Elder Packer Vindicated 21 Years Later


srmaher
 Share

Recommended Posts

To me, pornography is less terminal to spirituality than intellectualism. Intellectualistic concepts tend to lead to apostasy.

Yes, and to add to that, intellectual concepts can also strengthen testimony and obedience. I sometimes wonder if intellectualism is merely the scapegoat for apostasy as opposed to the cause of it. Put otherwise, people are already losing faith and don't believe so they turn to intellectual concepts to try justifying their disbelief.

I have even seen a few people be selective with their intellectual pursuits, which is anti-intellectual in it of itself.

Edited by Urstadt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe your statement to fall victim to the confusion everyone seems to have with thinking that "love" and "acceptance" are the same thing. It is completely possible to love one's neighbours while disapproving of their decisions and even their actions. If you doubt this possibility to love another human being while not fully accepting everything they do, I suggest you talk to a parent with teenagers... most will wish the teenager would change something about themselves and yet still love them.

 

If your neighbour has a genetic predisposition toward ingesting cyanide or simply chooses to it doesn't really matter, the result is the same. To actually care for such an individual would not involve accepting death by cyanide as inevitable, but by supporting them to avoid it. Acceptance is not always so loving.

 

For me, Mill's harm principle resolves this issue quite neatly. Provided I inflict no harm on anyone, including (controversially) myself, I can't see the problem in behaving however I might choose to behave. I admit that this situation is complicated by ideas of a life after death, but I do not think that I can realistically be expected to take on board everybody's ideas about this. They tend to be so contradictory. Then, the priority hierarchy is straight forward:

 

1) Obvious harm in this life.

2) (and a long way 2) Possible harm in the kind of next life I find believable.

3) (and a long way 3) Possible harm in other people's ideas about the next life.

 

Accordingly, I apportion my degrees of acceptance.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify, not to put words in your mouth, do you believe that someone who professes to be gay or lesbian does not have any control over those thoughts and desires? At what point are such desires instilled in a person?

 

Given that we agree that the desires themselves are not a matter of volition (you have not challenged ,my assertion thus), the question is whether or not we should indulge them. To my mind, heterosexuals have no problem with the idea that they should indulge their own sexuality, given certain constraints. It's just that conservative heterosexuals have a problem with the notion that homosexuals might also so indulge, under any circumstances whatsoever. And the reason they give is...Oh, I forgot. They have no reason, except scripture, which gives no reason, either.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, Mill's harm principle resolves this issue quite neatly.

I argue that it doesn't resolve the issue nicely. It merely contributes a small piece to the dialogue. But, there are some assumptions of the harm principle that must be addressed first.

The harm principle is influenced by post-Cartesian dualism, meaning it wrongfully assumes there is a self/other split. A relational perspective from Continental relationality argues that this is an ontological fallacy. Instead, it asserts that as relational beings, ours actions always affect others. Post-Cartesian dualism assumes relationality is escapable, but this is only possible if you go live on a planet all by yourself somewhere. Even then, you still live in relation to others (on a another planet from others), and in relation to the planet itself, and therefore never fully escape it. Per our inescapable relationality, our actions always affects others in some way or another.

It also assumes that harm must be tangible in some way (per Cartesian roots of empiricism). However, relationality does not limit itself to only the quantifiable. Since being itself involves much more than this, and relationality is concerned with ontology, ontic characteristics of being, and facticity, it recognizes more than just the empirically quanitfiable. This vastly broadens what can now be considered as harm.

With this dualism assumption re-considered in the backdrop of relationality (i.e., there is no self/other split), harm can now be re-contextualized as anything that harms others or the relationship. Additionally, with harm being considered relationally, and not solipsistically, the added context of how a person perceives the actions of others may become more valid. For example, a spouse may say something seemingly neutral and indirect. But, if the other spouse takes offense, the inadvertent offender must recognize this.

How does this apply to homosexuality? Well, some may feel that if the LGBTQ community sends a confusing moral message to their children, then harm is definitely perceived and done. The lifestyle of another is infringing on whatever morals that family is teaching their child.

Now, a proponent of the LGBTQ community may turn this around and say that harm is done to them when heterosexual parents say they should conceal their lifestyle so as not to morally confuse the child. To this, I would agree. And, this is why Mill's harm principle is too impoverished to resolve the issue nicely.

