Slashdot Mirror
Gates Pushes Open-Source Approach to HIV Research
dan the person writes that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation "has donated $287m to 16 different research groups around the world to work on developing an HIV vaccine. The catch? They have to share their work even if the groups were previously competing against each other. Sounds like a familiar development model to me, I wonder where I have seen it before?" Besides the BBC's coverage, the Seattle Times has a good story about the grant, with a few more details about how the money will be spent.
Either way, I'm never going to be able to see the research or dump the data in to Weka and try to find correlations by mixing and matching data mining algorithms on lab data.
Also, I think it's stupid that the story implied irony that Gates doesn't use the open source model in software: I don't know where you got that quote because I can't find it in either of the linked articles. People's lives depend on a cure/vaccine/treatment for HIV/AIDS. People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god. They are two very different development efforts with very different ethical connotations.
My work here is dung.
Give the guy some credit. Gotta crawl before you can run.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
company does anything it can to stop this kind of progress in the IT field, even though their previous boss apparently knows very well what the consequence of that is....
Until the consequence of lack of innovation in the IT field is millions of deaths I think you trivializing HIV/AIDS to try to make a point.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
since we're talking about AIDS, shouldn't it be "Open Sores", and not "Open Source" ?
the goal of microsoft is to make money.
the goal of bill gates' charity is to help people.
why should it be surprising if gates uses different methods to accomplish different goals?
Microsoft's job is not to expand the boundries of IT for all, it's to make money. While OpenSource and GPL software has shown that it can be profitable, that's not where the real money has ever been for individual companies. Therefore, they stick with privatized licensed software models. Since HIV research isn't a matter of profit for him, he'll go with what's the most efficient method for across-the-board advances. Makes perfect sense to me.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
...their findings will still be restricted to the 16 groups involved
Sounds like he's trying to make the HIV research community into one big monolithic business. More like Microsoft than Open Source?
Whenever Gates pushes for open source anything, it is always wise to consider it in the light of historic precedent:
"Joshua Pushes for Jericho to have Open Wall Policy"
Greeks Push for Trojan "Open Gate" Policy.
Where were you when the voynix came?
> People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god. They are two very different development efforts with very different ethical connotations.
... the dependence wouldn't be that direct, true, but people's lives depend on the productivity of society, -- if you have food, you have time to spend on developing medicine -- so I'd say there's still some dependence.
Hmmm. No, you're wrong. People's lives can depend on software. In my Data Structures class, the TA told us a horror story about a case where an operating system race condition in a chemotherapy machine resulted in people being given lethal doses of radiation.
Now as far as M$ software
The "human life" argument isn't very good anyway, rather like the classic "10,000 dead in Sri Lanka" troll. Human life is very valuable, and as a society we want everyone to have as much of it as possible, but we also want everyone to have as good a life as possible, which is why we have televisions, music, video games (software), art, literature, and tools to help us finish our work as quickly as possible, including software.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
oh, i see. south park can mnake a joke and its funny, but it does on /. and now all the sudden we are all serious. and besides, parent didn't make fun of the illness, he made a funny about how 'open source' is simlair to 'open sores'
I'm glad you read the article carefully enough to point out flaws in the submission. I do, however, disagree with the following:
"People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god."
Ever think that mistakes in software -- even just in poorly designed interfaces -- have been directly responsible for wrong medical procedures or analyses or the like? Or that because of software flaws (some of which can be attributed to MS, but obviously not all), people's identities have been stolen? I completely beg to differ. People's lives these days depend critically upon software. And it's only going to become moreso.... (time to enforce higher-quality code.... from EVERYONE)
What? Of course we should be happy.
Just because you don't have a high opinion of Gates or his companies practices doesn't mean that this is a "sad" developement. There is a huge difference between curing a disease and the operation of a private company.
Despite what a lot of people in the "the market will solve it" crowd here think certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.
So you are saying we shouldn't bother to help a child who was born with AIDS just because some people made a poor decision? Things aren't always black or white.
