care, and the only personal income I have is $470 a month in SSI, and $90 a month in food stamps.
Everything else is Dad's (who's a stroke survivor on a fixed income.)
There is no substance I'm trying to retain, I'm probably more generous than I should be with a household income that isn't really mine, and I'm happy just to get thru the month with enough food, ensure, depends, blue pads, and other supplies for Dad (and enough gas to get him to his doctor's appointments.)
I just happen to believe that your interpretation of the Golden Rule is wrong (and unless you think you're able to read my heart, you, by your own lights, are breaking the Golden Rule by judging me.)
Now let's get back to Scot--the young man you referred to.
I never said he was unworthy of my help, and he's never (directly, explicitly) asked me for drug money, but I'm not at all sure that giving him money when he asked for it (and I had it to give) always helped him.
And what if he does come right out and ask me for drug money?
Does the Golden Rule really require me to give him money so he can go and shoot up?
"Luke 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again."
It doesn't say to give to every man that asketh of thee whatever they ask of thee (and I think Scot was asking for cash when I gave him that first $50.00 BK gift certificate.)
I still believe you're taking the Golden Rule to mean we must do unto others as they would have us do unto them, and I still believe that's a misinterpretation (or, at least an oversimplification.)
"I'm warning others about you."
I have nothing to hide.
My name is Michael Gerard Burke, I live in North East Maryland, I've been investigating the LDS Faith for a long time, I'm known in the Bay view ward, and I haven't lied about anything.
The missionaries, the sister missionaries, and priesthood leaders have all been to our home, and can verify most of what I've said about my personal circumstances (even though we're not on the LDS welfare program, and I've never asked for or received any financial assistance from our local ward.)
"You lie when you say I said the golden rule implies treating others as they want you to treat them."
ReplyDeleteSo give me a practical application of your interpretation of the Golden Rule, if Scot were to openly ask me for drug money.
Say he really likes shooting up, wants to buy some heroine, and asks me for the money.
What does your interpretation of the golden rule require me to do?
"After all, if you DON'T want your requests granted, then the golden rule implies you shouldn't grant others' requests."
ReplyDeleteWhat you're implying when you say that is that I should give any heroine addict who asks for heroine money his heroine money, isn't it?
That I should treat him the way he wants to be treated in his addiction, and not the way I would want to be treated looking at it from outside his addiction, and being objective, and knowing what I know.
That is what you're saying, and have been saying, isn't it?
So you do take the Golden Rule to mean we should do unto others as they would have us do unto them, don't you?
Haven't you suggested that to do otherwise would be paternalism, and haven't you condemned that?
How exactly have I lied against you?
Or bore false witness against you?
And if God could tell Paul "no," when he asked him to remove some painful malady from him, because He knew what was best (and He knew it was in Paul's best interest to be kept humble), wouldn't your interpretation of the Golden Rule (i.e. no paternalism, give them what they want, don't take it upon yourself to decide what's best for them) condemn God Himself?
Please show me how I've lied against you, or characterized what you're teaching.
Correction: Please show me how I've lied against you, or mischaracterized what you're teaching.
ReplyDeleteI am not going to correct every falsehood and lie and misunderstanding - you drew the false implication, you falsely attributed the implication to me.
ReplyDeleteYou falsely claimed to believe God showed you I was false, yet still pester me.
I already answered you about Paul, and, by extension, every saint or prophet.
Again, you're on the outside because you won't do the one thing necessary.
And thus it will be until you do the one thing necessary.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI have witnessed your constant questioning of log on multiple websites on multiple occasions. Your sole intention appears to be to force log into a concession against his own understanding, which he is entitled to whether you agree with him or not. You are playing the role of the Thought Police.
All the hypotheticals in the world are irrelevant if you accept and have faith in the power of the Holy Ghost which can assist and guide you in every situation. Log has tried to distill the principles by which He believes the God of Heaven and Earth operates, but you are under no obligation to simply accept his teaching and beliefs or any other person's teaching and beliefs, and to do so without the witness of the Holy Ghost is idolatry.
Faith is the power by which the world was created. You cannot find the answers you presumably seek by questioning a man. I know this by experience.
I've always believed God's will is the power by which the world is created, and I believe the power of His Spirit endows us with reason, inspired the scriptures, and can help us understand them.
DeleteI am very carefully considering something.
ReplyDeleteIt was a positive sign that he even gave to the bum. It was a negative sign that he found the experience unpleasant and returned to rend me.
I have already fully answered how God is not paternalistic - because we agree to suffer his will in all things when we enter into the covenant with him.
"Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy"
It is not paternalism when you agree to it.
Will seems to think he, himself will be benefitted by my contending and disputing with Mike, whose views he finds congenial. However, both Will and Mike's argument against the Golden Rule boil down, in the end, to an appeal to the unpleasant consequences of keeping it.
Nobody wants to be a slave or a homeless bum. I get it. Then discipleship is not for you.
If the truth is not good enough, then I am not the teacher for you.
"I already answered you about Paul, and, by extension, every saint or prophet."
ReplyDeleteSorry I missed that.
What you said was:
"Those who enter into a covenant with God agree to do his will in all things; in return, he agrees to do to them what will make them what he is...In other words, we agreed to it by covenant. It is not imposed. And the purpose of what he does to us is to make us what he is. As he said to Paul."
So it was o.k. for God to decide what was best for Paul because Paul agreed to let Him make such decisions?
But if there was a pre-mortal existence, and we were all on the right side of the war in heaven before we got here, wouldn't we all have agreed to that before we got here?
So we all decided, and agreed (in principle, before we were born), that we don't want our requests granted when granting our requests is not in our best interests, right?
Then given your definition of paternalism ("Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy") Paternalism doesn't exist unless the party making the decision about what's best for the other party is wrong (because we all, in principle, agreed we wouldn't want our requests granted when granting them would not be in our best interest)?
Is that why God was able to say "Withhold not correction from the child; for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell" (Proverbs 23:13-14, Joseph Smith Translation)?
Even though a child doesn't necessarily like any kind of correction?
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (Hebrews 12:11, Joseph Smith Translation.)
Until now, I think you ignored those passages I cited, but let's see if you're comments about Paul can reach far enough to explain them.
If a mortal father isn't violating the golden rule by physically disciplining his son (because he knows it's best for him to receive such discipline in the long run, even though the son doesn't like it, and to him it "seems grievous"), it must be (by your logic, if I understand it correctly) because we (in principle) agreed to let our mortal fathers make such decisions about what's best for us, right?