Edited by Urstadt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who doesn't believe that desires are a matter of volition denies the principle of agency.

 

If we cannot choose what we desire, a matter upon which we will be judged, then we are not accountable.

I guess it depends how you mean a "matter of volition".  Are you refering to a choice in having the desires or the choice in what to do with the desires?  I think the majority would agree they have some kind of sexual or intamacy desire and that it's something that's deep rooted and unable to be pin pointed as to where and why it arose.  I think biologists would pretty much say the desire to procreate is hardwired in most if not all living things and that people have just added a moral standard to this aspect of their biology.  Now if you are refering to what to do with these desires then I fully agree that it's a matter of volition and was stated quite well by a poster above that when making these choices its a matter of that individuals value and moral system that come into play.  Being judged by or forced to live by someone elses moral code really serves no great benefit to that person and tends to do more harm than good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, Mill's harm principle resolves this issue quite neatly. Provided I inflict no harm on anyone, including (controversially) myself, I can't see the problem in behaving however I might choose to behave. I admit that this situation is complicated by ideas of a life after death, but I do not think that I can realistically be expected to take on board everybody's ideas about this. They tend to be so contradictory. Then, the priority hierarchy is straight forward:

 

1) Obvious harm in this life.

2) (and a long way 2) Possible harm in the kind of next life I find believable.

3) (and a long way 3) Possible harm in other people's ideas about the next life.

 

Accordingly, I apportion my degrees of acceptance.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

  

Along with everything Urstadt had to say about the fallacy of Mill's harm principle, I would simply suggest it still doesn't address the issue at all. In fact it seems to further establish the confusion that love and acceptance of behaviour are the same. I would again cite an example from parenting, suppose a child is misbehaving and a parent issues a punishment to correct the course of the child, for the punishment to have any efficacy it must be perceived by the child to be injurious in some way. It doesn't matter whether it is a lost privilege or physical reinforcement, but it must be undesirable (painful/harmful) enough to cause the child to reconsider this consequence to that action. The punishment however is not an act of hate, but an act of love albeit issued in regard to an attitude or action that does not meet parental approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that we agree that the desires themselves are not a matter of volition (you have not challenged ,my assertion thus), the question is whether or not we should indulge them. To my mind, heterosexuals have no problem with the idea that they should indulge their own sexuality, given certain constraints. It's just that conservative heterosexuals have a problem with the notion that homosexuals might also so indulge, under any circumstances whatsoever. And the reason they give is...Oh, I forgot. They have no reason, except scripture, which gives no reason, either.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, you cannot assume we are in agreement when I am still seeking a confirming answer to my first question.

From your first post I am lead to understand that you believe that people with same gender desires have absolutely no choice in having the desires; in essence, they are born that way. Is this a correct representation of what you believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with everything Urstadt had to say about the fallacy of Mill's harm principle, I would simply suggest it still doesn't address the issue at all. In fact it seems to further establish the confusion that love and acceptance of behaviour are the same. I would again cite an example from parenting, suppose a child is misbehaving and a parent issues a punishment to correct the course of the child, for the punishment to have any efficacy it must be perceived by the child to be injurious in some way. It doesn't matter whether it is a lost privilege or physical reinforcement, but it must be undesirable (painful/harmful) enough to cause the child to reconsider this consequence to that action. The punishment however is not an act of hate, but an act of love albeit issued in regard to an attitude or action that does not meet parental approval.

  The difference between your example and what's being discussed is the application of "misbehaving"  The parents have set rules that the child tends to have no choice but to live by.  As children grow rules with out rational basis tend to be pushed against harder and at times parents have to adapt and realize that the child has out grown or moved past some of these rules.  Part of good parenting is accepting that children have to grow and learn for them selves ith in reason and loving them enough to let them learn.  Now trying to apply the same senario to adults can have some differences.  Accepting that people live a life that is not like yours should be something LDS champion more than most.  LDS take pride in being odd and different, not living the norm.  They do this by using their agency and making a stand to live a life they hold as having great value.  How many threads have we seen about peop0le joining the church and being disowned or berated by their families?  Do the LDS commend these people for their courage and conviction or do they tell them to buckle under the pressure and folow the status quo?