Tell me how it is that you can create an economy in a country where over 1/3 of the adult population is already infected with HIV.
Could you help me a little with that one? Oh and if you can figure out how sick and dying people can be good workers and entrepreneurs without medication. Bill Gates already has the money (whether he got it fairly or not). Would you rather he keep it?
Despite what a lot of people in the "the market will solve it" crowd here think certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.
Clever you, except for the fact that this IS an example of privatized medical research. The example says the opposite of what you want it to say.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Open source actually doesn't mean much. You could do whatever and call it open source. That's the marketing beauty of the term, but it has nothing to do with it.
Open source doesn't require you to share the information you have, or the source.
Even free software doesn't. When you distribute GPLed software, you are obliged to distribute the source too, and pass certain freedoms to the guy that receives it.
But most important, it doesn't say that you have to share it at all!!!
If you have a lab, for example, and make a special linux kernel for your propriteary hardware, for internal use, you don't have to share it with anyone!.
Probably software plays a big role in the development of vaccines. Statistics can be better treated, some times, with custom software. Machine learning of course can play its role, lots of software stuff does.
Unbelievable! How the hell can this be moderated as insightful? Did anyone actually read this post?
"Except in cases of rape, people can easily avoid getting infected with HIV/AIDS. Abstinence or safe sex cost nothing, and they have the additional benefit of reducing population growth."
Eh, no. I don't know if you know this or not, but no one actually wants to contract AIDS. This is probably the stupidest argument I've ever read on slashdot, and believe me that's saying something.
Sure your argument about microsoft taking money from the economy is fine, the complete lack of free trade in third world countries is what causes most of the deaths in the world at the moment, but this isn't about microsoft or free trade - we're talking about curing a disease for god's sake!
Bill Gates reminds me of William Bulger: Brilliant, cunning, a great person to have on your side and a devastating enemy to have against you. Glad those guns are pointed towards HIV and TB.
Maybe it's time to separate the BG of MS and the BG of the Gates Foundation. It's seems he has.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
certain things should not be privatised, medical research being one of them.
So - wait. You think Gates shouldn't be allowed to invest his private funds in medical research?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Except in cases of rape, people can easily avoid getting infected with HIV/AIDS. Abstinence or safe sex cost nothing, and they have the additional benefit of reducing population growth.
This is true for adults, but not for the children of people infected with HIV/AIDS. I'm all in favor of personal responsibility and the obvious solution the spread of AIDS does seem to be "stop having sex outside of marriage", but it would still be a fairly massive world-wide problem just in terms of those who already have the disease - especially those who have the disease through no fault of their own.
What's frustrating is the way it seems as though this has to be an either-or. Either we ask people to keep their sexual drives under control OR we try to save those who catch the disease. Pity we can't do both.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Maybe you don't know this but AIDS is not just a disease that affects the US and Europe. Maybe you can explain to the millions of people in Africa that all they needed to do was stop by a 7-11 and pick-up some condoms. AIDS is a worldwide problem and in many countries rape is by far the leading cause of AIDS.
Every dollar that Microsoft makes in monopoly profits (i.e., every dollar that Microsoft makes that goes beyond what they would make in an efficient market) is money that's not available for public health, education, or development.
Just because money is spent on one thing does not make it unavailable to a totally different market. For instance let me rework your rant here. Every dollar that Microsoft makes in monopoly profits is money that's not available for Twinkie purchases; therefore Microsoft's monopoly tactics are leading to a healthier America. As you can see that is just dumb, just as dumb as your analogy. To correct another minor point Microsoft is not funneling money to anyone. Bill Gates is giving money and yes he was the founder of Microsoft but they are not the same thing.
Slashdot +1 funny -4 Insightful +1 informative -2 Redundant
Karma: Somewhere between SCO and Microsoft
1) Bill Gates the individual is doing this, not Microsoft the business. They actually do have separate bank accounts.
2) You are assuming that all of Microsoft's profits are somehow coming from the "public works" budgets of federal, state and local governments. This is a staggeringly incorrect assumption.
