Tattoos and Other Things We Could Use More of at Church

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Her point is valid in many situations but a tobacco farmer is a classic exception.

One of two things is the case:

1. You believe that a farmer is justified in growing tobacco (or pot, or heroin) instead of wheat if the tobacco (pot, heroin) yields more money.
2. You still do not understand @zil's point.

I do not believe that you think #1, so I continue to believe that #2 is the case.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

<snip>

My tobacco friend farmer hated tobacco but he was trapped and did not believe he had what we would call “agency”. 

<snip>

 My primary point is that regardless of anyone’s intent – when they come to one of our public worship events – we should greet them with love and compassion and do all in our power to diffuse their excuse of hatred. 

 

We should not do what I did to @zil and you and that is – let them think we do not understand or care about them.

 

The first sentence is separate from the 2nd.  They are not related.  Nobody on this thread disagreed nor implied that they do not practice the 2nd.  You don't have to qualify whether your friend was nefariously growing tobacco or, as you say, simply trapped.  He can be smoking his own tobacco and #2 still applies.

#3 is a byproduct of one's actions.  If you don't want people to think you don't understand or care about them, then show that you understand and care about them.

So, #1... you are saying that the guy has 20 acres.  Then you say he is trapped.  That is simply a lack of creativity.   If your friend chose tobacco because it is the only thing he can make money on then that's the choice he made and more power to him.  But that doesn't stop me from concluding that there are a thousand and one ways to make money enough to feed a family.  Especially with a valuable resource such as 20 acres of property.  You don't have to do something you don't like doing, or goes against your principles, simply because it makes more money than selling the 20 acres and moving to Kentucky.  Or something.  It is always best to pry yourself out of positions where you are simply acted upon while your ability to act is limited.  You can put your stake on your 20 acres and throw your hands up and say, this is the best I can do... or you can go snap the choke collar out of your neck.  But then, that's of course assuming your friend really believes that he's only growing tobacco because he's trapped into it and not that he finds growing tobacco as just as noble as growing corn.

Edited October 30, 2017 by anatess2

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, zil said:

My comments were never about tobacco or your friend or your own career choices.  They were about a claim that more money in and of itself justifies a choice, abstracted into a general principle which I find is not supported by reality or scripture.

Really. So you're saying that if Traveler's example had been a farmer choosing wheat over corn, you would have still commented:

Quote

I wonder how much hit men make.

or

Quote

There are many ways to make an honest living.  What's more, I never suggested that he was wrong to choose to grow [wheat] (though I'm certain you inferred that based on your replies).  I suggested that the profit difference does not justify the choice.

You wouldn't have thought: "Hey, that makes sense. The farmer has to make a living, provide for his family. He can't do that with a measly $100.00 but has a better chance with $10,000."

Do you think people who accept promotions or a higher paying job are not justified in trying to bring in more income to make life a little easier?

The profit difference for this farmer, made all the difference for him in providing for his family. Do you not think that that justifies him with choosing more money?

M.

[Vort]

29 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Do you think people who accept promotions or a higher paying job are not justified in trying to bring in more income to make life a little easier?

This is clearly difficult for you, Maureen. Try to understand: The higher pay per se does not justify accepting a position. A position can justifiably be taken when it's morally allowable. Period. "I'll make lots more money" does not justify anything. It does not justify growing tobacco. It does not justify growing wheat. It does not justify accepting a position. It does not justify having a child.

Making more money does not justify anything.

If that is not clear to you, then I despair of you ever understanding such a basic yet critical thing.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Really. So you're saying that if Traveler's example had been a farmer choosing wheat over corn, you would have still commented:

or

You wouldn't have thought: "Hey, that makes sense. The farmer has to make a living, provide for his family. He can't do that with a measly $100.00 but has a better chance with $10,000."

Do you think people who accept promotions or a higher paying job are not justified in trying to bring in more income to make life a little easier?

The profit difference for this farmer, made all the difference for him in providing for his family. Do you not think that that justifies him with choosing more money?

M.

