A very important man died today. I am sure the world will go on without him but it will be a less kind and friendly place now that he is gone. I can't state how important he was to me. Without him I wouldn't be the man that I am in all the good aspects. I don't know how to react to it. I know that I shouldn't be sad. I can't help but feel I would have liked to hear him talk one more time. He took care of me; I don't know if he knew it, he kept me from losing my humanity at times when it would have been easy and sometimes understood for me to throw it away for a moment. He reminded me that no matter how complex life gets the answers are always simple. That being a strong man in these times means that you are a soft human being. My life compared to his and what he would have expected of me would probably be a shortcoming. I can't but thank him though for letting me know where the bar was set and that it was that high.
Showing posts with label On God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label On God. Show all posts
Monday, January 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
You Kant Make Me
Lately on a work outing I got to catch up on some “good” reading. One of my co-workers happened to have a copy of the Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals (“GMM”). This surprised the heck out of me considering the group that I run with at my job. It got me thinking about some of the old philosophical questions I use to contemplate before I said to heck with it.
The work GMM is itself a very dense reading. Immanuel Kant is considered one of the most difficult reads in the area of ethics. GMM I think is the easiest of his works to digest. He takes a purely logical view of ethics, which leads to some strange conclusions.
One of the concepts discussed at length when talking about GMM is free will/autonomy/choice. I really don’t want to get into the formulation of the categorical imperative, because I’m just too lazy to write that much. But the last post about Charles Xavier gave me some thought about compulsion. It is generally accepted that if one is forced to do something one is not morally accountable for it. That is to say if I held your life in my hands and forced you to do something that would normally be considered immoral you wouldn’t be held accountable for it. A corollary of that is if one didn’t choose to do something then one couldn’t consider the act a moral one, it was just an act that happened. So moral action for the most part; are not mistakes they are choices with deliberate thinking at some stage in the decision making process (the some stage part is for all those consequentialist that have a default action scheme).
The topic of being forced to do something against one’s will is an old topic. Another less old topic that for some reason came up in my mind was that of temptation. There are some prevailing ideas that surface when it comes to being tempted and being held morally accountable. In most Christian sects that I have experience with there is this notion that God will not allow a situation to arise where you cannot resist the temptation. In our system of law we have the notion of entrapment. These notions lead me to some interesting questions. If God won’t allow you to be in a situation where you cannot resist the temptation, there has to exist some situations where you can’t resist the temptation. What would suffice to be too tempted? When you throw in the mix of human autonomy it looks as if God is putting a very severe restriction on it with this line of not being tempted too much thinking. Then again there is always the line of thinking nothing is undoable with God on your side. But that idea sort of makes the “temptation exemption clause” sort of a meaningless statement. In society we seem to have an understanding if someone was tempted by things.
I could probably come up with a clear line of logic based on all those questions but I gave up doing things like that a long time ago.
The work GMM is itself a very dense reading. Immanuel Kant is considered one of the most difficult reads in the area of ethics. GMM I think is the easiest of his works to digest. He takes a purely logical view of ethics, which leads to some strange conclusions.
One of the concepts discussed at length when talking about GMM is free will/autonomy/choice. I really don’t want to get into the formulation of the categorical imperative, because I’m just too lazy to write that much. But the last post about Charles Xavier gave me some thought about compulsion. It is generally accepted that if one is forced to do something one is not morally accountable for it. That is to say if I held your life in my hands and forced you to do something that would normally be considered immoral you wouldn’t be held accountable for it. A corollary of that is if one didn’t choose to do something then one couldn’t consider the act a moral one, it was just an act that happened. So moral action for the most part; are not mistakes they are choices with deliberate thinking at some stage in the decision making process (the some stage part is for all those consequentialist that have a default action scheme).