What about an older brother, a policemen, a judge, a minister, or a bishop?
It would seem (by your logic) that if and when they're right in their assessment of what's in our best interest, we agreed to let them make such decisions before we were born, and therefore it's only "paternalism" when they're wrong?
So I wouldn't be exercising paternalism if an addict had a sign that clearly said he wanted money for drugs, and I was right in believing it wasn't in his best interests for me to give him money for that purpose?
"It was a positive sign that he even gave to the bum. It was a negative sign that he found the experience unpleasant and returned to rend me."
I didn't "rend" you.
You're still in one piece, I've had no physical contact with you at all, and I believe you've said elsewhere that words alone can't do anyone any harm.
"But if there was a pre-mortal existence, and we were all on the right side of the war in heaven before we got here, wouldn't we all have agreed to that before we got here?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know. I have no record of any such agreement.
The rod spoken of may mean a physical rod - or not. You get to choose which meaning to apply. Since the meaning is in question, any syllogistic structure you build upon it is likewise questionable.
Hebrews 12:11 is explained by the covenant.
You would indeed be paternalistic in denying the beggar his petition because you judged him that his sufferings were just.
You betrayed me and lied against me - that is sufficient for "rent."
And that's ignoring the federal crimes you committed against me before that.
"And that's ignoring the federal crimes you committed against me before that."
DeleteIf you really want to discuss all this online, you contacted me with your contact information when you somehow surmised you were about to be banned from the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion forum.
You wanted to exchange emails because you said I was the kind of person you were there to help, and we did exchange emails for a long time--so long, in fact, that you (whether it was your intent or not) almost had me convinced (at times) that you were some kind of a prophet.
But when I told you about the LDSFF forum, and we both started interacting there, you seemed to expect me to join your team.
And (based on both things you had told me when we were exchanging emails, and things you said online about what you felt constitutes "knowledge," and about the need not to judge others) I expected you not to judge anyone's motives unless you were given some insight into their hearts, so when I saw you making statements that seemed to be judgemental, I asked you if you had such insight regarding other forum members.
Then I (like a lot of others) took exception to the Rowen Atkin's video you posted (on a thread you started, called "Am I Allowed to Laugh at This?"), where Atkins characterized the gospel portrayal of Jesus as a kind of "Mandrake the Magician," who performed magic tricks for the kitchen help after turning water into wine at a wedding, was encouraged by the help to take His act on the road, told Mary Magdalene to put on a tutu and be His assistant, and headed off to Jerusalem.
After you were banned from that forum (the first time, about two years ago) you came to consider me an enemy, and notified me by email that you would no longer read my emails.
You in fact treated me as though I was dead, and I did some silly things to try to get your attention, and engage you in conversation.
One of them was to try to exchange emails under a pseudonym.
I apologize, I asked you to forgive me, and I thought you had (but I was apparently mistaken.)
I again apologize, and I invite you to press any Federal, State, or local charges you like.
One of them was opening up a website, fraudulently, under my name, revealing my contact information, posting things I did not authorize to be posted thereon.
DeleteThat is a federal crime.
Then you blasted the website to many people at once in a mass-email, using my name, inviting those on the list to go to the website.
You included at least two email addresses belonging to you, each of which you used to attempt to inveigle me into once again being your answerman without disclosing your identity, except with the similarities in themes and vocabulary, I surmised immediately that it was you.
I then executed a DMCA takedown notice on the ISP you defrauded into opening the website on and had control of the website transferred to me, and proceeded to take it down.
Because I'm not interested in punishing you. I am interested in you going away. Because apparently to you I'm not allowed to laugh at Rowan Atkinson. That was when you started criticizing each and every little thing I said.
And here we are, years later. Same story, different venue.
Oh yes, you spoofed my email address to blast the mass-email. Forgot, that too was a crime.
DeleteAfter the Atkinson incident, when you decided nobody could find that blasphemous wretch funny on the topic which so offended your sense of propriety, you began accusing me at every little turn - nothing I said, no matter what, went without criticism.
DeleteYou pestered me through private messaging on the forum. You revealed publicly the contents of the private messages - yes, your behavior is that of an enemy. Because of the perpetually accusatory nature of your emails, I blocked your address. Then you committed the aforementioned wire and computer fraud in an attempt to compel or coerce me into being your answerman.
I have done you no wrong, but you have indeed done me wrong, and it continues.
Indeed, you threatened me again, implicitly but clearly, at Tim's blog, with the revelation of my personal information. It seems you know nothing but compulsion and coercion.
DeleteOr wish people would exercise it against you.
Yes, you abuse me and are an enemy to me.
You do not confess fully, but hide your sins, justifying yourself, and ask for forgiveness only to do the same thing over and over again.
Again, you've made your choice - and your choice is to lie against me so that you might catch me in a lie. Your choice is to feign repentance so that you might be in a better place to betray me from. That has been your pattern.
You have admitted on Tim's blog that your intent is hostile to me, even though I have done you no wrong.
I don't get it. Self-destruction I understand, but seeking the submission or destruction of others is actually something I don't quite grok.
Ah, yes, I forgot, your aforementioned practice of revealing information gained through feigned friendship in private messages continued during my last round at LDSFF.
DeleteSo yeah. And asking for thousands of dollars, or whatever I could spare, so you could have a pretext to charge me with hypocrisy, or to dismiss what I am saying through the argumentum tu quoque was classic.
Sigh. Why? Who knows. But somewhere, I'm sure paternalism is the cause. It's for my own good, I'm sure.
10 And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated, which have gone out of your hands.
11 And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to be written;
12 And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan, that he may destroy this work;
13 For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they may say they have caught you in the words you pretended to translate.
Notice the pattern? No? Well, I do.
Things taught in this blog post and comments have been of great worth to me personally. Thanks, Dave Park.
ReplyDeleteAlso, here's a fun bit o' trivia.
ReplyDeleteTo my understanding, the war in heaven was about the Golden Rule vs. Paternalism.
The Paternalists wouldn't accept the ruling of the council, and were cast out - to here, in fact.
Essentially, this world is a demonstration that only the Golden Rule solves the problem of government and produces a society worth extending eternally, and that societies that accept paternalism as their guiding principle destroy themselves and others.