His example could have been anything under the sun so long as it included the comment explicitly stating that the difference in profit was what justified the decision.  The way it was worded, and the absence of all else led me to think of the abstract idea of "more money justifies the choice".  I reject that idea as one that is dangerous for society and the individual.  I recognized that idea as Cain's (or perhaps Satan's, carefully fed to Cain) and as one which contributed to repeated downfalls in the Book of Mormon, and as something which repeatedly leads to injustices in the modern world.

I was commenting on the abstracted idea of "more money justifies the choice", not on any specific situation where there may be many more factors and motivations than simply the money.  What's more, I submit that your examples are most likely people who are not doing it explicitly and solely for the gain without regard for anything else (as I noted, that Traveler and his farmer-friend likely weren't motivated strictly by the profit).  For example, I know full well that some of my co-workers don't make their choices in order to get a raise.  Certainly, they accept raises when offered, but that's not the reason they make the choices they make.  And that's the difference.  Cain made his choices to get gain.  The members of the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon made their choices to get gain.  These things lead to worse things.  (And yes, I believe there are people in the modern world who are driven in this way, but I believe they are in the minority.)

I submit that most people make their choices based on what they enjoy, what they're good at, what they're capable of, what offers them challenges and opportunities, their own integrity, and similar motivations.  I suggest that in healthy environments, these naturally lead to "raises" and "promotions", which such people gladly accept.

And no, I don't think "the profit difference" justified the farmer's choice.  (As I said elsewhere, something else may have, but that alone does not.  And you couldn't even ask the question without prefixing it with additional motivations, thus creating a scenario with doesn't violate the principle.  If you think the abstract principle is wrong, try finding an argument which says Cain was justified in killing Abel - that would do it.)

And, of course, @Vort was more succinct in explaining the apparently inexplicable.

Why abstraction is so difficult to comprehend, I cannot comprehend.

[Maureen]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

This is clearly difficult for you, Maureen. Try to understand: The higher pay per se does not justify accepting a position. A position can justifiably be taken when it's morally allowable. Period. "I'll make lots more money" does not justify anything. It does not justify growing tobacco. It does not justify growing wheat. It does not justify accepting a position. It does not justify having a child.

Making more money does not justify anything.

If that is not clear to you, then I despair of you ever understanding such a basic yet critical thing.

I understand perfectly. No amount of your "justifying" this perspective (practically becoming a platitude) will change anything.

M.

[Vort]

Just now, Maureen said:

I understand perfectly. No amount of your "justifying" this perspective (practically becoming a platitude) will change anything.

M.

Hear the wise words of Maureen:

A morally repugnant thing can sometimes become acceptable if you make enough money doing it. Morality is, at least at times, conditioned on whether it pays well in monetary terms.

[Maureen]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

His example could have been anything under the sun so long as it included the comment explicitly stating that the difference in profit was what justified the decision.  The way it was worded, and the absence of all else led me to think of the abstract idea of "more money justifies the choice"...

It didn't occur to you to do the math. Corn = $100, Tobacco = $10,000. Do you think this farmer could have lived off of $100 (I'm assuming an annual amount)? Any person could see that the farmer could not survive on farming corn, hence his choice. I'm finding it hard to believe your reasoning.

M.

[Vort]

Sometimes it's better just to move along.

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Maureen said:

It didn't occur to you to do the math. Corn = $100, Tobacco = $10,000. Do you think this farmer could have lived off of $100 (I'm assuming an annual amount)? Any person could see that the farmer could not survive on farming corn, hence his choice. I'm finding it hard to believe your reasoning.

M.

You do like picking and choosing and ignoring, don't you?  Why was it again that Cain was justified in killing Abel?

[The Folk Prophet]

I hear tell that the porn industry is a goldmine. Maybe the farmer should consider that.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Maureen,

 I wonder if you might be willing to assign a dollar value one must earn, for the following activities to become morally acceptable:

- Tobacco farming
- Selling illegal drugs
- Selling prescription drugs to children
- Selling marijuana in a state where it's legal, to whomever wants it
- Taking MJ legally grown in one state, and moving it across state lines to a state where it's illegal 
- Arson
- Murder
- Filing frivolous lawsuits against corporations
- Leaving your spouse and children for a richer love interest
- Prostitution

I'm thinking murder would be the most expensive, but I really would like to know the Maureen scale.

