Are certain practices ok if Christ doesn't explicitly condemn or warn against them in scripture?

[FrankOne]

I feel the need to clarify my oft posted "Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law"

I will post this on it's own thread as well.

I tend to be abstract without much explanation at times and I am realizing that this isn't a good course.

Consider the Ten Commandments. Each has a benefit and a "punishment" if disobeyed. If studied, it is easy to discover that BOTH the benefits and punishments are included. In ancient times, man was going from extreme barbarism to a more disciplined way of living. Apparently, very few could understand the depth behind the commandments and that is why they were given as commandments. Commandments are given to those without understanding. (This applies to all men)

Commandments are given on ALL levels from initiates to the advanced. Ie, “Be ye therefore perfect”

Commandments are for those that do not understand how to self-govern and they are actually given for man to evolve into a more productive way of living. Still today, many simply "obey" without paying attention to the actual "why" and many obey reluctantly.

God wants us to BE good people, not just act like good people. Although blind obedience is an excellent first step before God, Blind obedience is acting or better said, practicing. Learning why the laws are given is to evolve. It's about growth.

I'll cover a few of the commandments:


Thou shalt not have other gods before Me.

Benefit - Devotion to a single God gives a clear purpose and strength and a focus on spirituality rather than temporal objects that expire.

Punishment for disobedience - Waffling, indecision, lack of clarity, multi-mindedness. When applied to objects - False ideas, false hope, false trust in that which perishes.


Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

Benefit: This causes self reflection in word and thought. Discipline. Creates a reverence for a being that is greater than ourselves.

Punishment: Self respect and mental coherence is diminished. A loss of divine connection occurs.

Keep the Sabbath day holy.

Benefit: Working 7 days a week is very detrimental to the body. A day of rest for focused concentration on spiritual matters is very helpful for the spirit, mind, and body.

Punishment: your body breaks down, your mind becomes a fog, anxiety becomes the norm, loss of spiritual sensitivity.

Thou shalt not murder.

Benefit: Spiritual, mental and emotional Integrity

Punishment: The mind and soul is destroyed

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Benefit : Family coherence. Spousal relationship is maintained. A single mind toward the other grows. Commitment is learned. The soul is quiet instead of vexed.

Punishment: Instability of mind and soul. Family disrupted. Spousal relationship is fractured or destroyed.

Be ye, therefore Perfect

Benefit: Pure Joy within Unconditional Love.

Punishment for disobedience: Fear, misery, stress, anxiety, vexation of the body, mind, and soul.

(the closer one gets to learning the meaning of this commandment, the more peace and joy is experienced. <These are the measuring tools for where a person is in this life.

===============================

Do as thou wilt is the whole of the Law, just remember there are consequences.

If you pause a moment and consider it, you are ALWAYS doing as you will . Always. If you are not, then you have a split mind. When you obey a commandment, are you not choosing it wholly? If not, then you have a split mind. Those that consider this statement false are not wholly committed to their choices. You ARE doing as you will whether you realize it or not.

I would very much appreciate anyone pointing out errors in the above or elaborations for discussion.

[FrankOne]

Sarah gave Abraham the nod and he did not object

Hence, what is known, in some circles, as "The Law of Sarah."

But this raises an interesting question. If Levirate marriage seems to be acceptable to God, in order to remove a woman's reproach for not being able to bear children, then why would the Law of Sarah not have equal standing with God, where a woman is barren, in order for her husband to have children, a posterity, and remove his reproach? If Levirate marriage is fully acceptable to God, why would the Law of Sarah likewise not be fully acceptable to God?

Levirate marriage had a time and place... that sunset IMO.

I also disagree with the "Law of Sarah."

Are you able to locate a reference for Abraham's repentance for the sin of polygamy?

[Reluctant Watchman]

Hence, what is known, in some circles, as "The Law of Sarah."

But this raises an interesting question. If Levirate marriage seems to be acceptable to God, in order to remove a woman's reproach for not being able to bear children, then why would the Law of Sarah not have equal standing with God, where a woman is barren, in order for her husband to have children, a posterity, and remove his reproach? If Levirate marriage is fully acceptable to God, why would the Law of Sarah likewise not be fully acceptable to God?

Levirate marriage had a time and place... that sunset IMO.

I also disagree with the "Law of Sarah."

Are you able to locate a reference for Abraham's repentance for the sin of polygamy?

