Book of Mormon

[Watchmen]

Because it is a threat. You tell people that unless they follow your approved religious practices, they will have their family relationships annulled for all eternity. That is a threat no matter what spin you put on it. And a nasty one.



When the consequences are just made up subjective beliefs without any rational justification, no, there's no distinction. The only purpose for such a belief is to use vile psychological techniques to try to control people. It's ugly stuff.

Not if the consequences follow logically. And, BTW, as you should know from your first year contracts class, breaching contracts may actually be economically efficient behavior sometimes. Part of the reason the law doesn't generally allow for punitive damages for ordinary breach of contract.

Three things:

1. They aren't "made up" beliefs according to LDS. These are real consequences.

2. There's no punitive damages here either.

3. We'll find out whether it was an efficient breach or not at death.

 

[doppelganger]

Two things:

1. They aren't "made up" beliefs according to LDS. These are real consequences.

No, they are threats that unless you agree with LDS teachings, "God" will take your family away from you for all eternity, for no other reason than you don't agree with us. Surely you don't think that's a "consequence" in the sense the law uses? Legal consequences must be justified. That's why we call it "justice."

2. There's no punitive damages here either.

Sure there is. See above.

 

[doppelganger]

Either we're right or we're wrong. If we're right then it's not subjective belief, it's God's law and that's justification enough. Further, God allows all to be sealed whether in this life or the next (you're familiar with proxy work for the dead?), so everyone has the opportunity for the right practice. It's the same as the other ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism. It might seem to be an arbitrary and subjective way to show commitment to Christ - but if it's God's way then that's justification enough and if it isn't then...well, we were wrong.

If we're wrong then we're wrong.

Really?! That would excuse any act carrried out with the subjective belief that it was in furtherance of "God's will." Consider the ramifications.

This one seems to have slipped through the cracks and is a good example of why consequences should be justified.

 

[cardero]

It's a nasty thing to believe that the family unit doesn't have to end at death - that it can continue forever? OK, Dopp.

Why is that nasty? What constitutes family?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

*gets her popcorn ready*

Surely its time for a top up now!

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Why is that nasty? What constitutes family?

He was being sarcastic, Dopp was saying that it is nasty to threaten people with losing their family in order to get them to adhere to the LDS beliefs and rules.

Family being Husband+wife+kids - only providing they are endowed and sealed and in the higher kingdom of the celestial kingdom. Otherwise they are just brothers and sisters as they were in the pre-existence..

 

[Watchmen]

Why is that nasty? What constitutes family?

I'm being sarcastic. Dopp made it seem nasty.

 

[Watchmen]

Family being Husband+wife+kids - only providing they are endowed and sealed and in the higher kingdom of the celestial kingdom. Otherwise they are just brothers and sisters as they were in the pre-existence..

Yes and no. I'm not going to try to explain it again. It will just lead to further confusion.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Yes and no. I'm not going to try to explain it again. It will just lead to further confusion.

The way my head is spinning at the moment - probably a good idea!

I get half the marks though!

 

[Watchmen]

No, they are threats that unless you agree with LDS teachings, "God" will take your family away from you for all eternity, for no other reason than you don't agree with us. Surely you don't think that's a "consequence" in the sense the law uses? Legal consequences must be justified. That's why we call it "justice."


Sure there is. See above.

Interesting framing of the issue...and completely off base. I'm in class, but will explain later.

 

[Watchmen]

OK, Dopp. Here's how I see it.


A couple goes to an LDS Bishop because they want to be sealed. The Bishop goes through the extensive requirements and explains the big commitment that being sealed is. The Bishop also explains the promises associated with sealing - including eternal progression. The Bishop asks them whether this is what they really want to do. The couple considers the responsibilities and benefits and choose to be sealed.

A few years later the couple sees the Bishop because they want to have their sealing cancelled (divorce). The Bishop reminds them of the commitments they made and the associated promises - including eternal progression. He also explains that if they choose not to continue with the commitments then they will not receive the promises. He asks them if they're sure they want to do this. After considering giving up the responsibilities and promises the couple chooses to have their sealing cancelled.


Question: Why is this a problem? We don't take things lightly when people get sealed and we don't take it lightly when people cancel their sealings. Note: It took my wife almost nine years of preparation before getting sealed.