 

The joy of agency and being an adult is the ability to find your own way.  The acceptance aspect, at least in my eyes, is the same the LDS tend to seek.  Make the little joke, we can laugh at them together.  Ask the completely oblivious questions and we will patiently answer them with a smile(and usually chuckle ), a little gentle " hey have you really tried living life the other way?".  The LDS i know go through this all the time, and most are ok with it cause it's part of being that different minority.  The thing that really starts to tick them off is when people really try to "attack" in some way.  simple innocent ignorance is amusing and slightly annoying but people trying to tell you how to live you life cause they just know better tends to be where the line is drawn.  Same for homosexuals.  Some of the conversations i have with straight guys just baffle me but at the end of them it's "you live your life, i live mine, we are cool"  Nothing condecending, nothing patronizing, just a live and let live in peace way of life.  That's where acceptance started and the more people said it just wasn't going to happen the more aggressive it got.  Think Newtons law of motion and now it's just out of control.  I always find it amusing to me the extent the LDS have sought acceptance and being viewed as legitimate in the past and now, and yet they don't understand other groups seeking the same and realize that they've helped push themselves in to the level of conflict they complain about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  The difference between your example and what's being discussed is the application of "misbehaving"  The parents have set rules that the child tends to have no choice but to live by.  As children grow rules with out rational basis tend to be pushed against harder and at times parents have to adapt and realize that the child has out grown or moved past some of these rules.  Part of good parenting is accepting that children have to grow and learn for them selves ith in reason and loving them enough to let them learn.  Now trying to apply the same senario to adults can have some differences.  Accepting that people live a life that is not like yours should be something LDS champion more than most.  LDS take pride in being odd and different, not living the norm.  They do this by using their agency and making a stand to live a life they hold as having great value.  How many threads have we seen about peop0le joining the church and being disowned or berated by their families?  Do the LDS commend these people for their courage and conviction or do they tell them to buckle under the pressure and folow the status quo?

 

The joy of agency and being an adult is the ability to find your own way.  The acceptance aspect, at least in my eyes, is the same the LDS tend to seek.  Make the little joke, we can laugh at them together.  Ask the completely oblivious questions and we will patiently answer them with a smile(and usually chuckle ), a little gentle " hey have you really tried living life the other way?".  The LDS i know go through this all the time, and most are ok with it cause it's part of being that different minority.  The thing that really starts to tick them off is when people really try to "attack" in some way.  simple innocent ignorance is amusing and slightly annoying but people trying to tell you how to live you life cause they just know better tends to be where the line is drawn.  Same for homosexuals.  Some of the conversations i have with straight guys just baffle me but at the end of them it's "you live your life, i live mine, we are cool"  Nothing condecending, nothing patronizing, just a live and let live in peace way of life.  That's where acceptance started and the more people said it just wasn't going to happen the more aggressive it got.  Think Newtons law of motion and now it's just out of control.  I always find it amusing to me the extent the LDS have sought acceptance and being viewed as legitimate in the past and now, and yet they don't understand other groups seeking the same and realize that they've helped push themselves in to the level of conflict they complain about.

 

My example is only being used in the context that 2RM posited (by my interpretation) that the sooner religion gives up on absolute morality and accepts the world as it is the sooner we will all accept each other, while confusing the idea of acceptance with love, which it simply is not. 

 

I then further went on to explain why the Mill's harm principle doesn't explain away the discrepancy between acceptance and love. The conversation between us is not a matter of what is or isn't moral, ethical, or righteous, but simply that I have called out the position of giving up on absolutes and accepting everyone as they are as being the same as loving every one.

 

The use of parental examples is for ease of use and familiarity as most people have no problem accepting familial relationships as loving ones in spite of differences and aspects that individuals do not truly accept and agree with. If you wish for a more applicable example to say the same thing, I will need to get more personal; I have a homosexual uncle who I love dearly and I would do almost anything for, but I still don't accept his lifestyle as moral any more than I would accept it he were straight and used prostitutes or struggled with drug addictions. The activities he engages in do not change the fact that I love him, nor does the fact that I love him default to meaning that I accept everything he does. This is because, as my main point has been all along, love and acceptance are simply not the same thing. 

Edited by SpiritDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the majority would agree they have some kind of sexual or intamacy desire and that it's something that's deep rooted and unable to be pin pointed as to where and why it arose.

 

The majority agreeing on something is irrelevant.

 

What I mean, unquestionably, is that desire itself is a matter of volition. It is choice. Plain and simple. Sure, there's a default if we don't choose. There's no neutral. But we can, absolutely, without any doubt, choose what we desire.