Edited October 30, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Hi Maureen,

 I wonder if you might be willing to assign a dollar value one must earn, for the following activities to become morally acceptable:

- Tobacco farming
- Selling illegal drugs
- Selling prescription drugs to children
- Selling marijuana in a state where it's legal, to whomever wants it
- Taking MJ legally grown in one state, and moving it across state lines to a state where it's illegal 
- Arson
- Murder
- Filing frivolous lawsuits against corporations
- Leaving your spouse and children for a richer love interest
- Prostitution

I'm thinking murder would be the most expensive, but I really would like to know the Maureen scale.

@NeuroTypical, you're not getting the argument. zil is saying:

Quote

My comments were never about tobacco or your friend or your own career choices.  They were about a claim that more money in and of itself justifies a choice, abstracted into a general principle which I find is not supported by reality or scripture.

zil is arguing that it doesn't matter what a person may choose, whether it is moral or immoral, if the reason they choose it is because of making more money, then that in and of itself is not justification for their choice. For example if a person chose to be a nurse instead of a server at McDonalds because it paid better, that's not a good enough reason. zil acknowledges that people have other motivations for their choices, which she seems to be fine with but, if a person is motivated to seek profession "A" because it will bring in more money than profession "B" than that's just not right in zil's books. What could possibly be a good enough reason for wanting more money - maybe survival? She's insisting that the tobacco farmer example had no bearing in her reasons for starting this whole argument, that she would have said the same thing if wheat was involved. I'm just having a hard time believing her, that's all.

M.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Maureen

[NeuroTypical]

23 minutes ago, Maureen said:

zil is arguing that it doesn't matter what a person may choose, whether it is moral or immoral, if the reason they choose it is because of making more money, then that in and of itself is not justification for their choice. For example if a person chose to be a nurse instead of a server at McDonalds because it paid better, that's not a good enough reason.

Quoting zil and underlining what seems to be an important parts: "All else being equal, it may be an understandable factor in choosing one thing over another, but in and of itself, it does not justify a thing."

So no, your example seems to not be correct.  A correct example: If someone was thinking about becoming a stripper, finding a good stripper job at ten times the pay a stripper usually makes, does not justify becoming a stripper.

(zil, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.  It seems pretty obvious to me, but I've been known to get things wrong.)

[lostinwater]

In @Maureen 's defense.  i believe the point being made is hardly invalid.  The justification for her argument bears great resemblance to the one that i used to comfort my pricked conscience when i would read about Nephi chopping Laban's head off.  

The company i work for supplies the telecommunications needs of some companies that do some (presumably) evil things.  One creates GMO foods, another we tried very hard to get is one of the 4 largest breweries in the world - and then our gem client is probably the world's largest manufacturer of processed foods - which certainly contribute to tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths every year.

Don't get me wrong - i hate alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy eating, and all that.  But does God not hear my prayers when i ask to keep my job?  Or are my prayers doomed for divine abandonment by virtue of my facilitating something that brings about evil?  Perhaps it does (really).  If not, then how many levels of separation are required to cleanse an evil deed enough to where i can participate in it and remain guiltless?

It bears mentioning also that George Washington - at least for a time, and to an extent - supported himself with the farming of tobacco.

Please don't get me wrong - i'm not recommending farming tobacco as a good career path - but i think God does act (or allow by not acting to prevent), with the bigger picture in mind.  i don't claim to have the formula that lets me answer every hypothetical situation accurately - including my own.  But perhaps we can leave the bigger picture to God, and help - however your conscience and beliefs require - in the most generous way possible.  

[Maureen]

21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Quoting zil and underlining what seems to be an important parts: "All else being equal, it may be an understandable factor in choosing one thing over another, but in and of itself, it does not justify a thing."

