2ndRateMind

You get reminded of 'Britain's finest hour' (according to Churchill, 1940) when we alone defied Hitler, and reminded once a day, instead of not all. Best wishes, 2RM.

I think that's mostly right, too. I think humanity will always have to choose between the selfish and the selfless. And that choice will always be a difficult, spiritually demanding one. I am not, in this thread, arguing for an absence of morality; quite the opposite. But I do think we have had, and continue to have, a stimulating discussion in progress (and I mean both nationally and internationally, and down the course of history) seeking to arrive at some idea of what morality actually is. So, for example, in civilised parts of the world at least, we no longer think it acceptable to crucify itinerant rabbis, or keep slaves, or murder each other over which religious sect we belong to, or think domestic violence to be proper, or just think famine to be 'not my problem'. I have great hopes for humanity, and I take much pleasure in keeping current with the affairs of the day, and the progress we make, either directly by the embracing of good, or indirectly from the rejecting of evils. Best wishes, 2RM.

I can't believe that. The idea that the loving Father of humanity would want petty sexual misdemeanours punished horrifically is an impossible contradiction of His nature, for me. Whereas I can believe that humanity has made social and moral progress, converging gradually on what God's Will actually is, rather than what it has been commonly thought to be, and that this has been the underlying story of our history thus far. Best wishes, 2RM.

Agreed, mostly, but with some reservations. For example, if one thinks morality to be an objective thing, and that some nation state is behaving immorally, is it not simply right and just and good to apply what pressure one can to adjust their objectionable policies? And I am not at all sure, either, that the concatenation of paedophilia with adultery or homosexuality is helpful. They are quite separate issues, and should be tackled in quite separate ways, that do not include stoning the guilty to death, but, maybe, as God redeemed us sinners through Jesus, us redeeming sorry sexual offenders through enlightened prison programs that address directly the crime and the cause of the crime. But if a society democratically decides no crime is committed, then obviously no civil redemption is necessary. Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't see how trade or other sanctions infringe sovereignty. It is merely an indication that the West finds it unacceptable to stone people to death for their petty failings and failures. As if you, or I, or the sultan of Brunei do not have petty failings and failures, ourselves. Best wishes, 2RM.

I just wanted to say, at this point, how grateful I am for all your thoughtful answers. I agree with some of them, and disagree with others, but I am appreciative, either way, of your engagement on this topic. I hope to get around to responding to the more salient points you have raised, in due course. Best wishes, 2RM.

The fact that you're referring to the policy as "socially regressive" implies that a pro homosexual society has made "progress". I think, therefore, the question is flawed. Hmmm. To be pro-tolerance does not necessarily imply being pro-homosexual. Any more than being pro-tolerance implies being pro-pacifist and pro-Quaker or pro-Amish. As for social regression, then yes, I do think that humanity has made social progress in the last 4000 years or so since the Bible first began to be written, and I do think we should recognise and nurture that progress, and use our best endeavours to seek to extend it as widely and deeply as we can. Or do you think that morals and mores of a primitive bronze age tribe (the Jews) should continue to apply to us today, without investigation and criticism? Best wishes, 2RM.

So, the sultan of Brunei has decided to implement laws that require those found guilty of adultery or homosexual acts to be stoned to death. Let's take this gradually: Q1) Should people be sanctioned for who they are or whoever they love? Q2) Should that sanction involve the death penalty? Q3) Should that death penalty be imposed in such a medieval, barbaric fashion? Q4) Should the west continue to trade with Brunei, whilst such socially regressive policies are enforced by the state? Q5) Or are our much vaunted western values to be purchased away at the prospective price of merely this potentially profitable trade deal, or that? Best wishes, 2RM.

That's a radical suggestion! Reform the clock, such that we have 10 hours in a day, each of 100 minutes, each of 100 seconds! How easy would that be to calculate with! Best wishes, 2RM.

Exactly. I cannot conceive of a more concise and pertinent summary version of the Gospels. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I would like to suggest, not a 'sentencing matrix' as such, or even a 'rewarding matrix', but a plausible line of thought that might lead to them. Firstly, we need to distinguish between intentions and outcomes. So far as I can make out, academic philosophy in this area (ethics) is concerned pretty much exclusively with outcomes. There are are three main threads of enquiry: Deontology. What is moral is objective, the 'Will of God', the 'Natural Law', as determined (in Kant) by reason and as observed out of duty. Human happiness (the outcome) depends on compliance. Utilitarianism. What is moral is those actions and rules conducive to the greatest well-being of the greatest number. (the outcome). Virtue Ethics. What is moral is those (inevitably virtuous) actions conducive to eudaimonia, the flourishing or thriving of the individual, (the outcome) and therefore, in aggregate, the state, and the world. The problem with all these approaches, or so it seems to me, is that the world is a complex, complicated, connected, integrated thing, and that outcomes are not that predictable. The law of unintended consequences always applies, and for which we cannot justly be held accountable. Which is not to say outcomes are irrelevant to the moral calculus, only that they are problematic. Intentions, however, are entirely under our own control. We can choose between selfish and selfless intentions. (Try it; you can intend to give an extra $5.00 per month to the charity of your choice). Then we need to consider power. (Be that social, economic, or political power). Both good and bad intentions are multiplied by the power an individual has. Thus Adolf Hitler's impact on humanity was pretty severe, while Oswald Mosley's was pretty marginal. But if intention*power is approximately = to outcome, we have a rudimentary formula to work with. So there we have it; it is the selfish or selflessness of our intentions that determines our direction towards sin or sanctity, and here lies the skeleton outline of a theory of good and evil, virtue and vice, the moral and immoral, and their degrees, according to my 2ndRateMind. Best wishes, 2RM