But the opposition gets its say as well, persuading us to judge and punish and abuse one another.
And experiencing the demonstration renders us presumptively competent to choose which society we wish to participate in, eternally. After all, you know by experience what you're asking for.
"You would indeed be paternalistic in denying the beggar his petition because you judged him that his sufferings were just."
ReplyDeleteWhere did I speak of making a decision that anyone's sufferings were just?
"So I wouldn't be exercising paternalism if an addict had a sign that clearly said he wanted money for drugs, and I was right in believing it wasn't in his best interests for me to give him money for that purpose?"
You see, I didn't ask you (there, or anywhere else) about the beggar who asks for money to buy food, or clothing, or to help provide shelter--or even about an addict who might lie and say he wanted money for such things when he really wanted them to buy drugs--I asked you about one who openly asked for drug money.
I said you seemed to be taking the golden rule to mean we should treat others as they would have us treat them, and you denied you were taking it that way (and even accused me of lying.)
So to put that to the test, I asked you if your interpretation of the golden rule would require me to give an honest drug addict, who openly said he wanted drug money, the money he requested.
I still don't see an answer to that question.
"You betrayed me and lied against me - that is sufficient for 'rent."
If I lied against you when I said you seemed to be taking the golden rule to mean that we should do unto others as they would have us do unto them, you certainly lied against me when you said I "would indeed be paternalistic in denying the beggar his petition (i.e. "please give me drug money"?) because I judged his sufferings just."
That's not the kind of situation I was talking about, and you should have known it if you read my questions.
"The rod spoken of may mean a physical rod - or not. You get to choose which meaning to apply."
And it would seem irrelevant, since "no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous..."
The author of Proverbs is clearly instructing parents to chasten their children, on the basis of it's being for their own good, even if they don't like it.
I believe that would violate your interpretation of the golden rule, wouldn't it?
Mike,
DeleteI have asked Log to respond to questions of this type before and, for whatever reason -- either I'm a slow learner, a poor listener, he hasn't directly responded or he did respond, but in a way I couldn't understand -- I didn't get an answer.
I'm glad you're posing these questions again anew. (But I do not like the contention, the accusations, the back-and-forth recriminations. To be frank, Log, I think, it is your failure to perceive the nature of misunderstanding (or disagreement) between you two that is causing this contention.)
Teach each other! Teach with love! Stop all this silliness! And stick to the point!
Do you give as others would have you give or as you would want to receive? One requires you read their minds (or follow their requests). The other requires that you know yourself and try to fulfill their needs. Which are we best able to do? Both?
I know I like to give gifts that I would like to receive. In fact, it's usually a "sacrifice" for me to give such gifts of fulfill such requests! If I want someone else to clean my house, that usually means I'm the one doing the cleaning for someone else!
But what if giving to others what they want to receive means giving them something you don't want for yourself? What's the virtue in that? One man's treasure is another man's trash! Do we give of our "trash" or our "treasure"?
I say treasure.
What say you?
The question is straightforward: do you want your requests granted?
DeleteIf yes, then grant others'.
If no, then don't grant others'.
There's nothing more to the analysis.
There is nothing more to the analysis unless you are operating off a different principle than the golden rule.
DeleteThat's why there is any discussion at all about it. The rule is straightforward, the consequences aren't pleasant. Therefore we're really just trying to gin up an excuse to not follow it, right? I mean, that's what this is all about, right?
There is no answer to that question.
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to be paternalistic, deny him.
If you wish your requests denied, deny him.
If you are honest and admit you want your requests granted, grant his.
It's not a hard question unless the golden rule is not your guide - paternalism is.
And that's a fight I cannot win - that's the measure of your heart and what you're committed to. So you get to choose: paternalism or the golden rule.
And you are sold on paternalism so why do you keep pestering me? You've made your choice, haven't you?
And by "there is no answer to that question" I mean to say how you answer it is a declaration of your values. Right and wrong, after all, only exist with respect to a standard - and that standard, to God, is the golden rule. If you are paternalistic, right and wrong have different meanings.
Delete15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
ReplyDelete16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
"I already answered you about Paul, and, by extension, every saint or prophet."
ReplyDeleteWhat about non-saints and non-prophets?
Regarding Paul, you said "Those who enter into a covenant with God agree to do his will in all things; in return, he agrees to do to them what will make them what he is...In other words, we agreed to it by covenant. It is not imposed. And the purpose of what he does to us is to make us what he is. As he said to Paul."
But a demon possessed man who never belonged to the Church wouldn't have entered that covenant, would he?
But it would seem that Jesus, with His superior knowledge, could still deny such a man's request, because He in fact knew what was best.
And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil, spoke to Jesus, and prayed him that he might be with him. Howbeit, Jesus suffered him not, but said unto him, Go home to thy friends and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. (Mark 5:15-16, Joseph Smith Translation.)
The man wanted to go with Jesus (that was his will.)
He asked to go with Jesus (that was his request.)
Jesus denied his request, and imposed His will (saying "Go home to thy friends and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee"), presumably, because He knew best.
And the man was unconverted, so he hadn't (in this life) entered into any covenant.
Jesus was sinless, it would be a sin to break the golden rule, but Jesus denied this man's request, therefore the golden rule cannot really imply that all requests must be granted.
"But a demon possessed man who never belonged to the Church wouldn't have entered that covenant, would he?"
ReplyDeleteCouldn't say. Only the individual concerned can say whether he has ever entered into a covenant of obedience with God.
Jesus made a counter-request for a simple reason - the welfare of others depended on his going back - those who hadn't had an opportunity to hear of Jesus, since some from the city came and - uh oh - asked Jesus to depart out of their land. And Jesus did so.
If you want your requests denied, deny others. If you want your requests granted, grant others. It's your choice, and your self-revelation that is underway.
And you've made your choice, haven't you?
"Jesus made a counter-request for a simple reason - the welfare of others depended on his going back - those who hadn't had an opportunity to hear of Jesus..."
DeleteSo, in other words, Jesus knew best.
And the JST doesn't say that Jesus made a counter-request.
It says "Jesus suffered him not" (Mark 5:16.)
That's old King James English for "permitted him not."
And Mike won't mention that Jesus granted even the demons' requests, just as he omitted mentioning that Jesus was leaving the city on request.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if I answer every point adequately, there will always be a fresh philosophers' nit-pick and logic-chop to draw upon.