 

The "I can't help what I feel" is bull. It cannot be. It is totally incongruent with the gospel. I can't help anger. I can't help jealously. I can't help lust. I can't help laziness. I can't help...I can't help...I can't help. I do not believe it. We can help it. We can control it. We can choose.

 

Let's be clear. Drive is not the same as desire. We are naturally driven to all sorts of depravity. And by this we are all enemies to God. We are capable of choosing to desire otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Elder Packer didn't include pornography. I think that's a bigger (as in more wide spread)  danger to spirituality than intellectualism.

 

Carlimac

 

I have thought the exact same thing over the years, in fact if I were asked what were the greatest threats to members of the church, and I had not read Elder Packers counsel, I would include Pornography, apathy and the pursuit of wealth over the kingdom.  I have come to the conclusion that what and how we think is among the most important thing. For example, we know that without belief (in the doctrines and principles of the gospel) we cannot grow spiritually. Section 93 teaches that we lose "light and truth" through disobedience AND "the tradition of the fathers." I take latter to mean that what you believe effects the amount of light and truth you have. My point is this, looking at pornography (or adiction to..) is a behavior, and it goes without saying that there are destructive beliefs that serve as the prime motivator for doing this. Many who struggle with addictions know that the church is true, that Joseph Smith is a prophet and on and on and on, but are to spiritually weak to overcome this destructive habit. 

 

Now, in comparison with what Elder Packer warned us against, modern feminism, the gay rights movement and "the so called intellectuals." This is far more destructive because its a competing ideology. It think it would be accurate to compare this to trying to be active believing Mormon, and at the same time try and also be a active/believing Hindu. Even then, i think this example falls short because at least Mormons and Hindus share many of the same values, the same cannot by said for Mormonism and secular progresivism (i.e. Feminist, gay movement. intellectuals), The basic value system of the two are diametrically opposed to each other. 

 

Thank you for your thoughtful comment 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and to add to that, intellectual concepts can also strengthen testimony and obedience. I sometimes wonder if intellectualism is merely the scapegoat for apostasy as opposed to the cause of it. Put otherwise, people are already losing faith and don't believe so they turn to intellectual concepts to try justifying their disbelief.

I have even seen a few people be selective with their intellectual pursuits, which is anti-intellectual in it of itself.

 

Urstadt

 

The word intellectualism can be used in so many ways. It goes without saying that Mormon theology encourages intellectualism. I don't know about you, but i think Elder Holland, Scott, Nelson, Eyring, and Elder Maxwell fit into the category of intellectuals. 

 

Now, i can't speak for everyone, but I believe the kind of "intellectualism" that we see worshiped in our day (University Professors) is not one that has truth as its highest value, but rather an ideology that is more interested in social justice then pursuing truth. They are more interested in making their students into activists then individuals that can think and reason. In short, the intellectualism of today is anything but that, rather, its a secular ideology with the label, "intellectuals." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My example is only being used in the context that 2RM posited that the sooner religion gives up on absolute morality and accepts the world as it is...

 

That is an outrageous misrepresentation of what I said.

 

For the record, I am a believer in absolute or objective morality. But, as we discover it, and I do not believe we have yet come anywhere close to discovering it's entirety, we have to accept that our moral opinions are partial and incomplete. We have to tread carefully in this minefield, going gently on ourselves and each other. And one way of going gently is to allow each of us, however eccentric, to express our individual being provided we do no harm.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an outrageous misrepresentation of what I said.

 

For the record, I am a believer in absolute or objective morality. But, as we discover it, and I do not believe we have yet come anywhere close to discovering it's entirety, we have to accept that our moral opinions are partial and incomplete. We have to tread carefully in this minefield, going gently on ourselves and each other. And one way of going gently is to allow each of us, however eccentric, to express our individual being provided we do no harm.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

Thank you for clarifying. No misrepresentation intended. 

 

For further clarity what do you mean by religions "growing up" and accepting things as they are as opposed to how they want (believe) them to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urstadt

The word intellectualism can be used in so many ways. It goes without saying that Mormon theology encourages intellectualism. I don't know about you, but i think Elder Holland, Scott, Nelson, Eyring, and Elder Maxwell fit into the category of intellectuals.