So no, your example seems to not be correct.  A correct example: If someone was thinking about becoming a stripper, finding a good stripper job at ten times the pay a stripper usually makes, does not justify becoming a stripper.

(zil, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.  It seems pretty obvious to me, but I've been known to get things wrong.)

 

4 hours ago, zil said:

His example could have been anything under the sun so long as it included the comment explicitly stating that the difference in profit was what justified the decision.

M.

[zil]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

(zil, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.  It seems pretty obvious to me, but I've been known to get things wrong.)

The problem here seems to be that a human who I'm reasonably certain is more decent than Cain is trying to apply an abstract principle to a concrete scenario (McDonalds v Nursing) and can't seem to understand that no one in their right mind makes that choice explicitly and solely because of the money per se.  Many other things will go into making that decision.  Cain would have laughed at both notions and then murdered you and stolen whatever you had on you because you were foolish enough to get close enough to let him.

It is rare that any human chooses an otherwise moral activity strictly to get more money without any other factor playing into it.  More often, like Cain and the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon, they make immoral choices strictly to get more money.

The other problem here seems to be an unwillingness to consider that a motive, in and of itself, can be wrong.  Even if the choice you make is an otherwise moral choice, your motivation for making the choice can be wrong and can corrupt what would otherwise be a perfectly fine choice; and it (the motivation) presents a danger to yourself immediately and others potentially, if the evil motive is not overcome.

Quote

Proverbs 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he...

...and...

Quote

1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

...and...

Quote

Mormon 8:37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

...come to mind.  We would not have such scriptures if no one ever chose to do something for the love of money.  We would not have these scriptures if it was perfectly acceptable to the Lord for us to love money.  The story of Cain might have been entirely different (probably still evil, but different) if it hadn't been "gain" he was after without regard for anything else.

@lostinwater, whether your job facilitates some immoral activity is entirely separate from the very narrow point I've tried to make.  My point is about one's motivation, one's thinking.  If you keep your job for a company whose services facilitate some immoral activity because you love money, then I'm saying your motivation is wrong and you are in a dangerous place and need to work on changing your heart.  If you keep it for some other reason, that's outside my point and I don't especially want to attempt to analyze whether you are making a right choice in a particular situation, let alone whether your reasons are good, bad, or otherwise.

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

In @Maureen 's defense.  i believe the point being made is hardly invalid.  The justification for her argument bears great resemblance to the one that i used to comfort my pricked conscience when i would read about Nephi chopping Laban's head off.  

This, of course, is completely unrelated to the discussion that it does nothing but to muddy the waters.  When God commands you to cut somebody's head off, you cut it off.  Even if the head is your son's.  The farmer in question is not claiming that God commanded him to grow tobacco.  Or are you saying he is?

The issue in this entire thread as I see it is Maureen and Traveler are claiming that Tobacco farming is EQUALLY moral as Wheat or Corn farming.  It is, therefore, a better choice to farm because it makes more money.  Everybody else doesn't believe that Tobacco farming is equally moral as wheat or corn farming and how much money you can make out of it, therefore, doesn't matter.

We always have to choose which path is of higher moral standing for our own circumstances.  I posit that a mother working outside of the home to make money is not morally equivalent than a mother staying home with the kids.  Doesn't matter if she's this mega lawyer who makes a quadzillion bucks.  But we don't go around pooh-poohing working mothers or making them feel like second class citizens.  But, the fact remains.  Mothers working outside of the home is not morally equivalent to mothers taking care of the home.  You can cry muh feminism all you want.  This is the EXACT same thing we are saying with tobacco farmers.

Edited October 31, 2017 by anatess2

[zil]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

It is rare that any human chooses an otherwise moral activity strictly to get more money without any other factor playing into it.

Here's an example which for some reason, people cannot seem to see as two very different things...  In our example, we have George, a husband and father of 3 young-ish children.