"There is no answer to that question. If you wish to be paternalistic, deny him. If you wish your requests denied, deny him. If you are honest and admit you want your requests granted, grant his. It's not a hard question unless the golden rule is not your guide - paternalism is."
ReplyDeleteThen you are saying that the golden rule requires me to give the drug addict, who openly asks for drug money, his drug money?
Aren't you saying that a proper understanding of the golden rule would entail treating him the way he wants me to treat him-- doing unto others as they would have us do unto them?
Am I misunderstanding you, or is that what you're saying?
And if that is what you're saying, how is it I lied against you here?
How did I mischaracterize or misrepresent what you've been saying?
And how have you not made a false accusation against me?
The golden rule requires nothing - it cannot be enforced. What you do with it is the revelation of your character.
ReplyDeletePlease cease from imputing your false implication to me - each time you impute your false implication to me, you lie.
"And Mike won't mention that Jesus granted even the demons' requests, just as he omitted mentioning that Jesus was leaving the city on request."
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, they also asked Him not to cast them into the sea, and that's where they ended up when the swine reacted violently and ran off the cliff (and none of that changes the fact that Jesus denied the man's request.)
Mike, you are an unjust judge.
ReplyDelete"30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep.
32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them."
And I explained adequately why Jesus made a counter-request.
That's 2 requests Jesus granted from demons. If Jesus were paternalistic, he would have denied them, for in granting the requests, he alienated the villagers sufficiently where they asked him to leave, which request he also granted.
DeleteHe wasn't being paternalistic to the man, but asking him to stay as a witness for the sake of the city.
Why is no evidence and reasoning sufficient on this point?
I wonder what Jesus would have said if the man had refused and insisted on staying with him?
DeleteAnd again, yes, all requests should be granted. Unless you want yours refused. If that's the case, please, just say so and you win the argument - at least, as far as you're concerned.
Because others will admit they want their requests granted.
"The golden rule requires nothing - it cannot be enforced. What you do with it is the revelation of your character. Please cease from imputing your false implication to me - each time you impute your false implication to me, you lie."
ReplyDeleteNow who's nitpicking?
When I speak of a rule "requiring" something, I obviously mean obeying the rule would require it.
As far as I know that's the universally understood meaning of such language.
And aren't you saying that "obeying" the golden rule would require me to give the drug addict, who openly asks for drug money, his drug money?
Aren't you saying that "obeying" the golden rule would require us to do unto others as they would have us do unto them (except maybe when doing so would violate an explicit commandment, or when the party making the request is what I believe you've called "incurably incompetent")?
Haven't I rightly understood you to be saying that all along, and weren't you wrong to accuse me of lying?
Isn't it truer to say that you're annoyed because you (for some reason) didn't want to openly say what I (rightly) understood you to be saying?
Mike,
DeleteLog is a linear, literal, logical thinker. You guys are talking past each other. He won't answer your question directly, apparently, because he doesn't want to say "4". He wants you to understand addition and then answer your own question. He's giving you the principle. He's leaving the answer to you.
He interprets "giving the answer" (it seems) as mockery, or making him look bad, or "disputing" with him. (People do that to prophets, you know.)
I, for one -- only "knowing" you from this blog post and knowing Log personally -- think you're both great, sincere guys. Stop talking past each other! I've asked Log to "stop contending" here. I think the truths he has taught -- and continues to teach -- have merit and are valuable. Granting every request, whenever possible, is counter to the way this world operates. But we are invited to be "fools" for Christ's sake!
Now let's figure out just how foolish we are expected to become.
Will,
DeleteThat's not quite it. The golden rule is "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them."
To ask someone else what the golden rule implies is to substitute someone else in for what the rule requires of YOU, namely, the recognition of how YOU want to be treated, NOT ME.
What goal is furthered by outsourcing interpretation of the rule in this fashion? I can only think of one goal that can be accomplished in such a fasion, and it's not "how do I better obey the rule?"
If you want your requests granted, grant others'.
ReplyDeleteIf you want your requests denied, deny others'.
If you want someone else to judge what is best for you in the requests you make, then do likewise to others.
If you do not want someone else to judge what is best for you in the requests you make, then don't do that to others.
Please cease from imputing your false implication to me. Each time you impute your false implication to me, you lie.
"If you want someone else to judge what is best for you in the requests you make, then do likewise to others."
DeleteDon't you want someone else to judge what is best for you in the requests you make?
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Romans 8:26, Joseph Smith Translation.)
Didn't you tell me that you agreed to let someone else judge what is best for you when you made a covenant with God?
And doesn't agreeing to that imply that you don't want a request granted if that "someone else" judges it to be a bad request?
Why would you agree to that if you didn't want it?
And if you want someone else (i.e. God) to judge what's best for you, how could you be keeping the golden rule by giving some poor addict something you knew (or believed) was bad for them?
"I wonder what Jesus would have said if the man had refused and insisted on staying with him?"
ReplyDeleteDo you really think He would have said "O.K., come along then"?
Really?
I am not going to "correct" your lies. I will simply point out that you are lying.
ReplyDelete"There is no answer to that question. If you wish to be paternalistic, deny him. If you wish your requests denied, deny him. If you are honest and admit you want your requests granted, grant his. It's not a hard question unless the golden rule is not your guide - paternalism is."
DeleteThen you are saying that obeying the golden rule would require me to give the drug addict, who openly asks for drug money, his drug money?
So aren't you saying that a proper understanding of the golden rule would entail treating him the way he wants me to treat him-- doing unto others as they would have us do unto them?
Am I misunderstanding you, or is that what you're saying?
And if that is what you're saying, how is it I lied against you here?
How did I mischaracterize or misrepresent what you've been saying?
And how have you not made a false accusations against me?
And why do you continue to make false accusations?
"I will simply point out that you are lying."
Where?
Show me how and where I've been lying.
Seriously, can you just give it a rest?
DeleteThis is getting ridiculous.
Why would you want Log to submit to your will Mike? Just curious. Dave.
ReplyDeleteAll I’ve wanted is an open and honest conversation, and now I'm curious about something Dave.
DeleteHave you stopped beating your wife yet?
Why haven't you stopped beating me yet?
DeleteAre you speaking to me? Dave
DeleteI was speaking to Mike, the guy who has been beating on me for quite some time now.
Delete"Why haven't you stopped beating me yet?"