3) You forget the AIDS is killing an entire generation of Africans, with 20% of some countries' population being infected with HIV. You can tut-tut all you want about how AIDS is avoidable, but it isn't so simple in regions where education is scarce, protection is more scarce, and free time is plentiful.
Only slashdotters bluster, compete, and condescend on pedantic points more than research scientists. Amiright?
- For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
Too add on the idea that software saves lives, let's think about this in a more life threatening sense: hospitals. Recently, I had surgery. It would have been really bad if the software run IV pump gave me just a little too much morphine too quickly. It would have been bad if my state of the art EKG machine hadn't been working correctly. Hospitals run off a lot of software now.
I don't know where you got that quote because I can't find it in either of the linked articles. People's lives depend on a cure/vaccine/treatment for HIV/AIDS. People's lives do not depend on the development of software--especially Microsoft software, thank god. They are two very different development efforts with very different ethical connotations.
...Oh, and also...
I love this argument.
"Gates deserves his billions, he's had such a HUGELY IMPORTANT impact on the world! Computers have become life-saving technology, our quality of life has improved dramatically, and we've enabled positive growth across the world! Thanks to people like him, we'll become so efficient that hunger will be a thing of the past...
Its OK if Microsoft stifles competition and growth in the field of IT, because its just a bunch of stupid computers that don't really matter."
Pick a frigging side! I know you didn't say the gates-is-great stuff, so its kind of a straw man I'm building here, but for the record, heres my side: You're wrong, computers are WICKED important, and he has had a NEGATIVE impact on the field of computing by shoehorning shitty technology into places it shouldn't be [by WACK marketing practices, some of which were outright illegal, others were simply _completely_ against the spirit of the competition-fueling-growth model]. He has sold people crappy tools that made them take longer to learn stuff, thus slowing the development of lifesaving computing technology. So THERE.
Why stick up for big business?
Competitive pressure, with all kinds of things at stake such as research funding, prestige, career advancement, or even the career itself, can bring out the worst in some people. No doubt Gates has seen that. Want competition in moderation. Don't want athletes hiring hit men to break opponent's knees, or tampering with the playing field, or taking performance enhancing drugs. In this case, don't even want anyone to have an edge with legit means like superior equipment or techniques that is not available to the others. We have yet to see athletes suing one another over intellectual property issues in efforts to deny advances to their opponents. No doubt Gates has seen all that, especially among his many defeated opponents, so perhaps he can pick out groups who will keep the competition clean and minimal. No Dr. Hwangs of stem cell research infamy. And maybe Gates can write the rules and set up the game so that destructive competition is too hard or risky to be tried. That a big deal is being made of Gates' "open source" requirement suggests more people than just us Slashdot readers are aware the game of research and innovation could use a bit of cleaning up. Why, even that ultimate competitor Gates himself seems to be implicitly admitting as much. That is, assuming that aspect wasn't overly emphasized for this audience.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
if you read the seattle times article, you would see that only some of the money goes towards companies (most towards research institutes and centers which are more like academic institutions), and there are goals that must be met. so, they don't achieve the goals, they don't get more money. end of story. what i find interesting is that the amount of money from the gates foundation will be only 10% of all money towards HIV vaccine research - never mind the amount spent on other drugs for HIV, etc.
You know, I was poking around /. the other day and I heard of this really cool new thing called Linux... I don't really know about it, but it has something to do with penguins and being free... I don't know if that's something you might want to look into or not...
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
Another matter is what's really made available. Analogies are hard, but source tells a damn lot about your methodology and thinking, more so than formal articles, results or even lab protocols.
Odd. So companies aren't taxed on profits then?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
the obvious solution the spread of AIDS does seem to be "stop having sex outside of marriage"
No, the obvious solution is to use condoms, but the idiot Catholic church said condom use is Evil(tm), and the desperate people listening to the church followed. The result is that HIV is spreading like wildfire all over Africa and some parts of Asia.