The Book of Manti:

22. Behold, it is good that you have brought this matter unto me. Yea, I am pleased that this whole people should cry unto me for an answer concerning this thing. And they have asked me how it is that Abraham was justified and had more than one wife, and also Jacob. For behold, I did not give unto them more than one wife, but Abram did hearken unto his wife Sarai and did not inquire of me and did take Hagar to wife. As for Jacob it was through trickery and deceit that he entered into taking upon him more than one wife. In this my servants did transgress, but they did repent and did make a new covenant with me, and I did give them a new name even Abraham and Israel. And after they entered into this covenant with me they were obedient until the end, because of this covenant their posterity became my covenant people yea even the house of Israel. Now behold, because of the diligence of this people which are also of the house of Israel, I shall answer this question. Wherefore, my servant, Manti, record these words in a book.

[tmac]

Levirate marriage had a time and place... that sunset IMO.

I also disagree with the "Law of Sarah."

None of that is surprising, but again, just your speculative opinion(s) -- opinions and philosophies of men, mingled with scant scripture.

Having said that, I agree that in today's technocratic society, children are considered a liability. But that has nothing to do with God's view's about a Zion-like society, and corresponding preferences. Just depends on whether one wants to simply roll-over and go along with the World and its unGodly ways.

[tmac]

The Book of Manti:

22. Behold, it is good that you have brought this matter unto me. Yea, I am pleased that this whole people should cry unto me for an answer concerning this thing. And they have asked me how it is that Abraham was justified and had more than one wife, and also Jacob. For behold, I did not give unto them more than one wife, but Abram did hearken unto his wife Sarai and did not inquire of me and did take Hagar to wife. As for Jacob it was through trickery and deceit that he entered into taking upon him more than one wife. In this my servants did transgress, but they did repent and did make a new covenant with me, and I did give them a new name even Abraham and Israel. And after they entered into this covenant with me they were obedient until the end, because of this covenant their posterity became my covenant people yea even the house of Israel. Now behold, because of the diligence of this people which are also of the house of Israel, I shall answer this question. Wherefore, my servant, Manti, record these words in a book.

So, what we probably have here is pure opinions and philosophies of men, mingled with more opinions and philosophies of men. I.e., no scripture(s) even included in the equation.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I was pretty sure you'd say something like that.

[tmac]

Feel free to correct me if I am clearly wrong. If you have bona-fide, accepted Word of God to the contrary, you are welcome to cite it.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Feel free to correct me if I am clearly wrong. If you have bona-fide, accepted Word of God to the contrary, you are welcome to cite it.

I can't cite things that only fit your paradigms.

[FrankOne]

Levirate marriage had a time and place... that sunset IMO.

I also disagree with the "Law of Sarah."

Are you able to locate a reference for Abraham's repentance for the sin of polygamy?

The Book of Manti:

22. Behold, it is good that you have brought this matter unto me. Yea, I am pleased that this whole people should cry unto me for an answer concerning this thing. And they have asked me how it is that Abraham was justified and had more than one wife, and also Jacob. For behold, I did not give unto them more than one wife, but Abram did hearken unto his wife Sarai and did not inquire of me and did take Hagar to wife. As for Jacob it was through trickery and deceit that he entered into taking upon him more than one wife. In this my servants did transgress, but they did repent and did make a new covenant with me, and I did give them a new name even Abraham and Israel. And after they entered into this covenant with me they were obedient until the end, because of this covenant their posterity became my covenant people yea even the house of Israel. Now behold, because of the diligence of this people which are also of the house of Israel, I shall answer this question. Wherefore, my servant, Manti, record these words in a book.

I can understand that you find that book to be a valid source , but I do not.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I can understand that you find that book to be a valid source , but I do not.

Shocking, shocking I say!!

[FrankOne]

I can understand that you find that book to be a valid source , but I do not.

Shocking, shocking I say!!

I enjoy studying all sources , most of which, you would never consider to read. The difference is that I don't use any of them to "prove" anything. I cite things for consideration, not "proof" . NONE of what is written is "Proof". God nor Jesus ever wrote a word. Not even Buddha wrote a word. 3rd parties tell their tales of their memories mixed with their own preferential interpretations. This is how it is in reality. . To use "Evidence" in scripture is complete foolishness because it's ALWAYS utilized to back a current person's opinion in order to prove that their smart little Ego is "right".

[Reluctant Watchman]

I can understand that you find that book to be a valid source , but I do not.

Shocking, shocking I say!!