DeleteI haven't touched you, I wouldn't know you from Adam if we met on the street, and I've never understood why you take disagreement so personally, or engage in such melodrama.
Why do you accuse me of beating you up, and accuse others (like Ajex, on the LDSF forum) of sticking knives in your back?
Especially on a forum where you're almost totally anonymous?
I've never understood that.
"If you want someone else to judge what is best for you in the requests you make, then do likewise to others."
ReplyDeleteDon't you want someone else to judge what is best for you in the requests you make?
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Romans 8:26, Joseph Smith Translation.)
Didn't you tell me that you agreed to let someone else judge what is best for you when you made a covenant with God?
And doesn't agreeing to that imply that you don't want a request granted if that "someone else" judges it to be a bad request?
Why would you agree to that if you didn't want it?
And if you want someone else (i.e. God) to judge what's best for you, how could you be keeping the golden rule by giving some poor addict something you knew (or believed) was bad for them?
YOU don't know what is best for another person. YOU cannot know what is best for another person. God CAN know and even though God DOES know, He still allows us to make our own choices and our own requests.
DeleteNo one to my knowledge has covenanted with Mike to obey Mike's will.
DeleteDon't you want someone else to judge what is best for you in the requests you make?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Didn't you tell me that you agreed to let someone else judge what is best for you when you made a covenant with God?
No.
And here Mike will say "but didn't you say this? And doesn't it mean that?"
DeleteNo.
"What else could it mean?"
DeleteExactly and only what I said.
"Don't you want someone else to judge what is best for you in the requests you make? No."
DeleteThen you don't want The Spirit Itself to make intercession for you with groanings which cannot be uttered when you don't know what you should pray for as you ought?
"Didn't you tell me that you agreed to let someone else judge what is best for you when you made a covenant with God? No."
Then when you agreed to submit your will to God's in all things, you didn't agree to let him make any decisions for you?
You didn't agree to ever let Him decide what is best for you?
But if that's not what those who come to Christ agree to, you haven't answered the question about the Apostle Paul here.
"In other words, we agreed to it by covenant. It is not imposed. And the purpose of what he does to us is to make us what he is. As he said to Paul."
But if Paul didn't agree to let God decide what was best for him, how could God (given your interpretation of the golden rule) say, "no, I know best" to him here?
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Cor. 12:7-9, JST.)
You said you answered that question, but you really haven't if those who come to Christ don't agree to sometimes let God decide what's best.
Wow. I hope everyone goes back and reads what I've written here (in the comments). I think it's a shame that Log and Mike are "fighting", rather than constructively dialoguing. I wish Log would quit calling Mike a "liar". (I think Mike's questions and arguments are very reasonable.) I wish Mike would allow Log to speak to whom he speaks, even if he is misunderstood or disbelieved by some (including Mike). I think BOTH of you have VERY GOOD points!
ReplyDeleteLog focuses on principles. He thinks they are sound and universal.
Mike is focuses on answers on what to do in specific contexts, which he then (by "reverse engineering") would try to develop into "principles".
These two viewpoints seem to be in conflict, but I don't think they are. I, too, fear giving drugs to a drug addict -- because I think that would do him harm and I am loathe to do it. Log doesn't care about the consequence, actually. (He'd slit his own son's throat, if God commanded it.)
You see, you are arguing about TWO different things. One serves principle, by covenant. You cannot "out-reason" Log, because he is convinced 2 + 2 must equal 4! You cannot "convince" Mike, because he believes the only acceptable answer to 2 + ? = 4 must be 2!
But it's not. There is an infinite set of combinations of numbers that would satisfy that last equation! And, for everyone, the answers might be different. Would that make them wrong?
I like Log's principles. I like Mike's arguments. Let's discuss them without rancor, but with kindness and charity.
Thank you Will.
DeleteMike;Who are you addressing with this question?
ReplyDelete"All I’ve wanted is an open and honest conversation, and now I'm curious about something Dave.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
If this was to me, it is disturbing. If wasn't it is disturbing. I dont know who you are but this speaks for itself. Dave
DeleteRead what Carl Rogers said about active listening.
DeleteI was simply reflecting the kind of question you asked me back to you.
You didn't ask me if I want Log to submit to my will, but why I want Log to submit to my will--that's exactly like me asking you "have you stopped beating your wife yet"?
That question is actually a well known and oft used example of the kind of question you asked me, and I'm sure everyone else here understood what I was saying (and knew I wasn't actually accusing you of beating your wife.)
I'm surprised you didn't, but if you misunderstood me, I apologize.
Thanks, I didn't understand that, and read it as it was stated. I'm sorry I didn't phrase the question better. Dave
DeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteYou find Mike reasonable because, like him, you are starting out from paternalism, not the golden rule.
He too starts with the desire to withhold and judge and avoid the unpleasant consequences of the rule.
That's why there is ever any discussion about the rule at all - it's never "how can I better keep the rule," because the answer to that is "What do I wish others would do to me?" It's always "how can I avoid keeping the rule."
"He too starts with the desire to withhold and judge and avoid the unpleasant consequences of the rule."
DeleteWithhold what, and judge who?
When my dad dies, this house (that I talked him into buying for my mom) will revert back to the bank (because a VA loan is non-transferable, and I knew that at the time), and I'll be more homeless than Scot (who says he can stay with his mother and grandmother two weeks out of the year.)
If I have money for a tent, I'll be asking Scot to show me where he camps the other two weeks.
The only thing I really own is a life insurance policy that should take care of my burial, with a little left over that I was hoping to leave to a woman I once knew (who I hope is in recovery), and to a boy whose father may or may not be out of jail now.
If I could add to my insurance coverage, and afford to hire a lawyer and make out a complicated will, I'd like to remove the beneficiary so that the insurance benefit would go to my estate, and leave the woman some kind of a trust fund (even if it was only enough to last a year or two), so that I could be relatively sure she wouldn't use all the money at once and o.d. the way two of her friends have.
But it really doesn't look like I'll be able to do that before I die.
The point is that I don't have anything here, and I don't want or expect anything here.
I've prayed dad and I go together.
Most of the household income is his, and if I can get through the month with enough food, and ensure, and fruit punch, and chocolate milk, and depends, and blue pads, and other supplies to keep him happy, and enough gas in the van to make his doctor's appointments, and have the utility bills paid, I really don't care how much of the rest goes to Scot, or other people in as much (or more) need as he is.
