2ndRateMind

Thanks for that offer. I will take you up on it, to discuss further here, once I have digested what you have had to say and worked out it's implications. It may take me some time. I am, after all, only 2ndRateMind! Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. Interesting link, but for me, such a theory is a little contrived. If God is constrained to be Just, because He is constrained to be Good, because goodness is greater than God, why don't we just have done with God and worship goodness instead? In other words, in that scenario, should our ultimate loyalty be to God, or The Good? Cheers, 2RM.

That's a nice thought, Kathleen, and so different from the usual prepper mentality, which is to take care of oneself, one's family, and view the unprepped sheeple hordes as a threat to survival to be neutralised with as much weaponry as one can legally obtain. Best wishes, 2RM

So, we owe this one to Plato. Basically it goes as follows: Does God will the good because it is good, or is the good good because God wills it? It's a humdinger of a question, and I haven't yet come across a simple response that is completely satisfying to me. If God wills the good because it is good, then goodness is greater than God, and constrains Him, and damages His claim to omnipotence. But if the good is good because God wills it, He could will anything and it would be good. Goodness would become arbitrary, a matter of whim, an issue of convenience. That would wreck any idea of, say, morality as an objective standard. I suspect the problem lies in trying to separate God and goodness. If God and goodness are intimately united, are a single entity, if God actually is good, and good is God, then trying to distinguish between them is a conceptual error. But I'd be interested to know what you guys think, and whether there is an official LDS position. Best wishes, 2RM.

...but it rhymes and scans, despite that. The thing that made me angry was hearing a cleric (it doesn't matter what religion or denomination) being conservative on the radio. He actually said: 'Men may do as they please, but if a girl should marry outside our faith, she is dead to us'. So, here it is; Pilgrim on another way. Spare me please, your pious cant Your 'thou shalt not', your moral rant And let me live as I am made Wild and free and unafraid, Dreading naught of Judgement Day, Pilgrim on another way. If I'm wrong, I'll rot in Hell But rotting there, remember well The span I spent as but a ploy To spread a sweet, anarchic joy And think my life not such a crime If others, too, enjoyed my time. But where I tread, at every turn, Are men of faith, set grim and stern Rigid, in their claims to be So righteous they know more than me. But, cowed beneath their codes and laws They've lost the plot; the greater cause Is not constraint by social rules - cages built for souls by fools - But the sharing of an inward light The love of all that's good and right And kind, and just, and true, and Man Was made for this, and this God's plan.

This is a real issue for me. I go about a confirmed atheist for most of my life, discover to my great chagrin that I am totally wrong about that, there is a God, Jesus was real, the meaning of life is Love, and there is a place to go when we die. So, what to do next? I'm not the praying, preaching, churchgoing, psalm singing type; for me, what counts is making the world a better, safer, fairer, more lovely (there's that word again), happier place. But that's a big job, and I haven't yet found a niche that satisfies my instinct to contribute in some way. Suggestions welcome. Best wishes, 2RM

Thank you all for enlightening me. I am sorry if my posts provoked you, but to get those replies was worth it. You all obviously have a well worked out position, which is better than I expected. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks, Urstadt, for that concise and comprehensive review. I like what you have had to say. Best wishes, 2RM.

I really am going to bed real soon now! But I think we can distinguish between trivial party politics, and deep ideological politics. I would agree that a church would be well advised to avoid details like how many rubbish collections are to be made each week, and the appropriate wage for postmen. Matters of party affiliation are best left to the individual. But the deep, moral aspect of politics - daring to care for one's fellow humans, or failing to love enough to give a damn, supporting a tax for the amelioration of absolute poverty, or failing to love enough to give a damn, well, these kind of moral choices seem to me to be deeply religious, profoundly Christian, whole-heartedly at the root of what gives life, and therefore everything, meaningfulness. I do not mean to preach at you, simply to pose a counter viewpoint you may be unfamiliar with. Best wishes, 2RM.

No, I just think that voluntary charity, social pressure to increase voluntary charity, and our current social justice programs have not *yet* proved sufficient. I think more is being asked of us, by the world, and by the God who built the world, than we are yet morally sufficient to give. So, I think there is work to do, on the ground, and in our characters. I need to sleep. Good night, and may your God go with you. 2RM.