The topic of being forced to do something against one’s will is an old topic. Another less old topic that for some reason came up in my mind was that of temptation. There are some prevailing ideas that surface when it comes to being tempted and being held morally accountable. In most Christian sects that I have experience with there is this notion that God will not allow a situation to arise where you cannot resist the temptation. In our system of law we have the notion of entrapment. These notions lead me to some interesting questions. If God won’t allow you to be in a situation where you cannot resist the temptation, there has to exist some situations where you can’t resist the temptation. What would suffice to be too tempted? When you throw in the mix of human autonomy it looks as if God is putting a very severe restriction on it with this line of not being tempted too much thinking. Then again there is always the line of thinking nothing is undoable with God on your side. But that idea sort of makes the “temptation exemption clause” sort of a meaningless statement. In society we seem to have an understanding if someone was tempted by things.
I could probably come up with a clear line of logic based on all those questions but I gave up doing things like that a long time ago.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Don't Burn Me at the Stake
Disclaimer: to my 5, oh wait I think 6 people read this blog now, readers if you haven't figured it out yet I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or a Mormon. This post will talk about some of the deeper issues associated with Church Doctrine concerning "original sin" or as we like to call it "the fall". This post as always is nothing more than my thoughts, they in no way reflect the CJCLDS stance on the topic. I do use sources that will give a good idea of the doctrine in question, but I in no way speech for the Church. So if you are one of my faithful readers or just some random blog encounter, you can go to http://www.lds.org/ to have any question answered about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
There is a saying in my Church, "I don't have a problem with the doctrine, I have a problem with the culture." That is to say while I believe the doctrines of my Church I don't necessarily think the way those doctrines are implemented by the members of my church is the best. Another aspect is if those doctrines are taught wrong then sometimes you get bad results. One of those doctrines I think fall into this category for me is the "Fall of Man". While I have come to an understanding of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of knowledge in a way that explains the basics, I think the way it is taught in my Church stifles a fuller understanding of the doctrine and thus the nature of God, free agency, and our own condition here on Earth.
I assume that the only time members of my Church talk about the fall of man in any meaningful manner is in Sunday School. This leads to a bigger problem I have with Sunday School in general. However I still attend Sunday School whenever possible. I still consider it a treat. For those of you who see Sunday School as a free time, then I recommend getting into a situation where you can't go or you are denied to go. The classes that were once a chore will become sweat to you when you are denied them. Also no matter what problems you have with any meeting I highly recommend you attend them. If you are not deriving benefit from a meeting then it is nobody's fault but yours. But back to the point; the perspective I am coming from is the way the topic is taught in Sunday School. I will go over what I think are the basics of the doctrine and then the way I see it being taught and understood, and eventually my concerns with those ways.
According to Lesson 4 of the "Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual, 12" titled "Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened" There are three foundations for the salvation of man: creation, fall and atonement. The way the lesson presents the pillars the fall is seen as a necessary part of our salvation. The lesson quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "said that our salvation is made possible because of "three divine events—the three pillars of eternity" (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 81)." The fall came about because of two commandments given to Adam and Eve, once again from lesson 4 :
" In the Garden of Eden, God commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Moses 2:28). He also commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Moses 3:17). As long as they did not partake of the forbidden fruit, they would remain in the garden and would not die. But they also would not be able to obey the command to multiply (Moses 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:23). Heavenly Father gave them agency to choose between the two commands."
The fall isn't all bad according to the lesson. The fall carries with it some benefits. Lesson 4:
"As you discuss these results of the Fall, emphasize how the Fall is beneficial to us. Latter-day revelation clarifies that even before the Creation, Heavenly Father intended our earth life to be a time of testing and proving so we could become more like him (Abraham 3:24–26). This required that we be mortals, able to learn to choose between good and evil, which was made possible through the Fall."