I'm not really good at keeping track of such things, and I can see myself giving so much away that I might not have enough to meet those responsibilities, but even that's not the reason for all of my questions.
I do think about how I could better keep the golden rule when I consider things like the advantage of leaving a trust fund, instead of a lump sum, to a (I hope) recovering addict.
"it's never "how can I better keep the rule,' because the answer to that is 'What do I wish others would do to me?' It's always 'how can I avoid keeping the rule."
I don't know Will's heart at all, and God knows my heart better than I do, but I believe you're judging unrighteously here.
Log wrote to me:
Delete"You find Mike reasonable because..." followed by "He too starts with the desire to withhold and judge and avoid the unpleasant consequences of the rule."
I really wish Log wouldn't "mind read" like that. It isn't flattering and it isn't fair. I don't think it's even truthful.
I doubt Mike and I are trying to "get out of" keeping God's commandments because they are inconvenient or uncomfortable for us to keep. Rather, we want to know, before we march through hell, that doing so is actually efficacious and fulfills God's will (and not just Log's!)
Is that asking too much?
Now the best advice to give is this: Christ said "If any man will do his [the Father's] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7:17)
Well, there you go! Practice the Golden Rule as Log has said...and see where it gets you!
Then practice the Rule as...oh, I don't know...any way you want!...or don't practice it at all!...and see where that gets you.
I've spent my whole life practicing the Golden Rule "my way" (or not at all)...and I'm not pleased with the results. (God has withheld His gifts and powers from me, for the most part.) I am thus persuaded that Log may, in fact, be right.
In fact, I'm confident he is right.
And that bothers me.
Will said: I like Log's principles. I like Mike's arguments. Let's discuss them without rancor, but with kindness and charity.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I've been trying to do, and what I've wanted all along.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIf I am judging unrighteously, then why are we having this conversation? Why aren't you having it with God?
The one thing - the only thing - that I am desperate to sound in people's ears is to repent, cry mightily unto God until they shall have faith in Christ, and do the commandments of Jesus even as he taught them.
"Give unto them that ask." "Do good to your enemies." "Take ye no thought for the morrow." (That might relate to your trust fund idea.)
I can show where there is a good reason for denying requests, or making counter-requests to an individual - because the needs of a group require it. I cannot prove, even if I believe, that there were agreements to do certain things in the world before this one. That the lost sheep of Israel would hear of Christ's glory during his mortal ministry, for example - which promise was kept by asking the exorcised guy to stay in town to witness for Christ's glory.
But unfortunately, the question "how do I better keep the rule" is not one for discussion - for that is answered in self-analysis, as I pointed out. Discussion is all about not keeping the rule.
That's the point of this: http://www.iep.utm.edu/goldrule/
"But unfortunately, the question "how do I better keep the rule" is not one for discussion - for that is answered in self-analysis, as I pointed out. Discussion is all about not keeping the rule."
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's true that discussion is all about not keeping the rule, and I think discussion can be an aid to self-analysis.
I think you've asked, me once or twice, if I'd want anyone else to make any decisions for me, and I've been thinking about that.
There was no voice, and I didn't feel any burning in the bosom, but let me tell you something I've long believed God did personally reveal to me.
I believe He revealed to me that abortion is murder.
At the time I was what Liberal Democrats call "pro choice," and I was asked to help pay for an abortion.
The woman was late in coming to me, she only had so much time to get it done legally, and I said I try to raise the money.
When she told me her sister said it was murder, and started crying, I even tried to convince her that it wasn't, because life doesn't begin until we draw our first breath, and that's what I believed at the time.
I knew a Bible teacher who taught that, and I think I even quoted a passage from the Torah, but then some funny things began to happen.
First I was in a library that had a Jewish Encyclopedia, and I thought I'd see how they interpreted that passage, and I found there were translation issues involved, and they didn't interpret it the way Dr. Ernest Martin (the Bible teacher I spoke of) did.
Then I started thinking of a passage from the book of Luke, that I must have read many times before, but never really thought about--the one where Mary goes to visit Elizabeth, and the unborn child Elizabeth is carrying (John the Baptist) leaps at the sound of Mary's voice.
The more I thought of that, the more I began to think that maybe the unborn child my friend was carrying was alive, and maybe terminating the pregnancy would be murder.
But by this time I was kinda committed.
(Continued.)
(Continued.)
ReplyDeleteI was delivering Pizza, working all the hours I could, handling a lot of cash, and being paid in cash every night.
For a long time, I'd been telling this woman that I loved her, that I didn't want to see her doing what she was doing, and that I didn't want her to be tied to a particular man, and a particular life-style. I almost had the money she needed, and I could see myself telling her that I wasn't going to help her, after I already told her I would.
The night before I was suppose to meet her with the money, at the abortion clinic, I said a prayer at the wheel of my car--I asked God to take the decision out of my hands, and stop me from giving her that money the next day, if abortion was murder, and because of what happened that night (and the way things turned out), I've always believed He did.
I normally called home some time between deliveries, but I was really hustling that night, and I didn't (and my employers didn't give me any messages.)
When I got home my father told me that my mother had been taken to the hospital with congestive heart failure (probably about the same time I said that prayer.)
We didn't lose her then, and I didn't meet my friend at that abortion the next day, and my friend (who was very close to her mother) understood--more than that, she decided she was gonna have the child and put it up for adoption (and even got involved in a program that allowed her to meet and correspond with the adoptive parents.)
I saw God's hand in all that, and I had asked Him to take over, and take things out of my hands, so I guess the answer to your question is "yes."
There have been times in my life when I've wanted someone else to decide what was best.
Haven't you?
My have brother is in AA, and he says that if he hadn't hit bottom, he wouldn't be alive today.
And if you were an addict, living from fix to fix, would you want to hit bottom and get help, or would you want someone to always come along and give you the money for your next fix?
I know the general authorities, and LDS.org, and the Ensign magazine might not be very popular here (and I don't seem to know how to hear God's voice very well, so I didn't find this advice very helpful), but someone said the answer of what to do when beggars ask you for money is "to listen to the whisperings of the Spirit" every single time.
I don't remember who that was, but I read that on LDS.org before we ever started this conversation here.
Could that be right?
P.S. I meant to say that I "couldn't" see my self telling her that I wasn't going to help her, after I already told her I would (and that's why I asked God to take it out of my hands.)
ReplyDelete"Give unto every man that asketh." Therefore, unless I am instructed otherwise, I have no reason to do otherwise, neither ask.