Now, i can't speak for everyone, but I believe the kind of "intellectualism" that we see worshiped in our day (University Professors) is not one that has truth as its highest value, but rather an ideology that is more interested in social justice then pursuing truth. They are more interested in making their students into activists then individuals that can think and reason. In short, the intellectualism of today is anything but that, rather, its a secular ideology with the label, "intellectuals."

Yeah, I would agree with you on that. I did still have professors who championed true intellectual pursuits and honest critical thinking, but you're right that they were the minority.

Bias always enters in. This is why I can't accept the post-Cartesian notions of disengaged reason and objectivity. They simply do not exist in the forms put forth by this school of thought, and the professors you and I speak of lend some evidence to that.

We are also in agreement that no intellectual pursuit will ever match or supercede the gospel. However, I have found some that reinforce it. And for this, I am most appreciative. But, it comes down to intention. Is the goal of the pursuit to glorify God, or something else?

Thank you for your thoughts, I found them edifying and very amenable to my own. Let me know if you get a different impression, though so that our dialogue may continue accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LDS take pride in being odd and different, not living the norm. They do this by using their agency and making a stand to live a life they hold as having great value.

I appreciated your comments in the post. I just wanted to clarify, if I may, that while I can't possibly know the intents of all LDS, I truly believe that a vast majority of them take pride in being different for a reason other than what I understand you are trying to say here.

If I understood you correctly, you are saying that LDS people take pride in being different as some value in it of itself. If this is what you meant, then I'd like to add one caveat. We are pleased to follow what we believe to be the ways of God first and foremost. If this makes us different from the world, then so be it. But, many of us don't take pride in that, we actually mourn it.

At the same time, I do not believe that to be your main point, which if I understood it correctly, than I am very much in agreement with it. I believe your main point to be that LDS champion the right to worship and live by the dictates of our own conscious and that there is very little difference between that and the LGBTQ community, or others in general, are attempting to do the same thing.

I just didn't want you to think that I failed to look for the main message of your post when I honed in on one small tid bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Elder Packer didn't include pornography. I think that's a bigger (as in more wide spread)  danger to spirituality than intellectualism.

 

 

This is just a thought/observation.  I am continuing my thought from a previous comment on this topic (Quote above).  One is a behavior and the other a belief system, and this is why i believe that Max Hall is being treated better in the media/online then Kate Kelly was by members of the church, Max' issues are behavioral white Kate Kelly's ideological.  I may be wrong but its just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I argue that it doesn't resolve the issue nicely. It merely contributes a small piece to the dialogue. But, there are some assumptions of the harm principle that must be addressed first.

The harm principle is influenced by post-Cartesian dualism, meaning it wrongfully assumes there is a self/other split...

It also assumes that harm must be tangible in some way ...

With this dualism assumption re-considered in the backdrop of relationality (i.e., there is no self/other split), harm can now be re-contextualized as anything that harms others or the relationship...

How does this apply to homosexuality? Well, some may feel that if the LGBTQ community sends a confusing moral message to their children, then harm is definitely perceived and done. The lifestyle of another is infringing on whatever morals that family is teaching their child.

Now, a proponent of the LGBTQ community may turn this around and say that harm is done to them when heterosexual parents say they should conceal their lifestyle so as not to morally confuse the child. To this, I would agree. And, this is why Mill's harm principle is too impoverished to resolve the issue nicely.

 

I agree with many of your (quite subtle) points above, Urstadt. I just feel that sending a 'confusing' moral message to children, (like, you are acceptable whatever your sexuality), is nothing to the order of psychological harm done by the message to the LGBT community sent by traditional religion, that God hates queers. At least, in focusing on harms done, we have a reasonably empirical method of deciding what is acceptable, even if we may sometimes need to make a qualitative judgement call in respect of degrees and directions of harm. But, life is messy. That's what makes it interesting!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... is nothing to the order of psychological harm done by the message to the LGBT community sent by traditional religion, that God hates queers. 

 

I am glad I don't subscribe to traditional religion if this is the message. The God I worship loves all of His children, while separating the sin from the sinner. We all are sinners and are all under condemnation which requires the Atonement of the Lord. Queers are not singled out as the only sinners. 

 

However, even when studying other religions I have largely found the same idea to be the case. God does not hate homosexuals, but he cannot look on sin with the least degree of allowance and has decreed that engaging in sexual acts outside of marriage between a man and a woman is indeed sin. There is nothing inherently wrong with same sex attraction, other than it poses a challenge to have an urge that must not be acted on. How many people have urges to do things with members of the opposite sex that they must not act on as well? How many people have urges to do things to children that they must not act on? The point being we all have challenges to overcome, we all sin, no one is being persecuted by God.