Its amazing to me that we'll have people use disease to back up thier so-called morals, nevermind the fact that most disease spreads other ways besides through sexual contact.
Your attitude, intention, and outlook are really what matter. What fields you apply yourself to is just details. So if you have the intention of helping people and making their lives happier and better, that will naturally affect how you create software or how you search for cures.
Your actions come naturally from your understanding of the world and how you consciously want to treat people (including yourself). These actions are a wave: Once you act, the effects of the action are out of your control, and travel endlessly. And as I said, actions flow naturally from your intention, so it is imperative that you decide the kind of effect you want to have on the world and on other people, and you must feel it in your heart, and draw it from your life experience rather than dogma. And since your actions affect how other people feel about the world, and how they act, your actions - every single one - are important. This shouldn't create pressure for you, though, because at its core, life is about love, and expressing love is the most natural thing there is (even if it doesn't feel that way right now). Everything else is the result of confusion and misunderstanding, even though it feels so real. Think of it this way: Your life is important. Yeah, you! For yourself, and for everyone: let's make it a good one. After all, it's the only one we have.
It's arguable that religion, spirituality, and morality have never improved upon the Golden Rule: Treat others as you'd like to be treated. If you had AIDS, how would you feel knowing that laboratories competed against each other, delaying the production of a cure and irresponsibly putting your life in jeopardy?
>If you've got more than two brain cells to rub together, you want to opine and argue with your detractors. This is why Kuro5hin.org will always be better than Digg
:)
Fixed your post for you
or
Spend 3 billion of your own money to develop a treatment.
100 million people with AIDS (total guess) X $10 / week = $1 Billion dollars per week for the rest of their lives, and you ensure a new generation of "customers."
Yes, there are people doing research that would love to find a cure, but it takes a pharmaceutical giant to engineer, manufacture, and distribute. I wish him luck, but don't expect anyhting monumental from it.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I don't get this. The same Catholic Church that is against condoms, is also against sex outside of a monogamous marital relationship. If everyone is in strict adherence to the laws of the Church, AIDS wouldn't be the issue it is. Actually, your problem with the Catholic Church is not that they are against condom use, but that they spend their money to convert people instead of spending money to hand out free condoms... and you think somehow they should be spending their money to support things that they don't believe in? Once again, I don't get it.
"Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
I recently read a compilation of studies of illegitimate children. The statistics ranged anywhere from 2.5 up to 20% of children in marriage are the product of infidelity. If there's that many fathers out there raising someone else's kid, even if you only take the 2.5% statistic, imagine how many women are able to cheat and not get pregnant. Now remember that it's widely accepted that men cheat more frequently, so take whatever estimate you have in your head and double it.
Unless you propose to eliminate infidelity, your solution is a terrible one. For someone like me, who practices safe sex without exception, marriage or a similarly commited relationship is in fact the most likely way to contract an STD.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
We have to ultimately decide if we want to invest our time in increasing quality of life, or in increasing quality of death. These are the main two motivational factors.
I'd prefer quality of life, I like the idea of working hard for years as life continues to get better and better. I don't like the idea of working hard as life continues to get worse and worse, more dangerous, and shorter.
How many people here actually agree on supporting quality of life?
I read both articles and I don't recall seeing anywhere that they would allow anyone access to their findings and research.
Actually this matches the GPL quite well. The GPL does not require you to make the source code publically available. It requires you to supply the source code to whoever you give/sell the program to. Thus there is no reason for the public to be able to see the code if all the parties agree to share only with themselves.
[The GPL also requires you to allow the person receiving the program to modify and redistribute it as they see fit, so they *could* make it publically available if they wanted. It is not clear if that is true here, probably not, so that is a difference]
What's frustrating is the way it seems as though this has to be an either-or. Either we ask people to keep their sexual drives under control OR we try to save those who catch the disease. Pity we can't do both.