So we know that the fall was a component of our salvation and that with it there are some benefits. I want to go a little deeper. We know that there was a fall but what does that mean? Well it means that Adam and Eve disobeyed a commandment from God. However what does it mean to disobey God? In this sense we use the term transgression instead of sin. The best articulation of the difference between sin and transgression was in the April 1981 Ensign in an article titled, "Salvation: By Grace or by Works?" written by Gerald N. Lund, director of college curriculum in the Church Educational System:
"The concept of sin rests upon the concept of law. If there were no law, there could be no sin (see 2 Ne. 2:13; Alma 42:17), because "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 Jn. 3:4). However, for purposes of understanding the Atonement better, it might be helpful to draw a distinction between two important variations in how the law may be violated. A person may violate the law in spite of his knowledge of it; that is, he breaks the law deliberately. But others may violate the law because they are unaware of its existence (ignorance) or because they do not have sufficient maturity to understand the implications of it (lack of accountability). For clarification, let us use two terms to delineate the important differences in these two concepts. Any violation of the law that is willful and knowing we shall call "sin." But any violation that results either from ignorance or lack of accountability we shall call "transgression." The scriptures do not distinguish between these two terms consistently, but such a distinction may help us understand some important points about the Atonement. For example, it helps us understand why children under the age of accountability cannot sin (see D&C 29:47). Any parent who has observed his children’s behavior knows that they often violate laws of the gospel. They hit brothers and sisters, demonstrate extreme selfishness at times, and can be unmercifully cruel to playmates. But while these are "transgressions" they are not "sins," because as Mormon points out, children are "not capable of committing sin" (see Moro. 8:8). Much the same is true of those who have reached adulthood but have relatively little or no opportunity to learn the principles of righteousness. They also violate the laws of God, sometimes horribly so, as in the case of many primitive peoples, but they are of necessity judged differently because they do not "sin" in the sense of willing and deliberate rebellion against God. (See Rom. 2:12; D&C 82:3; also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, p. 218.)"
So since Adam and Eve did not willfully violate the commandments of God then they made a transgression and thus the fall. One of the natural consequences to the human condition because of Adam's choice was the introduction of death into the world. More importantly we were severed from the presence of God.
Well that is all good and dandy, thanks for the quick lesson in Church Doctrine. Well what is my gripe? My first area of concern is the light in which the choice Adam made is given. Adam was given two choices and made one. It seems that people are of the opinion that it was the best choice or the only choice. I think this is largely due to the wording of lesson 4 and the use of the word benefits. The fact is Adam had two choices either one of which would have led to transgression. It wasn't the best choice it was a choice, a choice that had to be made. I am personally glad that I wasn't the one to be given that choice because well I don't think I could have made either. People point out that because of Adam's choice we have the current plan of salvation and exaltation, thus it was the best choice. In this regard I would like to remind people that nothing is out of the power of God and a different route that preserved our agency and provided for our salvation and exaltation could have been laid out. For if it truly were a choice it could have gone the other way, and I don't see God as one who would gamble on the possibility of failure.
The next issue that is dodged like the plague is why would God put Adam in a situation where he was going to lose no matter what? When asked this question the usual answer is well Adam made the right choice and see how everything works out now? And the class continues without an answer to the question. Once again I would like to restate my opinion that Adam made a choice. One possible answer to the question (which I have yet to discuss in any depth due to dodging of said question) is that maybe God didn't put Adam in that position because of what God was but more because of what Adam was. That is to say, it wasn't that God created, put Adam there and said, do your best which is failure; rather whatever Adam was, it was not enough in the first place so it was impossible for Adam not to fail regardless of the situation created. Adam would fail regardless of what situation created by God because of what Adam was from his first estate. There was a deficiency in Adam and all of us that would prevent us from succeeding. So grace wasn't necessary because of the choice Adam made but because of the inadequacy of what we are. Yeah God's love is deep like that.
Another issue is that of knowledge. In our first estate we chose to go with God and not the Adversary. We were rewarded for that choice by being allowed to be tested and grow on Earth. Well if we chose and the choice meant something doesn't that mean we had a knowledge of good and evil from the get go? So does that mean God took away our knowledge of good and evil? I have to say no because of our belief that Adam gained it when he ate the fruit. So what kind of knowledge of good and evil did we have in our first estate and why is it insufficient for the next estate? This is a serious question for me because if we can learn what the difference is we can learn how to shape our choices so that our understanding of good is magnified and thus our understanding of God.