 

The perception of persecuting the LBGT community is a matter of self-defense when trying to raise children to have good values while the opposite is being force-fed everywhere else. Take for instance a (hopefully) morally neutral topic like eating vegetables vs eating junk-food. Suppose you are trying to ascertain the truth of whether eating vegetables or junk-food is the best way to go and/or trying to teach your children what is correct at the same time. Now suppose that you are thoroughly convinced that eating vegetables is the way to go and that eating junk-food is harmful, but everywhere you go eating junk-food is promoted as a "healthy and normal alternate lifestyle" while stuffing junk-food in your face in the media at work and at school. If that wasn't bad enough now suppose that any one who dares to caution others about the dangers of junk-food start to be ostracized as old-fashioned uneducated swine and must quickly lose their jobs. While all this is going on you have been free to reap the benefits of eating vegetables for yourself while abstaining from junk-food. The rest of the world is sluggish and sick from all of the junk-food they ingest, but not you. Yet you can not share these benefits even with your own family effectively because they are inundated with the message that junk-food is great and they like the taste of it, so it is much easier to just do what comes naturally (enjoy junk-food) than to make the effort to switch over to vegetables. Since they can't feel how great you are feeling they continue in a sub-optimal state that they believe is content and happy, but you can tell clearly they are missing out on what you have. You can try to share, but few will listen because they are too involved in their junk-food eating ways to ever care to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with many of your (quite subtle) points above, Urstadt. I just feel that sending a 'confusing' moral message to children, (like, you are acceptable whatever your sexuality), is nothing to the order of psychological harm done by the message to the LGBT community sent by traditional religion, that God hates queers.

 

I'm with you to a large extent, but this is a bit messy. Let's take both parts of this comment separately.

 

"Confusing moral messages is nothing to the order of psychological harm" comparatively:

 

I very much agree with you that there have certainly been cases of real psychological harm done from religious persecution toward LGBTQ, even when compared to moral confusion. Just, agreed. Absolutely. However, this is more the exception than the rule. From the late 1950's on, prominent psychologists have written extensively in APA published journals about the psychological harm done by "waning morals" in our society. Psychologists such as C. Marshall Lowe, Jerome Frank, Frank C. Richardson, Blaine Fowers, Paul Ricoeur, Brent D. Slife, Sally H. Barlow, Jeffrey R. Reber, Jack Martin, Jeff Sugarman, Philip Cushman, Martin E. Seligman, and James Hillman (most of whom are self-proclaimed atheists) have published numerous articles and books talking about how more and more countless people are turning toward psychologists and therapists alike as "secular priests" or "crypto-missionaries", and have emphatically demonstrated the serious, life-altering/crippling, complex, various disorders of the self (psychological harm) that have emerged the past 60+ years as a result of culturally waning morals, values, identity confusion (a moral issue), and lacking personal moral compasses (ethos). More and more and more psychologists are turning toward morally philosophical approaches in counseling to address this high demand. I, myself, am one of them.

 

Religious message of "God hates queers" doing more harm:

 

We certainly can make this claim with some clients/patients. However, the vast majority of them report psychological harm from family alienation (religious and atheist) and social persecution. Put otherwise, they suffer more from civil rights issues and social injustices than a religious ones. The majority of LGBTQ suicides the past 5 years have been due to social persecution at universities, from peers, classmates, teachers, cyberbullying, and peer-to-peer bullying. Religion has by and large been more of a background issue, according to the Human Rights Campaign. I was actually at an HRC training back in July put on by qualified trainers from the LGBTQ community. According to them, more then ever before have people from the LGBTQ found peace in God regarding their sexuality. There are Christian non-denominationals that have created youth groups and congregations especially for the LGBTQ community. Heterosexual Christians have begun to participate in these youth groups and congregations at an alarmingly increasing rate. All the info about it can be found on the HRC website, or through materials offered there.

 

 

At least, in focusing on harms done, we have a reasonably empirical method of deciding what is acceptable, even if we may sometimes need to make a qualitative judgement call in respect of degrees and directions of harm. But, life is messy. That's what makes it interesting!