I enjoy studying all sources , most of which, you would never consider to read. The difference is that I don't use any of them to "prove" anything. I cite things for consideration, not "proof" . NONE of what is written is "Proof". God nor Jesus ever wrote a word. Not even Buddha wrote a word. 3rd parties tell their tales of their memories mixed with their own preferential interpretations. This is how it is in reality. . To use "Evidence" in scripture is complete foolishness because it's ALWAYS utilized to back a current person's opinion in order to prove that their smart little Ego is "right".

It's interesting that you'd make the assumption that I'd "never consider to read" something. I also don't "prove" things either with the things I read, yet they do help as guideposts.

[FrankOne]

Shocking, shocking I say!!

I enjoy studying all sources , most of which, you would never consider to read. The difference is that I don't use any of them to "prove" anything. I cite things for consideration, not "proof" . NONE of what is written is "Proof". God nor Jesus ever wrote a word. Not even Buddha wrote a word. 3rd parties tell their tales of their memories mixed with their own preferential interpretations. This is how it is in reality. . To use "Evidence" in scripture is complete foolishness because it's ALWAYS utilized to back a current person's opinion in order to prove that their smart little Ego is "right".

It's interesting that you'd make the assumption that I'd "never consider to read" something. I also don't "prove" things either with the things I read, yet they do help as guideposts.

I'm certain that I've studied many things that you would not ever consider reading.
Your battle ax is quite dulled in your efforts to prove to others that you are right by using written words. Why would you attempt to argue that?

[Reluctant Watchman]

I enjoy studying all sources , most of which, you would never consider to read. The difference is that I don't use any of them to "prove" anything. I cite things for consideration, not "proof" . NONE of what is written is "Proof". God nor Jesus ever wrote a word. Not even Buddha wrote a word. 3rd parties tell their tales of their memories mixed with their own preferential interpretations. This is how it is in reality. . To use "Evidence" in scripture is complete foolishness because it's ALWAYS utilized to back a current person's opinion in order to prove that their smart little Ego is "right".

It's interesting that you'd make the assumption that I'd "never consider to read" something. I also don't "prove" things either with the things I read, yet they do help as guideposts.

I'm certain that I've studied many things that you would not ever consider reading.
Your battle ax is quite dulled in your efforts to prove to others that you are right by using written words. Why would you attempt to argue that?

lol... take care. I have little interest in continuing this conversation considering your expressed biases.

[Jamescm]

Malum in Se versus Malum Prohibitum. Is something inherently bad or evil? If it is, Christ shouldn't even need to condemn it. But if it's not inherently bad or evil, then prohibition just for the sake of prohibition makes little sense.

While adultery is condemned, because it is inherently evil (does harm to applicable spouses), the act of sexual intercourse itself is not inherently bad or evil (although some have tried to make that appear to be the case). Although some cultures and/or traditions have looked down on pre-marital sex (sexual intercourse outside the bonds of marriage), it is hard to find any statement(s) directly attributable to God addressing that situation. So then the question is, is it inherently bad or evil -- i.e., does it harm someone? Who? How? From my perspective, the answer to that question is quite complex, but my own view is that God views adultery and pre-marital sex very differently.

For premarital sex, I think the factors involved are mastering your own flesh and avoiding the potential devastation that can arise from it, not necessarily the act itself in a ritual sense. Sex impacts and shapes the brain, and things that shape the brain (sex, alcohol, gambling, drugs, sugar, gluttony, screens...) can be especially hard to control when still growing and developing. One can have sex before marriage and turn out just fine. My wife and I could have gotten it on in the days leading up to our marriage, and we probably would be no different now. However, I know two people in life who did so and it negatively impacted their lives ever after.

One had to put her child up for adoption because she didn't have the family, social, or economic support necessary to raise him. She still keeps contact with him and his adoptive family, but the way he's being raised now and the kind of problems he has are things that she, his biological mother, is much better equipped to deal with than his current family. It is heartbreaking to her to see it.

The other case resulted in a drug-impacted child of six going on two who has no stable family to this day. His purpose and potential in mortality have been ruined, perhaps irreparably, because of his parents' irresponsibility. Had his parents waited until they realized the relationship wouldn't have worked out, it would have all been avoided. Yes, they could have gotten hitched in a rush just to say that they were, but then it wouldn't be the first or fortieth time that someone only technically skirted within the letter of the Law, to disastrous results. That's already still rejecting the Spirit. I maintain your overall point that one's bearing is what truly drives virtue and sin, not a list of absolute dos and don'ts.