1) In scenario 1, George loves his family and wishes to provide for them as best he can.  He feels that his current job will not enable that over the long run, so he interviews for several jobs and receives two offers.  As far as he can tell, both offers are equal in every way except one is offering more money.  In order to best provide for his family, he chooses this option.  (Perfectly moral motive, perfectly moral decision.)

2) In scenario 2, George loves his wife well enough and the kids are good and all, but they're costing a lot of money and he thinks he's not gonna be able to retire as early as he wants, or have all the stuff he'd like to have while he's still young enough to enjoy it.  So he interviews for lots of jobs and takes the one that gets him the most money.  He's not thinking of the wife and kids, he's thinking of the money, and enjoying what it buys him.  His motive is immoral and no matter whether it's a moral job, no matter whether it benefits his family as well as satisfying his desire for more, he is in a dangerous place, and unless he changes his heart, it's probable that his love of money will lead him to less and less worthy choices, and harm himself and his family in the long run.

From the outside, they look the same.  From the outside, they look like a man taking a better-paying job to better provide for his family.  And so what if he wants the good life, we ask, who are we to begrudge him success and material happiness?  His success and material happiness don't bother me in the slightest.  But I say his motive in the second scenario is wrong, dangerous, and ultimately leads to destruction (if not changed).

(Feel free to now accuse me of finding fault with people who take a better-paying job in order to better provide for their families, since that's not what I did.)

[lostinwater]

33 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This, of course, is completely unrelated to the discussion that it does nothing but to muddy the waters.  When God commands you to cut somebody's head off, you cut it off.  Even if the head is your son's.  The farmer in question is not claiming that God commanded him to grow tobacco.  Or are you saying he is?

The issue in this entire thread as I see it is Maureen and Traveler are claiming that Tobacco farming is EQUALLY moral as Wheat or Corn farming.  It is, therefore, a better choice to farm because it makes more money.  Everybody else doesn't believe that Tobacco farming is equally moral as wheat or corn farming and how much money you can make out of it, therefore, doesn't matter.

We always have to choose which path is of higher moral standing for our own circumstances.  I posit that a mother working outside of the home to make money is not morally equivalent than a mother staying home with the kids.  Doesn't matter if she's this mega lawyer who makes a quadzillion bucks.  But we don't go around pooh-poohing working mothers or making them feel like second class citizens.  But, the fact remains.  Mothers working outside of the home is not morally equivalent to mothers taking care of the home.  You can cry muh feminism all you want.

Thank you.  Fair criticism about not being on topic.  i guess i saw it as more of a 'would God help someone when helping them would result in XX, where XX is considered generally bad for another person', and commented accordingly.  Perhaps it was closer to that earlier, but you are right that the scope has since narrowed.  My apologies.  

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This, of course, is completely unrelated to the discussion that it does nothing but to muddy the waters.  When God commands you to cut somebody's head off, you cut it off.  Even if the head is your son's.  The farmer in question is not claiming that God commanded him to grow tobacco.  Or are you saying he is?

The issue in this entire thread as I see it is Maureen and Traveler are claiming that Tobacco farming is EQUALLY moral as Wheat or Corn farming.  It is, therefore, a better choice to farm because it makes more money.  Everybody else doesn't believe that Tobacco farming is equally moral as wheat or corn farming and how much money you can make out of it, therefore, doesn't matter.

We always have to choose which path is of higher moral standing for our own circumstances.  I posit that a mother working outside of the home to make money is not morally equivalent than a mother staying home with the kids.  Doesn't matter if she's this mega lawyer who makes a quadzillion bucks.  But we don't go around pooh-poohing working mothers or making them feel like second class citizens.  But, the fact remains.  Mothers working outside of the home is not morally equivalent to mothers taking care of the home.  You can cry muh feminism all you want.  This is the EXACT same thing we are saying with tobacco farmers.

Wow @anatess2 -- I think this is the first intelligent comment I have read from you. (Anddenex exits stage left very -- very -- quickly)

........

........

........

........

........

Just kidding! This was an excellent response though.