I appreciated your use of the word "reasonable" here. The post-Cartesian method is certainly not flawless or perfect, but it is reasonable in that it works to be improved upon, and does absolutely work in some cases! I am very sympathetic to the Cartesian anxiety here. (e.g., "How badly was he hurt?" "Well, your honor, as you can see, he has a fracture spine that has left him paralyzed. This is how much money he has lost, based on his salary, from not being physically capable of working, and how much she stands to lose lifelong. This is how much his medical bills are. This is how much he has had to pay to make lifestyle changes at home." -- very helpful in determining damages in lawsuits, indeed)

 

Considering your affinity for the post-Cartesian method, I appreciated your reference to qualitative judgments when determining damages. And, yes, I do agree with your assessment that the post-Cartesian method can bring a lot to the table when making such judgments.

 

I do want to add one caveat here. You certainly haven't made this claim, but it popped in my mind while I was revising my post here and I wanted to add it: As much as researchers have tried to make it so, psychology is anything but empirical.

 

2RM, I've really appreciated the multi-thread philosophical discussions we've had these past few weeks. I find your comments thought-provoking and challenging to my own philosophical viewpoints, and therefore edifying. I look forward to continuing over time.

 

Good day to you, Sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an outrageous misrepresentation of what I said.

 

For the record, I am a believer in absolute or objective morality. But, as we discover it, and I do not believe we have yet come anywhere close to discovering it's entirety, we have to accept that our moral opinions are partial and incomplete. We have to tread carefully in this minefield, going gently on ourselves and each other. And one way of going gently is to allow each of us, however eccentric, to express our individual being provided we do no harm.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

Fair point, but as a practicing Mormon (who is pretty darned sure I'm right, though I'm sure that's not a certitude you share! ;) ) I would suggest that there's a fundamental tension between your implicit assumption that homosexual relationships do no harm (presumably from an eternal as well as a temporal standpoint) and your concession that we have not yet discovered "objective morality" in its entirety. 

 

Mormon teaching is pretty clear that to participate in the work that is particular to exalted (a.k.a. "Celestialized") beings--i.e., the creation and teaching of new, living beings--a person must enter into a marital relationship with a person of the opposite gender.  Theologically, anything that distracts from that--even a deep-seated psychological, chemical, physiological, or genetic condition--is "harmful"; and we should at least try to govern the manifestations of that condition.  Whether the condition is a tendency to be uncharitable, or materialism (perhaps even kleptomania), same-sex attraction, psychopathy, or whatever--is irrelevant.  Whether it is ultimately conquerable (or even just clinically treatable) in this life, is irrelevant--we at least try.  Sinking into the "this is who I am and I'm not going to change it" routine is frankly anathema to the Mormon concept of human potential (and contrary to the Mormon idea of Christ's Atonement as an enabling, or at least consoling, force in the lives of those who accept and follow Him).

 

Now, Mormons can (and do!) quibble about how this should play over into the political sphere.  But if, by your suggestion that some religions should "grow up", you were suggesting that you're waiting for the LDS Church to evolve theologically and quit saying that gay sex is wrong--I fear you'll be waiting a very long time indeed.  :)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Mormon teaching is pretty clear that to participate in the work that is particular to exalted (a.k.a. "Celestialized") beings--i.e., the creation and teaching of new, living beings--a person must enter into a marital relationship with a person of the opposite gender.  Theologically, anything that distracts from that--even a deep-seated psychological, chemical, physiological, or genetic condition--is "harmful"; and we should at least try to govern the manifestations of that condition....

 

I take your point. Do not feel that I am attacking you, or your church, with any special venom. I am still in learning mode, a student of the world, and looking to be educated by it. The opinions I put, though, are genuine, in order to discover what responses there may be.

 

As for your specific point, which I take to be the idea that we should all aspire to what Mormon's believe to be the highest state, a celestial being, well, there is room to take issue with that. Jesus, famously, sought out sinners. In my kind of heaven, which is an English public house, on a stormy night, with a log fire, and plenty of good conversation and flowing warm bitter beer, He would be there, guiding the discussion and guarding against prejudice and stereotyped hatreds.

 

So, I submit, we should not let the best be the enemy of the good. We do not all want to be the best. Some of us are content simply to be happy in our own skins, an ambition to which we can all aspire, and should not allow to be removed from us by the judgmental ideas of other people who think they know better than us what we ought to be.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share