[tmac]

Malum in Se versus Malum Prohibitum. Is something inherently bad or evil? If it is, Christ shouldn't even need to condemn it. But if it's not inherently bad or evil, then prohibition just for the sake of prohibition makes little sense.

While adultery is condemned, because it is inherently evil (does harm to applicable spouses), the act of sexual intercourse itself is not inherently bad or evil (although some have tried to make that appear to be the case). Although some cultures and/or traditions have looked down on pre-marital sex (sexual intercourse outside the bonds of marriage), it is hard to find any statement(s) directly attributable to God addressing that situation. So then the question is, is it inherently bad or evil -- i.e., does it harm someone? Who? How? From my perspective, the answer to that question is quite complex, but my own view is that God views adultery and pre-marital sex very differently.

For premarital sex, I think the factors involved are mastering your own flesh and avoiding the potential devastation that can arise from it, not necessarily the act itself in a ritual sense. Sex impacts and shapes the brain, and things that shape the brain (sex, alcohol, gambling, drugs, sugar, gluttony, screens...) can be especially hard to control when still growing and developing. One can have sex before marriage and turn out just fine. My wife and I could have gotten it on in the days leading up to our marriage, and we probably would be no different now. However, I know two people in life who did so and it negatively impacted their lives ever after.

One had to put her child up for adoption because she didn't have the family, social, or economic support necessary to raise him. She still keeps contact with him and his adoptive family, but the way he's being raised now and the kind of problems he has are things that she, his biological mother, is much better equipped to deal with than his current family. It is heartbreaking to her to see it.

The other case resulted in a drug-impacted child of six going on two who has no stable family to this day. His purpose and potential in mortality have been ruined, perhaps irreparably, because of his parents' irresponsibility. Had his parents waited until they realized the relationship wouldn't have worked out, it would have all been avoided. Yes, they could have gotten hitched in a rush just to say that they were, but then it wouldn't be the first or fortieth time that someone only technically skirted within the letter of the Law, to disastrous results. That's already still rejecting the Spirit. I maintain your overall point that one's bearing is what truly drives virtue and sin, not a list of absolute dos and don'ts.

I completely understand all the practical reasons mentioned, with corresponding anecdotal examples, but there are all kinds of consequential decisions and bad choices in life that are not necessarily "sins" per se, and certainly don't fall into a category of anything that can be labeled "wicked" or "evil." Were any of these people that you have mentioned truly wicked or evil -- or just, perhaps, careless?

But let's circle back around to Thomas Jefferson and his housekeeper. Once again, assuming that the relationship/arrangement was completely consensual, and there was obviously a long-term relationship, and the needs of the resulting offspring were fully met, is there any scriptural basis for claiming that their actions would automatically be condemned by God?

[tmac]

Looks like this discussion has essentially dried up. In the meantime, I have been watching Mark Passio's videos about Natural Law, that someone else shared on this thread: viewtopic.php?p=1520608#p1520608

It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but it's not necessarily everyone's cup of tea to really try to understand truth and reality. From my perspective, Passio does a pretty good job explaining it, and what it boils down to is that in terms of "morality" per se, including critical consideration of the full cause and effect relationship. According to his explanation, no act (including all reasonably resulting effects) which does not hurt or harm another can legitimately be considered to be immoral. In a nutshell, immoral acts are only those which hurt or harm others -- if there is no victim, there is no crime.

So, given the discussions about extra-marital sex (not adultery, but sex outside the confines of marriage), certainly if sexual intercourse results in consequences and effects (possible procreation, etc.), for which a person is not willing to take responsibility, then others may certainly be harmed. But, once again, back to the discussion of TJ and his housekeeper. Assuming a fully consensual relationship/arrangement, and TJ's willingness to take full responsibility for any resulting offspring, who and how is someone being harmed? Without such harm, what is/would be the basis for considering the act to be immoral?

Another useful thought exercise -- and I know that there has been some discussion of this subject before -- might involve, say, masturbation. To my knowledge, God has never expressly addressed the subject. Does it hurt/harm another? If not, what would be the legitimate basis for applying the "immoral" label?