There is a saying in my Church, "I don't have a problem with the doctrine, I have a problem with the culture." That is to say while I believe the doctrines of my Church I don't necessarily think the way those doctrines are implemented by the members of my church is the best. Another aspect is if those doctrines are taught wrong then sometimes you get bad results. One of those doctrines I think fall into this category for me is the "Fall of Man". While I have come to an understanding of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of knowledge in a way that explains the basics, I think the way it is taught in my Church stifles a fuller understanding of the doctrine and thus the nature of God, free agency, and our own condition here on Earth.
I assume that the only time members of my Church talk about the fall of man in any meaningful manner is in Sunday School. This leads to a bigger problem I have with Sunday School in general. However I still attend Sunday School whenever possible. I still consider it a treat. For those of you who see Sunday School as a free time, then I recommend getting into a situation where you can't go or you are denied to go. The classes that were once a chore will become sweat to you when you are denied them. Also no matter what problems you have with any meeting I highly recommend you attend them. If you are not deriving benefit from a meeting then it is nobody's fault but yours. But back to the point; the perspective I am coming from is the way the topic is taught in Sunday School. I will go over what I think are the basics of the doctrine and then the way I see it being taught and understood, and eventually my concerns with those ways.
According to Lesson 4 of the "Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual, 12" titled "Because of My Transgression My Eyes Are Opened" There are three foundations for the salvation of man: creation, fall and atonement. The way the lesson presents the pillars the fall is seen as a necessary part of our salvation. The lesson quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "said that our salvation is made possible because of "three divine events—the three pillars of eternity" (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [1985], 81)." The fall came about because of two commandments given to Adam and Eve, once again from lesson 4 :
" In the Garden of Eden, God commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Moses 2:28). He also commanded them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Moses 3:17). As long as they did not partake of the forbidden fruit, they would remain in the garden and would not die. But they also would not be able to obey the command to multiply (Moses 5:11; 2 Nephi 2:23). Heavenly Father gave them agency to choose between the two commands."
The fall isn't all bad according to the lesson. The fall carries with it some benefits. Lesson 4:
"As you discuss these results of the Fall, emphasize how the Fall is beneficial to us. Latter-day revelation clarifies that even before the Creation, Heavenly Father intended our earth life to be a time of testing and proving so we could become more like him (Abraham 3:24–26). This required that we be mortals, able to learn to choose between good and evil, which was made possible through the Fall."
So we know that the fall was a component of our salvation and that with it there are some benefits. I want to go a little deeper. We know that there was a fall but what does that mean? Well it means that Adam and Eve disobeyed a commandment from God. However what does it mean to disobey God? In this sense we use the term transgression instead of sin. The best articulation of the difference between sin and transgression was in the April 1981 Ensign in an article titled, "Salvation: By Grace or by Works?" written by Gerald N. Lund, director of college curriculum in the Church Educational System:
"The concept of sin rests upon the concept of law. If there were no law, there could be no sin (see 2 Ne. 2:13; Alma 42:17), because "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 Jn. 3:4). However, for purposes of understanding the Atonement better, it might be helpful to draw a distinction between two important variations in how the law may be violated. A person may violate the law in spite of his knowledge of it; that is, he breaks the law deliberately. But others may violate the law because they are unaware of its existence (ignorance) or because they do not have sufficient maturity to understand the implications of it (lack of accountability). For clarification, let us use two terms to delineate the important differences in these two concepts. Any violation of the law that is willful and knowing we shall call "sin." But any violation that results either from ignorance or lack of accountability we shall call "transgression." The scriptures do not distinguish between these two terms consistently, but such a distinction may help us understand some important points about the Atonement. For example, it helps us understand why children under the age of accountability cannot sin (see D&C 29:47). Any parent who has observed his children’s behavior knows that they often violate laws of the gospel. They hit brothers and sisters, demonstrate extreme selfishness at times, and can be unmercifully cruel to playmates. But while these are "transgressions" they are not "sins," because as Mormon points out, children are "not capable of committing sin" (see Moro. 8:8). Much the same is true of those who have reached adulthood but have relatively little or no opportunity to learn the principles of righteousness. They also violate the laws of God, sometimes horribly so, as in the case of many primitive peoples, but they are of necessity judged differently because they do not "sin" in the sense of willing and deliberate rebellion against God. (See Rom. 2:12; D&C 82:3; also Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, p. 218.)"