I am not sure what our possible alternatives are, other than for some individual to claim (s)he knows God's Will, and for everyone else to believe that without subjecting the claim to critical assessment. Which position strikes me as a tad dangerous, both for our individual prospects in the hereafter, and humanity's joint prospects in the here and now. Best wishes, 2RM.

Exactly. If you follow my line of thinking, you will find that is precisely the opposite of my position. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yup. I know there is God. But I also think that I am less than God, and that whatever I perceive of God will be perceived through that lesserness. In other words, I see God through the darkened lens of my own sinful way of being. The way I am determines what I think God to be, and what I think His will to be. But, on the plus side, others have virtues I lack, and I have virtues they lack. So, in this 'Great Debate' we all have the potential to compensate for each others failings, and build on each others strengths. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. The problem appears to be that many have done exactly that, and derived different (sometimes diametrically opposed) answers. So, I place a lot of faith in free speech, and democratic discussion, which I call 'the Great Debate'. One of the nice things about digital technology is that it affords us this interweb thing, which allows us all to interact with each other, and us all to come to our own conclusions as to which arguments are most persuasive. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks for that. It was a really useful post. I am not sure however, that I was arguing for gradients of sin, some more deadly, others less. I'm happy to leave that to the theologians. But I do think that examples of the types of attitude and behaviour that sin and vice might be are useful. They give us all something conceptually concrete to consider, and reflect on. Similarly with sanctity and the virtues. As for philosophy; well, it seems to me to be a perfectly valid line of enquiry to seek to distinguish between virtue and vice, sanctity and sin, and to seek to justify that distinction. Else, how are we to know what is God's Will, and what isn't? More later, maybe, about degrees of vice and virtue. I'm busy right now. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, I have noticed that people sometimes admit to sins, or vices, or selfishness, as if the admission somehow excused them of fault. (I may be greedy, but at least I'm honest about that!). Yet, transparency is surely to be encouraged. There is a paradox there, that I am not sure I have fully resolved to my satisfaction. Is it good, or bad, to confess? Perhaps the answer lies in the attitude of the confession. Best wishes, 2RM.

Bravo! Best wishes, 2RM

When I was younger than I am now, and at college learning a trade, there used to be a chain of public houses that brewed their own beer and all had 'firkin' in their names. My local was the 'Fox and Firkin', and I had many a pleasant pint of 'Dogbolter' or 'Tanglefoot', there. There are few more innocent things that a student can do, than read up his notes at the end of the day over a warm English real ale amidst congenial company. Best wishes, 2RM.

Not to mention the furlong and the cubit! Best wishes, 2RM

Ummm. Can't help thinking that if the world went metric, it would be an awful lot easier for US scientists. Base twelve has much to recommend it, such as the divisibility by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, but if no one else is on that scale, that poses a problem. On the other hand, we did evolve to have 10 digits, so maybe God is trying to tell us something. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I'm not sure whether to take the forum's silence on this matter as me being sent to coventry, or assent, or dissent. For what it's worth, it may be worth considering the seven deadly sins in Christianity: pride, sloth, wrath, gluttony, avarice, lust and envy. Seems to me these are all selfish 'ways of being'. And as for the seven cardinal virtues, as defined in opposition to these vices: humility, diligence, patience, abstinence, liberality, chastity and kindness, all respectively; well, it seems to me these virtues are all selfless. Or do you have a differing model of virtue and vice in your church? Best wishes, 2RM.

☺️ Simple questions, but that doesn't mean they're easy questions. Sometimes, the simplest questions are the hardest questions. As ever, I am interested in the specifically LDS perspective on this issue. Best wishes, 2RM.

Just asking! It may be useful to pose these questions the other way around: If one is selfish, is that vice? If one is selfless, is that virtue? And what do virtue and vice have to do with sanctity and sin, anyway? Best wishes, 2RM.

I think you will find, if you trawl through this thread, that the majority of my posts are in response to the questions, objections and concerns you have all raised. But some of these are really quite deep, and require due consideration, and that takes me some time. Anyway, it is just not true to say I never answer. Best wishes, 2RM.