That's flamebait if ever I heard it. Can you god-botherers please explain what's so wrong about sex? Do you assume that all of us that have had it outside of marriage are promiscuous, engaging in unprotected sex with vast numbers of strangers possibly of the same sex? Do you assume that we're all introvenous drug users? Perhaps HIV/AIDS appears spontaneously in people who are immoral by your standards?
Does being married, a man-made institution, suddenly make it OK?
I was raised by agnistic Calvinists (if that isn't an oxymoron) and at the age of nearly 32 and after 4 years of marriage I'm only just beginning to come to terms with being a male human being.
I'll tell you what's wrong: fear bourne out of ignorance, like all the rest of the world's problems. And don't get me started on G. W. and Stem Cell Research...
Stick Men
Actually the data is amazingly transperent right now, fifteen minutes on google links after searching for "cd4 gp120" you'll find enough data about HIV infections of CD4 T killer cells to make anybodies head spin. As most research is government funded the data is pretty much available, try looking at the HIV sequence database over at Los Almos National Laboratories, all kinds of geek toys, FAQs and tutorials there. you can even run polypeptide and nuecleotide sequences against the HIV genome. The hard part about a HIV vacine is that the part of the virus the body sees is covered in sugars so the immune system doesn't respond to it!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Tell that to the chaste wife who is going to die because her husband was poking his schlong into every whore in the gutter; or even somebody like me who gets a twinge of dread everytime my glove get wrapped up in dental bur at work.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
One question: where are those millions of deaths by HIV/AIDS happening? That epidemy first became widespread in the USA/Canada, but it was contained there about twenty years ago. Yet it still seems to be one of the main causes of death in Africa. So, yes, there is a close correlation between technological innovation and saving lives.
A very interesting example on how proper information management can save lives is in the book "Visual Explanations" by Edward Tufte. There he mentions how in a cholera epidemic in London in 1854 a physician, Dr. John Snow, plotted all cases in a map of London. He found the cases were concentrated around the corner of Broad St. and Cambridge St, where there was a well. Dr. Snow went there and broke the water pump, after that the epidemy subsided. That's how it was found that cholera was transmitted by contaminated water, at the time it was believed that the disease was caused by impurities in the air.
So you are saying we shouldn't bother to help a child who was born with AIDS just because some people made a poor decision?
No, I'm saying that we should spend our limited resources carefully, so that we can save the maximum number of babies (and adults).
Any baby born today with HIV is very unlikely to benefit from vaccine research. And there is a good chance that no vaccine will ever be developed, or even that if it will be developed, it will still take many decades. That's why we need to allocate our funding carefully.
Putting too much money into vaccine research relative to other efforts means that many babies will die needlessly.
Tell me how it is that you can create an economy in a country where over 1/3 of the adult population is already infected with HIV.
Come on, use your head.
The fact that 1/3 of the adult population in some countries is infected, while it is at most a few percent in many other countries, tells you that there are other factors that cause the high HIV infection rates.
Furthermore, the only way these people would be helped is if you could develop a cheap, effective, therapeutic HIV vaccine that needs to be given only once. The chances of that happening are negligible.
The best way of combatting HIV in third world nations is public education, women's rights, public health, and economic development. Doing that would bring down HIV infection rates in the hardest hit countries to western levels.
Oh and if you can figure out how sick and dying people can be good workers and entrepreneurs without medication.
They can't be, and they will never be: almost everybody who is HIV infected will get sick and die from it eventually. With long term drug therapy and excellent medical care, people may be able to live close to a normal lifespan, but economic development is a prerequisite for, not a consequence of, that.
Bill Gates already has the money (whether he got it fairly or not). Would you rather he keep it?
That's an entirely separate question. If he spends billions on vaccine research that leads to no useful results, I suppose it will finance US and European scientists and equipment manufacturers which is probably better than some other ways he could be spending his money. But that doesn't change the fact that pretending that this money is going to help children in the third world is a misrepresentation. Vaccine research is a long-shot and, beyond the generous amounts that are already being spent, an inefficient use of AIDS-related funding.