ReplyDeleteBut that's me and where I am.
No, I do not want anyone to make my decisions for me. I would rather be rendered competent and left to make my own.
And that's what I do.
And if I were an addict, I would want someone to always come along and give me the money for my next fix. Duh. I'd be an addict. And if you were God, you'd have to support all of them.
And let Hitler live to kill 6 million Jews.
And whatever other secret works of darkness occur.
That's the Golden Rule.
Log wrote: "And if I were an addict, I would want someone to always come along and give me the money for my next fix. Duh. I'd be an addict. And if you were God, you'd have to support all of them. And let Hitler live to kill 6 million Jews. And whatever other secret works of darkness occur. That's the Golden Rule."
ReplyDeleteIf Hitler hadn't killed 6 million Jews, the UN would probably not have created the modern state of Israel by giving the Jews a homeland.
And if there were no modern state of Israel, history would not be unfolding the way it seems to be.
And Tim Malone, and Adrian Larsen (and many LDS and non-LDS Christians) believe all this is fulfilling prophecy on schedule.
But what you said above makes no sense.
If the golden rule required God to "let Hitler live to kill 6 million Jews," and to sustain "whatever other secret works of darkness occur" it would also have required him to let Laban do whatever evil he wanted to, and to sustain the Confederacy (in it's plans to introduce small pox into the Northern civilian and military populations, and to poison the New York City water supply.)
Laban wasn't planing to have his head cut off when he went out drinking that night, and the Confederate secret service had those plans.
"Give unto every man that asketh.' Therefore, unless I am instructed otherwise, I have no reason to do otherwise, neither ask."
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't even ask unless instructed to?
Do you care whether the money you give the beggar ends up doing him harm or good?
What's the harm in asking God if it's gonna do him good?
And wouldn't you want God to keep you from giving him something that was gonna do him harm?
And God did let Laban live; he asked Nephi to kill him. But God surely could simply have willed that Laban stop breathing. Clearly, a purpose was being served.
ReplyDeleteAnd God also could have willed Hitler to stop breathing at any point - or even prevented his conception. Instead, he supported and sustained Hitler's life, that Hitler could move and execute Hitler's purposes among the children of men.
God is not outcome-driven; that's paternalism. God is principled - and the golden rule means you have to let people do what they will with the gifts they are given. Even when you know they will do evil.
Even as God permits the devil to do his work, and even gave him power to bind as many as will not hearken to God's voice.
There is a purpose to this show down here.
"Give unto every man that asketh.' Therefore, unless I am instructed otherwise, I have no reason to do otherwise, neither ask."
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't even ask unless instructed to?
Nope.
Do you care whether the money you give the beggar ends up doing him harm or good?
The money does nothing to him. His own choices determine whether the money advances his goals, or not. His goals are his own to determine and seek after, not mine. My sole responsibility is to give the gift he asked for.
What's the harm in asking God if it's gonna do him good?
The question isn't whether it's going to do him good. The question is, did he ask for it? If so, then God has already put in place a standing request to give it to him.
And wouldn't you want God to keep you from giving him something that was gonna do him harm?
No. He's already given me the rules and asked me to abide by them, right? So unless he wants something else done, I abide the rules.
You just do it, and damn the consequences. That's what it means to be principled.
There is no such crime as "conspiracy to commit murder" in the Law of Moses - and for good reason.
ReplyDeleteA man's actions are his own, and are not caused by anyone else's words or actions. If someone were to offer another money to kill someone else, the killer committed the murder and was the sole agent responsible for the death.
The payer surely played the role of the devil in that transaction, but the devil has no power to compel. All he can do is make very, very persuasive requests, bound up in the lusts of the flesh and fear of the future. And he can teach you his secret - how to use money to get whatever you want in this world.
Your goals, principles, methods, and choices are your own, and you alone are responsible for them; that is your agency.
Do you care about the salvation of others?
DeleteIf I didn't, I wouldn't teach the commandments. That is the role of a priest, after all.
DeleteDo you care about the salvation of the alcoholic, the crack addict, the heroine user, and the prostitute?
DeleteAnd have you ever asked a street beggar, who asked for money, if they could use any other kind of help?
They are not saved by my withholding blessings from them. Indeed, they might grow embittered towards God if I paternalistically withhold my substance from them when they ask for it.
DeleteAnd I have of course asked if they could use any other kind of help - they responded that they really wanted drugs. I grew angry then.
Now, I don't care.
Grace is the ability to give a good gift - that is, the ability to give someone a gift without judgement, reciprocity, or expectations.
You cannot force anyone into salvation. I'm actually writing a post on this subject right now.
ReplyDeleteThat was the entire point of the war in heaven - paternalism vs. the golden rule.
And a major point of the demonstration down here: paternalism destroys itself always.
And the purpose of undergoing the demonstration is to render you competent to make a choice of principle in relating to others, to outfit you for the society of your choice in the hereafter.
Because you will know, by experience, what you are asking for. Therefore it will be just to give it to you.
I reason from scripture, but I actually know very little.
ReplyDeleteLast night I thought God might be telling me (thru scripture) that your interpretation of the golden rule was wrong.
At this moment, I'm not so sure.
But most of what you teach is based on your study of scripture, and on reasoning and deduction, isn't it?
When I've felt pretty sure the present LDS Church isn't all it should be, and everything they teach isn't quite right, the one reason I haven't walked away altogether, and keep investigating, and keep asking God for my own personal revelation, is that I remember your testimony regarding two personal revelations (and because I know of no reason for an anonymous guy on the internet, who has nothing to gain, and has never asked me for anything, to lie.)
You said the two things that God personally told you, in an almost audible voice, was that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that everything the COJCLDS teaches as necessary for salvation is true.
When Tim was talking about the need for some (or all) LDS to be rebaptised, you asked him if he was just repeating what he heard at the lecture, or if he was speaking from knowledge.
I don't believe you were playing gotcha when you asked him that question, and I'm not playing gotcha with you here.
Tim told you he was speaking from knowledge, and I believe you took that testimony very seriously--as I will take anything you say here very seriously.
Just as I took it seriously when you said "buy a bum lunch" the day I saw Scot limping up toward the parking lot of Walmart and Burger King.
I had dad in the van, and I went to the Walmart pharmacy to get a prescription filled for him first, but when I was done there, I called Scot and he told me he was in Burger King, and I bought him lunch and gave him the seven dollars I had left in my pocket.