So since Adam and Eve did not willfully violate the commandments of God then they made a transgression and thus the fall. One of the natural consequences to the human condition because of Adam's choice was the introduction of death into the world. More importantly we were severed from the presence of God.
Well that is all good and dandy, thanks for the quick lesson in Church Doctrine. Well what is my gripe? My first area of concern is the light in which the choice Adam made is given. Adam was given two choices and made one. It seems that people are of the opinion that it was the best choice or the only choice. I think this is largely due to the wording of lesson 4 and the use of the word benefits. The fact is Adam had two choices either one of which would have led to transgression. It wasn't the best choice it was a choice, a choice that had to be made. I am personally glad that I wasn't the one to be given that choice because well I don't think I could have made either. People point out that because of Adam's choice we have the current plan of salvation and exaltation, thus it was the best choice. In this regard I would like to remind people that nothing is out of the power of God and a different route that preserved our agency and provided for our salvation and exaltation could have been laid out. For if it truly were a choice it could have gone the other way, and I don't see God as one who would gamble on the possibility of failure.
The next issue that is dodged like the plague is why would God put Adam in a situation where he was going to lose no matter what? When asked this question the usual answer is well Adam made the right choice and see how everything works out now? And the class continues without an answer to the question. Once again I would like to restate my opinion that Adam made a choice. One possible answer to the question (which I have yet to discuss in any depth due to dodging of said question) is that maybe God didn't put Adam in that position because of what God was but more because of what Adam was. That is to say, it wasn't that God created, put Adam there and said, do your best which is failure; rather whatever Adam was, it was not enough in the first place so it was impossible for Adam not to fail regardless of the situation created. Adam would fail regardless of what situation created by God because of what Adam was from his first estate. There was a deficiency in Adam and all of us that would prevent us from succeeding. So grace wasn't necessary because of the choice Adam made but because of the inadequacy of what we are. Yeah God's love is deep like that.
Another issue is that of knowledge. In our first estate we chose to go with God and not the Adversary. We were rewarded for that choice by being allowed to be tested and grow on Earth. Well if we chose and the choice meant something doesn't that mean we had a knowledge of good and evil from the get go? So does that mean God took away our knowledge of good and evil? I have to say no because of our belief that Adam gained it when he ate the fruit. So what kind of knowledge of good and evil did we have in our first estate and why is it insufficient for the next estate? This is a serious question for me because if we can learn what the difference is we can learn how to shape our choices so that our understanding of good is magnified and thus our understanding of God.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
You are so mature, unlucky you.
You know I find that kids in general give me a lot of faith in good old humanity. There has been a lot of talk among my circle of friends about how different we are. When you look at kids though you see that we have a lot of things in common. Here are some things I've notice:
If you set a kid in any given area for a period of time longer than five minutes they like to throw rocks.
Kids are insanely curious.
No matter what language or culture, when a kid doesn't get what they want, they let out the universal phrase, "awh" usually followed by some other word (in English it is usually man or dad or mom).
Kids can spot a week parent/adult a mile away (weak as in a push over).
Kids in general think it is cool when school is canceled even when it is a bomb threat.
Kids think cows are cool.
There are plenty more but those are the ones I've seen recently. You know Jesus said that (I paraphrase here) that you must be like a child to be a follower of him. When did growing up become so great? Joseph and Mary left childhood Jesus behind and had to go back to get him. Sometimes we forget things and have to return to get our childhood. (Yes I basically stole this idea from a MLK speech so sue me.)
If you set a kid in any given area for a period of time longer than five minutes they like to throw rocks.
Kids are insanely curious.
No matter what language or culture, when a kid doesn't get what they want, they let out the universal phrase, "awh" usually followed by some other word (in English it is usually man or dad or mom).
Kids can spot a week parent/adult a mile away (weak as in a push over).
Kids in general think it is cool when school is canceled even when it is a bomb threat.