This is true for adults, but not for the children of people infected with HIV/AIDS. I'm all in favor of personal responsibility and the obvious solution the spread of AIDS does seem to be "stop having sex outside of marriage"
I'm not talking about "personal responsibility", I'm talking about basic reprodutive rights and basic sex education. The problem with HIV isn't one of failing to choose abstinence or safe sex, it's that women in many of the hardest hit countries simply don't have the choice to abstain or pratice safer sex at all, for a variety of social, educational, and economic reasons. Giving them that choice doesn't require any new technology or magic bullets; it is something we can do right now.
but it would still be a fairly massive world-wide problem just in terms of those who already have the disease - especially those who have the disease through no fault of their own.
The fact that you wish that a magic pill makes it all go away doesn't change reality: a vaccine won't cure or help people already infected, a therapeutic vaccine is very unlikely, and we can't even deliver the cheap and effective drugs we already have.
Only education, womens rights, and economic developent are going to bring the AIDS epidemic under control.
AIDS is a worldwide problem and in many countries rape is by far the leading cause of AIDS.
Not just rape, but general suppression of women and women's rights. And that is precisely why investing in education, development, public health, and women's rights in those nations is what needs to happen right now.
Maybe you can explain to the millions of people in Africa that all they needed to do was stop by a 7-11 and pick-up some condoms.
Maybe you can explain how you're going to deliver complex drug therapies or vaccine schedules in nations where people can't even get condoms? Vaccines are a gimmick for wealthy nations, an outgrowth of a quick fix mentality. Once you get poor nations to the point where you could deliver a vaccine, HIV infection rates will already have dropped down to US and European levels.
Just because money is spent on one thing does not make it unavailable to a totally different market. [...] Every dollar that Microsoft makes in monopoly profits is money that's not available for Twinkie purchases; therefore Microsoft's monopoly tactics are leading to a healthier America. As you can see that is just dumb, just as dumb as your analogy.
Your analogy is flawed because, while Twinkies are unrelated to economic development, the cost of Microsoft software is very much related to economic development: every modern government and every major business has little choice but to buy Microsoft software in order to participate in the global economy. That's why when Microsoft charges monopolistic prices, it does hurt economic development.
To correct another minor point Microsoft is not funneling money to anyone. Bill Gates is giving money and yes he was the founder of Microsoft but they are not the same thing.
Gates earned that money through Microsoft (and he didn't just earn it, he actively participated in its monopolistic practices). Therefore, the analysis of the causes and effects of Microsoft's profits and the use Gates puts them to is very much valid (and I didn't start the thread anyway).
What is to stop us doing both?
Do you have any evidence to back-up that assertion? It should be easy to prove.
HIV is spreading like wildfire all over Africa and some parts of Asia
Despite the fact that only a small minority of Asians are Catholics. In fact the Philippines, the only majority Catholic country in Asia has a low prevalence of AIDS.
There would be plenty of evidence if you were right. Catholic parts of Africa would have higher AIDS rates, Catholic individuals should be more likely to have AIDS, Catholic countries in Europe should have higher AIDS rates than others etc.
You also assume that people have heard of the teaching (I doubt they have outside the west where it receives media attention - I have never heard it mentioned here in many years of living in Asia) and
You also assume that people will simultaneously ignore the church's main teaching on sex and follow a minor, controversial one.
It is such a pity the facts do not fit your western atheist prejudices.
1. Condom use would also work. I'd certainly rather have people have sex outside of marriage with a condom than without. Still, condoms are not quite as good a solution as just not having sex (just in terms of effectiveness).
2. Its amazing to me that we'll have people use disease to back up thier so-called morals, nevermind the fact that most disease spreads other ways besides through sexual contact.
While it is possible for AIDS/HIV to spread through non-sexual contact, are you seriously suggesting it would be a world-wide health issue of this magnitude if you could only get it through, say, blood transfusion.
I agree that it is opportunist to jump on a disease as a way to reinforce morals, but it's also kind of silly to pretend that human choices have nothing to do with the spread of this disease.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Dude - wtf? If someone has enough self-control to not have sex before marriage, they have enough self-control to not have extra-marital sex after they're married. Your statistics are meaninigless. They show people AREN'T treating sex as something that should be only between married couples, not that they CAN'T.