And since I have circled back to labels, I want to add a few more thoughts to my previous thoughts about labels, and particularly the "conservative" label. On that score, some of the most "conservative" people I have known in my life have, for the most part, simply been very risk adverse. They have had very low tolerance for any kind of risk, whether it was financial risk, political risk, social risk, intellectual risk, spiritual risk, or change of just about any kind. When it comes to the prospect of risk or change of almost any kind, they have a foot firmly on the brake, and their risk adversity causes them to be hyper-vigilant about conserving time, effort and resources of all kinds when it comes to exploring anything that might involve any kind of risk. They seem to have always been more comfortable with the devil(s) they know than the one(s) they don't -- which is essentially the opposite of my own basic paradigm(s).
'

[FrankOne]

Looks like this discussion has essentially dried up. In the meantime, I have been watching Mark Passio's videos about Natural Law, that someone else shared on this thread: viewtopic.php?p=1520608#p1520608

It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but it's not not everyone's cup of tea to really try to understand truth and reality. From my perspective, Passio does a pretty good job explaining it, and what it boils down to is that in terms of "morality" per se, including critical consideration of the full cause and effect relationship. According to his explanation, no act (including all reasonably resulting effects) which does not hurt or harm another can legitimately be considered to be immoral. In a nutshell, immoral acts are only those which hurt or harm others -- if there is no victim, there is no crime.

So, given the discussions about extra-marital sex (not adultery, but sex outside the confines of marriage), certainly if sexual intercourse results in consequences and effects (possible procreation, etc.), for which a person is not willing to take responsibility, then others may certainly be harmed. But, once again, back to the discussion of TJ and his housekeeper. Assuming a fully consensual relationship/arrangement, and TJ's willingness to take full responsibility for any resulting offspring, who and how is someone being harmed? Without such harm, what is/would be the basis for considering the act to be immoral?

Another useful thought exercise -- and I know that there has been some discussion of this subject before -- might involve, say, masturbation. To my knowledge, God has never expressly addressed the subject. Does it hurt/harm another? If not, what would be the legitimate basis for applying the "immoral" label?
'

Due to this being an LDS religion based forum, I would think that most here will intermingle their own moral code with what they perceive to be God's moral code. Of course everyone's moral code is at least slightly different , so therefore God's moral code to them is what they themselves have decided it is.

It's just human nature.

I personally find no fault in TJ's actions if indeed he was fully responsible with the outcome. All choices such as he made involve a downline of responsibility. The funny thing is that people that are anti-polygamy get divorced every single day which has great adverse effects on the children and even themselves all because they were too selfish to actually work it out. IT TAKES WORK to have a good marriage. The incessant rants against polygamy about how it damages families never take into consideration the 1000x more families that are destroyed by ostensibly "good" monogamous religious parents. Go figure.

Most people today don't like working on their personal problems ...so...they...rely on their skill to cast blame.

Masturbation is one of those subjects for me which has so many possible facets of it that it's very difficult to address.

My viewpoints in very brief:

Too much masturbation destroys the mind. What's too much? I have no idea.

Masturbation when the marital relationship has any one of a 1000 different problems is likely a reasonable outlet in many cases, but...in my opinion, if it involves porn, then the mind/soul will suffer damage as well as marital relationships.

My unpopular viewpoint on how God considers these subjects isn't really worth writing because then we'd have to define "which God".

[BroJones]

interesting discussion about MJ...
thank you.

[4Joshua8]

The following concept came up in conversation. It goes something like this:

———
If there's no mention or condemnation of a certain type of behavior in the writings of Christ, is it ok to proceed with said behavior?
———

For example, it could be argued (not my argument btw) that Christ doesn't explicitly say that you shouldn't have sexual intercourse before marriage, so does that make it ok to have sex before marriage?

I have my strongly held opinion but thought I'd throw it out there.

I don’t think Christ personally had to say it in the scripture for it to be binding. But I have been wondering about things like tattoos. Not that I want one. But got questions has an interesting article about it, calling it a gray area.

https://www.gotquestions.org/tattoos-sin.html

[Rumpelstiltskin]

The following concept came up in conversation. It goes something like this:

———
If there's no mention or condemnation of a certain type of behavior in the writings of Christ, is it ok to proceed with said behavior?
———

For example, it could be argued (not my argument btw) that Christ doesn't explicitly say that you shouldn't have sexual intercourse before marriage, so does that make it ok to have sex before marriage?

I have my strongly held opinion but thought I'd throw it out there.

No, it is not ok. A very simplified description of sin is anything you do that offends the Holy Spirit and causes it to withdraw.

"And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them." (Mosiah 4:29)