There are a billion malnourished people around today. Ask them if food stamps work for them, or if the program exists to lift them out of absolute poverty. The question is, do we keep our brother, or condemn him into starvation by indifference? And is that a religious decision, or a political one, or, as I maintain, a matter of basic morality? Best wishes, 2RM

Dear Backroads, I am not sure we can so neatly divide the political from the religious. The common thread is neither, but moral. As long as a church wants to be relevant, it needs to have ethics, and so it needs to be political. I appreciate that can get difficult, even messy, but life is like that, and I think that complexity to be inevitable. Best wishes, 2RM.

Estradling75, do you really have such a low opinion of your fellow humans? It is a general fault of Christianity, I find, to be convinced that people are inherently evil. I think we need to get beyond that, and appreciate and celebrate people for what they can be, for what God intended them to be, and for what, with a little encouragement, they might become. Saints, after all, are not inherently lazy, or inevitably corrupt. The nature of Man (and Woman) has a lot to do with nurture, as well as inheritance. If the world had given me nothing, as a youngster, I think I would be entitled to conclude that I owed it nothing, as an adult. But the world gave me everything I am, and I owe it everything, back. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm Rob. In forum, I'm 2ndRateMind. I'm happy with that, because I know some of you are cleverer than me. Meanwhile, I'm here to absorb, to learn, and inwardly digest what the LDS church has to say, and try to understand why it has to say it. I'm not good convert material - I'm far too far gone for that - but inevitably your comments and opinions will influence my outlook. Things that make me happy? The BBC, top of the range computing power, random acts of kindness, pretty girls with a smile for me, primroses in spring, something meaningful to achieve, today, and with my life. Enough about me. Now, I want to explore what makes you guys tick. I suspect it is not that far apart from me. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I'm sorry to flog a dieing horse, but the LDS position is to prefer the existence of hunger and deaths by hunger to a small tax (the UN estimates 4% of the total wealth on the world's 200 largest fortunes), in order to protect the wealth and the potential for the moral development of people rich enough to be able to choose whether to do good with their wealth, or squander it, or stockpile it? Seems to me we could, by this small tax, save God the uncongenial task of judging deliberately the withholding of charity by countless ordinary people. It's possible that a little compulsion might do Him a favour, as well as contributing to a better world for all of us. So, consider this post not as a criticism, but a constructive suggestion. There are few right-thinking folks, I propose, who would consider preserving the total wealth of the wealthy, and their potential for individual moral stature, as important as the very life of a single, hungry, innocent child. Best wishes, 2RM.

OK, a little disagreement is no bad thing. Life would be incredibly boring without it, and we would all go our various ways completely reassured and completely wrong. But, my question to Backroads remains open. What other alternative is there than taxation, once voluntary charity is exhausted and people are still dieing of hunger? What is the LDS alternative to step iii)? Best wishes, 2RM

Dear yjacket If you have read the thread you will know that my preference is for: i) voluntary charity ii) social pressure to increase voluntary charity and only then, and only if necessary, iii) taxation at an appropriate rate with the urgent intention of saving lives. For me, a human life - any human life - comes before my bank balance. I cannot believe that LDS teaching is substantially different than this, and still Christian. So, I do not think we are materially opposed in this discussion, just coming at it from different angles. Best wishes, 2RM.

I think we will all have many opportunities to exercise righteousness, and grow in moral stature, and deserve some inkling of heavenly reward, even when the prevalence of death by hunger is consigned to the judgement of history books. Meanwhile there are priorities to determine, strategies to devise, tactics to conceive, and good things to be done, out of our love for humanity as a whole and for fellow humans we have never met, and never will meet, for Jesus' sake, who, in His lifetime, never knew us. Best wishes, 2RM.