Kids think cows are cool.
There are plenty more but those are the ones I've seen recently. You know Jesus said that (I paraphrase here) that you must be like a child to be a follower of him. When did growing up become so great? Joseph and Mary left childhood Jesus behind and had to go back to get him. Sometimes we forget things and have to return to get our childhood. (Yes I basically stole this idea from a MLK speech so sue me.)
Friday, January 12, 2007
The difference of being different
I have been writing a friend of mine, lets call him little roster served with beef jerky gravy and a side of leaves. During the course of our conversation she (hey fishes change sex so can my friend pronouns) mentioned that one of his past friends had gone down a slippery slope into a life less desired. At the root of our non in depth discussion was why and how often people make such choices. The overall sense was that of fustration.
The first thing I'd like to touch on is greatness. A good friend of mine, lets call him island, gave me some good advice. Greatness doesn't come from doing that one great thing, it comes by preparing to do that one great thing every day with the little things. I derived a corollary from that; the things that effect your life greatly aren't the few big choices, but the small ones you make on a daily basis. As I have aged some, choices like: which school am I going to, what is my major going to be, what am I going to do for grad school, what is my career going to be, and so on have had very little impact on who I view myself to be. Further these big choices have even less impact on who I want to be. Don't get me wrong there are some big choices that will effect who you are greatly, like hey lets have a baby. So what does this have to do with people not living the most desirable life or how does this apply? My contention is this, people sell those little things for what they think are great things.
I don't like to use examples but I'm not feeling paticularly abstract at this time so here you get one. As some of you know, I have what most people would consider some odd religious tenets. I have at one time or another violated nearly every tenet of my faith. That's just a fact I can't hide it. But enough of that lets talk about me being obedient for a change. I've come across a new set of people due to my work. Due to the nature of my work you have to hang out with those you work with; it just wouldn't be good if you didn't. One of my tenets is thou shall not not drink spirited beverages. The vast majority of my new friends drink alcoholic beverages. Some of these new friends are of the exact same faith as me (go figure small world). When we go out there is a lot of drinking. People at the very start asked if I would like a drink, and often became rather pushy on the subject. Being the DD gave me a quick out. However after the first few times I just started letting my position known, I don't drink spirited beverages. I just like saying/writing spirited beverages. Anyways, people still asked all the time. However, as time wore on they realized I wasn't going to bend on this so they stopped. Another interesting trend, as they realized I wasn't going to bend on the issue I got asked to hang out even more where no DD was necessary. What happened instead of my new friends viewing me as a up tight stick in the mud, a foundation of respect had developed for the choice I had made. I understand for someone battling substance abuse this would be a huge choice, but for me not drinking is such a small thing. This respect translated into me being well liked by my friends. Well that and I'm really realy good looking and that's what counts in life.
So lets juxtapose this with one of my new friends of the same faith. I'll call her number one. Number one wanted all of us to like and include her in all the activities we hand planed. He was in a new environment and wanted some people he could bond with. If you hung around people who drink before there are a lot of "drunken stories". So when number one was presented with, "hey just have one drink, join us in the fun!" number one decided to partake of the sacrament of porcelain. Needless to say one drink led to another, on time drinking led to another. Another interesting thing happened, number one started to get alienated from the group. She was viewed as crazy and unstable (even though his behavior was exactly the same as everyone who drank). When I mentioned we should include number one on events people raied a brow every time. They didn't want to do it. Even though number one was a part of so many, I'm talking a lot here, of those drinking stories no bonding happened.
In this example I saw that somebody had traded a little principle of daily living for something they perceived to be great, the bonding and fellowship of friends. The situation worsened and number one's life slowly but surely slipped. Don't get me wrong I'm an idiot and have my fair share of slips. But when I don't slip on the daily little things is when I see my life taking shape. The things in my life for the most part are not defined by the big choices I have made but the small rules I have obeyed or disobeyed. I have so much more to say about this topic but my fingers are tired and many better than I have said much to cover the topic.