 

[doppelganger]

The problem, as I understand it, is with the idea that the marriage of anyone who doesn't follow your ceremonial "sealing" procedure should be treated as worth less on that flatly arbitrary basis. It's pretty offensive to tell people that you think their marriages and their families are at least partially invalid because they used ritual A instead of ritual B. In fact, it's really offensive.

I haven't bothered much with learning the details of LDS beliefs because I'm usually more interested in the philosophical innovations in prophetic writings (and Smith's are very thin on that, relatively speaking). But as core teachings go, that one strikes me as particularly rancid.

 

[Watchmen]

The problem, as I understand it, is with the idea that the marriage of anyone who doesn't follow your ceremonial "sealing" procedure should be treated as worth less on that flatly arbitrary basis. It's pretty offensive to tell people that you think their marriages and their families are at least partially invalid because they used ritual A instead of ritual B. In fact, it's really offensive.

I haven't bothered much with learning the details of LDS beliefs because I'm usually more interested in the philosophical innovations in prophetic writings (and Smith's are very thin on that, relatively speaking). But as core teachings go, that one strikes me as particularly rancid.

Fair enough.

But it's easlily distinguished by the fact that the rest of the world seems to be marrying "til death do you part" and we're marrying for "time and all eternity." It's apples and oranges. Also the sealing "ritual" is made available to all - so all will choose whether they want it or not - no one is being denied the opportunity.

Edit: Also, we don't consider non-sealing marriages "worthless." If we did, the Church would not have entered the Prop 8 debate (I really don't want to go there).

 

[Katzpur]

You don’t think marriage is central? You think you can get to the celestial kingdom without a spouse? You think the priesthood is the only ruling force out there? You think motherhood holds no power? You think if it is not in the lesson manuals then we should not know it? Tell me, is everything in the temples in the lesson manuals? Is ther a lesson manual explaining all of the symbolism in the temple? To me, denying Heavenly Mothe, Her existence, and Her importance is on the same level as denying Heavenly Father. You clearly do not understand what marriage is all about. You clearly do not understand a lot of things.

Uh... before I comment, would you please tell me who you are directing your comments to. You've said a few things that really bother me, but perhaps knowing what posts you were referring to would help put them in perspective for me.

 

[idea]

The problem, as I understand it, is with the idea that the marriage of anyone who doesn't follow your ceremonial "sealing" procedure should be treated as worth less on that flatly arbitrary basis. It's pretty offensive to tell people that you think their marriages and their families are at least partially invalid because they used ritual A instead of ritual B. In fact, it's really offensive.

I haven't bothered much with learning the details of LDS beliefs because I'm usually more interested in the philosophical innovations in prophetic writings (and Smith's are very thin on that, relatively speaking). But as core teachings go, that one strikes me as particularly rancid.

It is not “our” ceremony, it is God’s ceremony. Just as baptism is not our ceremony either. It is not the church dictating this stuff, it is God. Just as you can debate baptism – immertion or just sprinkling? Believers baptism or infant? Need authority or not? Need baptism or not? There is a specific way set forth in the scriptures for certain ordinances. This is the way God has set it up… Is it upsetting for some to say “ you are not saved unless you are baptised”… sealing is the same sort of thing.

 

[Katzpur]

Wait. In Mormonism you're not allowed in heaven unless you're married? That's quite creepy and kooky.

It's also quite false. We're probably the most universalist Christian faith in the world (i.e. with respect to our beliefs on who goes to heaven).

 

[Watchmen]

Uh... before I comment, would you please tell me who you are directing your comments to. You've said a few things that really bother me, but perhaps knowing what posts you were referring to would help put them in perspective for me.

I believe she was responding to my post #298 (pg. 30).

 

[Katzpur]

I know, I was rather shocked when at a friends FHE, the missionaries explained this to me. Its one of the reasons I left. They talk about forever families and how important they are, but actually if you dont follow all the rules, go to the temple, you dont get to be with your family. The missionaries reply was "hey if you get to the celestial kingdom you can do and go where you like...ie you can visit family members in lower kingdoms but they cant see you or hear you!" If thats the case, I dont want to go there........

Have you forgotten about the Spirit World entirely?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Also the sealing "ritual" is made available to all - so all will choose whether they want it or not - no one is being denied the opportunity.

Sorry maybe I am being picky here, but that is not exactly true. It is only available to worthy LDS who have been endowed in the temple.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Have you forgotten about the Spirit World entirely?

Sorry Katz, I am confused, whats the Spirit World got to do with this? I was only saying what I was told.