[JohnsonJones]

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I hear tell that the porn industry is a goldmine. Maybe the farmer should consider that.

Well, Marriott did for a while.  They also did the same for alcohol.

I think it is originally that when they built the first three hotels they were in states that didn't really have any issues with not selling alcohol, but when they came to the fourth hotel, they realized that they were going to need to build a bar (in truth, there was no need, but they felt due to the way the industry was, that the hotel would need one).

Eventually the recused themselves from selling dirty films in their hotels, but for many years were also participating in that as well.  Despite feeling at the time they needed to sell that terrible stuff, it is apparent to me that they were not being completely honest in their evaluation, or were completely off kilter in thinking that.  They seemed to be fine.

Of interests, while Marriott was selling pornography and alcohol, Bill Marriott was in church leadership (7th quorum of the 70 at first in 1997, and interestingly enough the 6th quorum up until October 2011, which is the same year in which Marriot pulled the dirty movies from it's roster).

Just jumping off your comment because you bring up an interesting point that actually HAS a real world example of it.

It is interesting who people choose and do not choose as their examples.  If we are using examples, why not use real life examples instead of a made up farmer (or is this hypothetical farmer based on a real farmer, if so, I must have missed that).

PS: I'm not condoning this action of Marriott in any way or condemning it, I'm merely bringing it up as a real world example.  The word of wisdom, as far as I know, tells us what we can or cannot partake of, not necessarily what we should or should not invest in for our livelihood.  There is a difference between what we ask in the interview, and what is typical LDS culture and tradition, as opposed to doctrines.  Now, I may be somewhat hypocritical in this, as I, of myself, thus far in life (and we never know what the future holds, so crossing my fingers to hope I never need to make a choice between food on the table and this) have chosen to avoid any jobs where I would need to proliferate or be party to the consumption of tobacco or alcohol, which goes far beyond even the farming choice presented.  I hope never to be in the position where I need to choose between food on the table by participating in some way in that promotion of those products, or starving.  Thus far, I have been blessed to be able to keep my principles in avoiding even the appearance of evil and thus not coming anywhere close to needing to sell, promote (or grow) any tobacco products or alcohol, or coffee or tea.  I have been blessed tremendously in that arena thus far in life.

Edited October 31, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of interests, while Marriott was selling pornography and alcohol, Bill Marriott was in church leadership (7th quorum of the 70 at first in 1997, and interestingly enough the 6th quorum up until October 2011, which is the same year in which Marriot pulled the dirty movies from it's roster).

The farmer given by Traveler I believe was a real person, if I am remembering the introduction of the farmer correctly.

This paragraph above is truly disturbing, especially if Bill Marriot was aware of it, and signed his agreement. That is disgusting, and this is one element in the gospel that confuses me most. The ironies we see in the Church. We teach keep the Sabbath Holy, but the Church often highlights individuals whose work did not keep the Sabbath day holy. If this be true with regards to Marriot, the Church has been teaching against porn for a long time, and calls one who distributed it to a higher tier of leadership.

[zil]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

so crossing my fingers to hope I never need to make a choice between food on the table and this

Why hope when you can deliberately take action to ensure you don't have to choose between something immoral and food on the table?  There are careers that present more risk than others, there are locations which present more risk than others, there are behaviors which put you, your finances, your property at more risk than others.  Simply choose to stay away from the risky stuff.  Interestingly, Church teachings, if followed, reduce all these risks - don't choose a job in / around an industry which violates standards, don't choose a job which requires Sunday work, get your year's storage, get out of debt, live a healthy lifestyle (WoW, chastity, etc.).  Do these things, and you're less likely to be "forced" into choosing between immorality and food.

[Rob Osborn]

I want more money to build Gods kingdom....

Vs. I want more money to have a more luxurious lifestyle...

Is my income justified if even a part of it comes from an industry that destroys lives?

A case in point- I knew a man that made his living off fixing air conditioners for casinos in Las Vegas. At some point, is his income justified because he can turn a blind eye to the fact his paychecks are coming from the industry that causes families to be destroyed?