The first thing I'd like to touch on is greatness. A good friend of mine, lets call him island, gave me some good advice. Greatness doesn't come from doing that one great thing, it comes by preparing to do that one great thing every day with the little things. I derived a corollary from that; the things that effect your life greatly aren't the few big choices, but the small ones you make on a daily basis. As I have aged some, choices like: which school am I going to, what is my major going to be, what am I going to do for grad school, what is my career going to be, and so on have had very little impact on who I view myself to be. Further these big choices have even less impact on who I want to be. Don't get me wrong there are some big choices that will effect who you are greatly, like hey lets have a baby. So what does this have to do with people not living the most desirable life or how does this apply? My contention is this, people sell those little things for what they think are great things.
I don't like to use examples but I'm not feeling paticularly abstract at this time so here you get one. As some of you know, I have what most people would consider some odd religious tenets. I have at one time or another violated nearly every tenet of my faith. That's just a fact I can't hide it. But enough of that lets talk about me being obedient for a change. I've come across a new set of people due to my work. Due to the nature of my work you have to hang out with those you work with; it just wouldn't be good if you didn't. One of my tenets is thou shall not not drink spirited beverages. The vast majority of my new friends drink alcoholic beverages. Some of these new friends are of the exact same faith as me (go figure small world). When we go out there is a lot of drinking. People at the very start asked if I would like a drink, and often became rather pushy on the subject. Being the DD gave me a quick out. However after the first few times I just started letting my position known, I don't drink spirited beverages. I just like saying/writing spirited beverages. Anyways, people still asked all the time. However, as time wore on they realized I wasn't going to bend on this so they stopped. Another interesting trend, as they realized I wasn't going to bend on the issue I got asked to hang out even more where no DD was necessary. What happened instead of my new friends viewing me as a up tight stick in the mud, a foundation of respect had developed for the choice I had made. I understand for someone battling substance abuse this would be a huge choice, but for me not drinking is such a small thing. This respect translated into me being well liked by my friends. Well that and I'm really realy good looking and that's what counts in life.
So lets juxtapose this with one of my new friends of the same faith. I'll call her number one. Number one wanted all of us to like and include her in all the activities we hand planed. He was in a new environment and wanted some people he could bond with. If you hung around people who drink before there are a lot of "drunken stories". So when number one was presented with, "hey just have one drink, join us in the fun!" number one decided to partake of the sacrament of porcelain. Needless to say one drink led to another, on time drinking led to another. Another interesting thing happened, number one started to get alienated from the group. She was viewed as crazy and unstable (even though his behavior was exactly the same as everyone who drank). When I mentioned we should include number one on events people raied a brow every time. They didn't want to do it. Even though number one was a part of so many, I'm talking a lot here, of those drinking stories no bonding happened.
In this example I saw that somebody had traded a little principle of daily living for something they perceived to be great, the bonding and fellowship of friends. The situation worsened and number one's life slowly but surely slipped. Don't get me wrong I'm an idiot and have my fair share of slips. But when I don't slip on the daily little things is when I see my life taking shape. The things in my life for the most part are not defined by the big choices I have made but the small rules I have obeyed or disobeyed. I have so much more to say about this topic but my fingers are tired and many better than I have said much to cover the topic.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Perception and Church
I’ve been thinking about the implications of public perception on the question of what constitutes the character of any religious organization.