I asked him if he had anything left on a fifty dollar gift certificate I had given him, and I actually tried to get him another one, but our credit/debit card was declined because we didn't have enough money in the bank to cover a fifty dollar transaction.
That's how seriously I take some of the things you say sometimes--and Scot didn't even ask me for anything that day, I called him because I didn't see any other homeless person or couple around, and because I thought of you saying I should buy a needy person lunch that day, and because I wanted to do something for someone (and also because I was hoping God might make things a little clearer for me.)
Based on my understanding of what Jesus said about doing such things in private, I don't suppose that really counts for anything now, but that is how seriously I take you and your claims.
And you really confused me on Tim's forum when you first said that you weren't claiming any authority, and that I wasn't under any condemnation if I disagreed with you, and then said that just because someone doesn't claim authority it doesn't mean that they're not speaking with God's authority (or something like that.)
I had bid you a good day, and was walking away from that thread when you said that, and then I had to come back.
All I want to ask you here, is whether you now have more then those two personal revelations you told me about.
Is it still true that all you really know (from personal revelation) is that Joseph was a prophet, and everything the LDS church teaches as necessary for salvation is true, and all the rest of what you teach is derived from your study of scripture, and your deductions from scriptures?
Are the things I've taken issue with you on more than your deductions from scripture, and am I under some condemnation for disagreeing with you?
I'm not playing gotcha, I don't think this question is very different from what you asked Tim, and I ask you to please give me the same kind of clear and direct answer that he gave you.
"But most of what you teach is based on your study of scripture, and on reasoning and deduction, isn't it?"
ReplyDeleteI cannot answer that question. Literally.
"All I want to ask you here, is whether you now have more then those two personal revelations you told me about."
I knew more than those two even when I related them to you. I do not say all that I know. Some of what I know cannot be expressed in words. Sometimes I speak of things I do know, but I don't mention that I know them, nor how.
"Are the things I've taken issue with you on more than your deductions from scripture, and am I under some condemnation for disagreeing with you?"
It doesn't matter if it is more or less the straight dope from God's mouth. Let me explain why.
You don't come under condemnation for disagreeing. That's not the way God works, and it's not the way I work. God is not trying to stuff a creed down your throat, and neither am I. He's given a set of rules and principles for us to live by IF we choose, and IF we want the reward at the end for keeping those rules in all circumstances and in every extreme. What's the reward? You are made into a God. Capital G. What he is. An omnicompetent servant who loves everyone, even the devil.
He doesn't just stuff things on us and say "You have to believe me because I'm God, doncha know, and if you disagree you're going to hell!" To be what he is, he has to honor our agency. So he has to persuade us. So that we adopt his ideology of our own free will and choice, not because someone nagged us or drove us into it.
The golden rule is the ideology of God. It implies hierarchical equality - meaning God is equal to us. We are equal to him. He is one of us. We are coequal, and if we wish it, at the end, we shall be one with him. He does everything he does for our sakes. To give us the chance and the choice to become what he is.
In the meantime, you suffer in like manner as he did if you adopt his principle and honor it always. You will be tested and tried at every point. You will be required to destroy the things you desire most in this world. Maybe several times. Because you don't get made a God without being completely self-sacrificing for the good of all, and you cannot withhold anything. And you cannot be paternalistic - you have to let everyone discover for themselves the good and the evil and choose between them. And you cannot love some more than others - you cannot be a respecter of men. And you will be tempted in ways you never considered.
And charity is a radical change of nature - you only get it if you mean it.
And, because God loves you, he will reason it out with you if you wish it. And you can disagree with him; he's not trying to impose anything on you. You can test your disagreements with him, too, and see what the results are. And you can change your mind once you see he was right. You can come to know why the law is what it is, just as I do. You will see the problem that it solves - the problem of government. You, too, will rejoice in his law as the doctrine of the priesthood distills as dews from heaven upon your soul.
You take a chance when you abuse and accuse. I am not perfect, unfortunately, and my capacity to absorb abuse and accusations is not very high. I actually despise contention with a passion; it makes me sick and sad and I hate it.
For my part, I forgive. But I am only human. I too wish to avoid pain.
The first step on the journey, though, Mike, is to repent, confess your sins to God, and pray to be forgiven, with true sincerity lay your whole soul upon the altar, and honor his commandments. There are many examples of this throughout the Book of Mormon.
But the choice is up to you.
Do you "know" that God loves everyone?
DeleteYes.
DeleteThank you.
Delete"All are alike unto God."
ReplyDeleteDo I have to have some personal testimony that Thomas Monson is a prophet before I can be baptised?
ReplyDeleteAnd does it have to be this month?
Would I be letting someone down if I'm not ready?
And are relatively good people, who died with love and kindness in their hearts, and who died outside the LDS faith, safe from the worst thing that could happen to me if I'm baptised into you faith?
When it's all over, are they guaranteed at least a telestial heaven?
I know if I'm baptised I don't have that guarantee, but I think that Joseph said the sin I fear most could only be committed in this life, and that thought has given me comfort at times, because it would mean that those I love most are safe.
But was Joseph right?
I think J.J. Dewy once told me that we could commit that sin even after we become gods, and I don't like that thought at all.
There is a canonized scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that says that whatever intelligence we gained here we'll rise with at the resurrection, but I don't know what's meant by intelligence there (I'd like to think it means love, because the person I love most really knew how to love--I know that if we rise with the same love we have here, that person is safe.)
Do you know the passage I'm thinking of, and do you know what it means?
I'm so afraid sometimes that I can't sleep, and I don't know what to believe.
I think I have acid reflux, and sometimes I have what I'd call indigestion, and I don't know if it's really a burning in the bosom (especially if I was just reading or thinking about the book of Mormon.)
I pray every day, and I ask you to pray for me, and to answer any questions you can here.
And I thank you for forgiving me any wrongs I may have done you.
I apologize to everyone.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the turn this thread has taken. Thanks to everyone for stepping back and engaging in a more civil way.
ReplyDeleteMike, if my counsel were sought, this is what it would be.
ReplyDeleteThis is a time where I would think it appropriate to fast and pray for 3 days for forgiveness, for the Spirit, and to know what God would have you to do.
Let the rest go until you have those three things.
Thank you.
DeleteIs it all right to partake of the sacrament while fasting?
Delete