@Estradling75. Hmmm. I think we are getting a true LDS perspective here, for which I thank you, because I joined the forum with the humble intention of learning. So, if I unwrap the consequences of this line of thinking, I hope you will not think me hostile. I am not. Just curious. So, we are discussing, essentially, a proposal of compulsion to be 'good'. I think I agree with you, that any such compulsion destroys the virtue inherent in a charitable act. How can one be virtuous, which requires that one be autonomous, if one is compelled to do good? I don't think one can. On the other hand, (assuming a benign authority), even if one is compelled, the objective of worldly good will be achieved. I can only think that, in this example, a little compulsion to contribute to global social justice is to make temporal goodness manifest, which is 'a good thing', indeed, may be our true human calling in this life. So here we have the rub. To leave goodness voluntary, especially the realistic expectation that voluntary goodness will not eradicate absolute poverty, leaves the evil of hunger evident in the world. On the other hand, to cause compulsion by taxation with all the power of government enforcing it, may solve our hunger problem but removes our autonomy, and any personal virtue from the equation. So, heads we lose, tails Satan wins. Your position would seem to depend on the idea that the opportunity for an individual to exercise his charitable instinct, whether instantiated or not, is more important than the life of, say, a malnourished child. For me, this is not a difficult call. But I can understand that it would be for a libertarian, self-reliant North American. Best wishes, 2RM.

You're allowed to be blunt. I've suffered much worse than this on forums! And I agree with you about criticising other people individually. That is why I pointedly ignored the opportunity to comment on the wealth of the Mormon leadership, earlier in the thread, and would never take to task any individual in discussion. As far as I am concerned, all the points I make come under the implied heading: 'present company excepted!'. But, if what I say hits home, and it is intended to, it is bound to cause people to reflect on their own level of affluence. Their feeling about that is a subjective matter. Absolute poverty, and malnutrition, and starvation, on the other hand, are objective matters. Somehow, we need to make them meet, if we are to save lives. If charitable spirit can't do the job, and the job still needs doing, then what is the libertarian alternative? I can't see one, other than to pass by on the other side. Best wishes, 2RM

Backroads said: 'The key is we need the spirit of charity.' I think this is right. The widow's mite, two farthings, is enough to be charitable, on a low income. A million dollars is not enough from a billionaire. It's all a matter of proportion, and conscience. Ideally, that aggregated conscience alone would be enough to end absolute poverty and hunger related deaths, and each individual would decide for themselves the right amount to sacrifice. But when it isn't, that is when social pressure and an appropriate tax regime have a place. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, actually, I am well aware of my good fortune to be born in my country, in this time, to my background. But, I am no stranger to hardship, either, and that is what determines my attitude towards the complacent wealthy. It is no argument to suggest that no help should be extended towards the hungry because the wealthy do not want to beggar themselves. They do not need to, and I am not asking of them that they should. A sensible compromise can be arrived at, and a compromise that will be different for each individual and family according to their circumstances and moral stature. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes. I go along with this. I do not think the virtuous necessarily prosper in this life, only in the next. And this can only count as an argument in favour of virtue if all are agreed that God exists, and is benevolent and just, and the concept of what constitutes virtue is held in common. Altogether, though, I am suspicious of attempts to promise heavenly rewards for earthly activity. So often they are attempts by an established centre of power to hold others in thrall. I am much more sympathetic to arguments for virtue that are independent of one's creed, and confine themselves to known, earthly effects. So for example, one might argue that if everyone was virtuous, the world would be a better place for all concerned. That kind of consequentialism might work for anyone, of any religion, or of none. Cheers, 2RM.

I think that is a fair point to make. You know that saying, about giving a man a fish and teaching him to fish. Well, seems most NGO's have taken it to heart, and are doing some really good work around sustainable development. Dishing out rations, except in emergencies, is really old fashioned thinking. The trick is to supply the hardware (tools, equipment, etc) and the software (business know-how, banking services, access to modern communications etc) that help people help themselves. I am optimistic, because I think the world is gradually making progress towards eradicating poverty. But until we have done that, I just don't think getting to be rich is a Godly ambition. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, of course ethics in real life is a messy business. All three approaches have problems. As James12 pointed out, the difficulty with consequentialism is calculating consequences into the future. As for character, well, who decides who is righteous? And on what basis? Deontological ethics are my least favourite, however. The idea of keeping rules for the sake of the rule holds little appeal for a rebel spirit like me. I can see the point of other people keeping to rules I approve of, though! The best strategy may well be to choose one's ethical approach according to the pertinent circumstances, bearing always in mind the strengths and weaknesses of each. My own feeling, at the end of the day, in any given scenario, is that provided one is seeking for the optimal best interests of all the interested parties, one has the right attitude, at least. Best wishes, 2RM. PS Just seen your post, mordorbund. I agree with you.