<>Let me define the scope of the question. I’m not contemplating instances where the outside group and the religious organization have completely conflicting definitions. For instance the outside group may perceive the notion of outlawing interest (money) as a foolish notion, while the religious organization perceives that as a wise notion. So the outside group may consider the religious organization as foolish, while the religion proffers that it is not. In this case both sides have differing definitions of what foolish is.<>The cases to which I’m contemplating are where both the outside and religious group has the same (or extremely similar) definitions of a concept. In these cases what are the implications when the religion proffers that is or supports concept X, but the outside group perceives the religion as not supporting or being concept X? An example of this might be obedience to law. A religion proffers that is supports obeying local laws, but the outside group thinks the religion does not support its members obeying local laws.<>
There are three scenarios that can bring this about. (There are probably more but I lack the vision to see them.) 1) The outside group is mistaken in its perception of the members of the religious group 2) the outside group is correct in its perception of the religious group and the religion is merely proffering to be concept X 3) the outside group is correct in its perception of the members of the religious group, and it is the members that are mistaken about how they are achieving concept X. <>
I find scenario 2 uninteresting as the religious group is merely trying to look like they support X. As such scenario 2 doesn’t yield anything of interest because the outside group knows the religion is not X, the religious group knows they are not X (nor do they really want to be X). So the overall impact of what the outside groups perception of the religion is nothing for in this scenario the religion is simply not X. (I know this opens up a whole can of worms, because what if the outside group perceives that the religion is X, and the religion merely proffers that it isn’t X, does that make them X? This goes to the heart of my question, but still I need to work through this.) <>
Scenario 1 is not very interesting. In this instance it seems that the outside group is merely making perceptions from a bad base or inadequate information. I find this to be the most common scenario. A prime example of this would be a very vocal minority of a religion creating a perception in the public that would not be held if the public met any other members of the religion (who happen to be the overwhelming majority). In other words the perception has little impact to the religion’s character, as the perception is a bad one. <>
On to the scenario that I’ve been contemplating. (I know, I spent more words talking about what I’m not talking about than what I do want to talk about.) Let me clarify what I mean by “correct in its perception” in scenario 3. By that phrase I mean the outside group has a good bases for there opinion. In this instance outside group has met and interacted with a good amount of the members of a religion, or has other demographic evidence to base their perceptions on. Another point of clarification; by the phrase “mistaken about how they are achieving concept X” I mean the religion’s members as a majority think they are X and/or the religion has a doctrine supporting X. An example of this would be if a religion had a doctrine of friendliness and most of the members of the religion thought that they were friendly. <>
Well why is this scenario so interesting you may ask? There are certain concepts that are by their very nature dependant on what other’s think of you. Friendliness comes to mind. You can think you are friendly all you want but if everyone thinks you are not friendly then you are not friendly. Funniness is another example. Then there are other concepts that are sort of dependant what others think. <>
One of these concepts is bigotry. An example of this was the policy of the LDS faith (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) regarding African American’s. It was once held that African American’s could not hold the priesthood in the LDS faith. (This policy has long been done away with. The LDS faith is truly an accepting religion today, it has mission programs that serve in all contents and the policy of excluding African American’s from the priesthood was abolished by official church proclamation.) Without the priesthood a male member of the LDS faith could not complete all the commandments given to them. Additionally many of the benefits proffered by the LDS faith were impossible to obtain without the priesthood. The priesthood serves as a cornerstone by which (in the LDS faith) families are to be raised and cared for. Now let me apply this example. Suppose that a member of the LDS faith (this example takes place as if the LDS faith still has the policy of excluding African Americans from the priesthood) says to a non-member, “Hey why don’t you join the LDS faith.” The non-member replies, “I’d love to but I don’t want to join a faith that has bigotry as one of its principles.” I know what you are thinking; hey the religious group and the outside group have differing definitions of bigotry at this point if the member proffers that the LDS faith isn’t about bigotry. But this is only if the member supports that discriminating against African American’s isn’t bigotry. <>
So this is the dilemma; suppose the member thinks that the doctrine of the LDS faith doesn’t support the exclusion. Additionally the member doesn’t support the exclusion. The member thinks that all those that supports the exclusions are wrong. So how does the member with a strait face hold the position and tell the non-member that the LDS faith isn’t about bigotry in spite of the fact the vast majority of the member’s support bigotry? What does the member say? Do they say, “Hey that’s not what this church stands for; despite the fact most members of the church hold that belief and act on it. There is no support in the doctrine.” And even if the said faith LDS or otherwise has a doctrine opposing a particular action can it be said that that religion opposes that action if the vast majority of that religion supports that action? Is it enough for a faith to simply have a doctrine to which a minority prescribes to for it to be considered a characteristic of that faith.?
There are a lot more issues that stem for this but I feel that I’ve wrote enough on this for tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