But the real problem I have with what you're saying is that you act as though it has to be either-or. I think that advocating traditional values is the best solution. People like you obviously difer. Since you're going to have sex anyway, I certainly want you to practice safe sex. But it's not really "safe" in the way that "no sex" is safe. There's always a real chance of you contracting diseases or getting (someone) pregnant.
So what's wrong with my solution:
1. Tell people the only absolutely safe sex is no sex until marriage, than only sex with a married partner who followed the same plan. Allow religious groups to advocate this as well (since practically every religion in existence opposes extra-marital sex traditionally, if not as much anymore.)
2. Tell people that if they really do want to have extra-marital sex, they should use condoms. And give them condoms if they are poor.
What's the issue there?
In any case, you're statistics about illegitimate children are just not really relevant.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
What I wrote was flamebait? How about this: Does being married, a man-made institution, suddenly make it OK?
;-) but I really have no desire to get drawn into a debate protecting G. W. (for whom I have no good feelings or loyalty) nor stem cell research.
You know very well that most religious faiths believe marriage is not a man-made institution. So how is assuming your premise (religions are wrong) a legitimate argument? It's logically vacuous and serves only as flamebait.
In any case: I never said anything was wrong with sex. I happen to like sex. A lot. I'm a fan. I just also happen to believe that sex is best enjoyed between by a married couple. You extrapolate from this that I'm making all these judgments about other people being "imoral". I know some "god-botherers" believe that, so I'm not faulting you for assuming that I do, I'm just telling you that I don't. I believe people who practice extra-marital sex would be happier if they didn't, but I'm not in the blame game or the coercion game.
I'll tell you what's wrong: fear bourne out of ignorance, like all the rest of the world's problems. And don't get me started on G. W. and Stem Cell Research...
It's clear to me you're just looking for a fight (not to mention a closing tag to your italics!
I stand by what I said. It's my opinion that sex-between-marrieds (the traditional gold-standard of every world religion) is the best sexual practice. It does NOT follow that sex is bad, evil, gross, dirty, icky or whatever. It also does not follow that those who choose not to live by that standard are evil. These are not philosophical or theological necessities, they are cultural artifacts of our Puritan heritage (those guys were wack).
The best way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases is never having sex. The second best way (which is actually just as safe if both people do it) is to have sex only with the person you are married to (and not with anyone if you're not married). If people did this, there'd be almost no sexually transmitted diseases. The third option is to mitigate the risks of STDs with "safe sex". I'd say it would be best for people to go with traditional values, but I encourage you - and everyone else - to go with "safe sex" as a second option if you're not going to go with traditional values.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
What are you trying to say here? The standard I'm advocatinig is: "only have sex with your spouse".
You've got this weird vision where there's a chaste women with a philandering husband (and therefore apparently some philandering women to help him along). What's the relevance?
You've got an axe to grind, alright, but that's not really very informative or relevant.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
it's that women in many of the hardest hit countries simply don't have the choice to abstain or pratice safer sex at all, for a variety of social, educational, and economic reasons.
Explain that to me. It sounds like you think women are inherently weaker creatures then men in more than just the physical sense. If we're talking about rape or sexual slaves, then I'm with you 100%, but it sounds like you mean non-coercive factors. In that case, I ask why is that you single women out as being vulnerable to poverty, as though a poor man is somehow inherently superior to a poor women. Sounds suspicious to me.
The fact that you wish that a magic pill makes it all go away doesn't change reality: a vaccine won't cure or help people already infected, a therapeutic vaccine is very unlikely, and we can't even deliver the cheap and effective drugs we already have.
I have no idea who you think you're talking to. I said "if people only had sex with their spouse - HIV/AIDS wouldn't spread any further, but we'd still have a huge people that have the disease and that would be a problem". Then you start going off about a magic pill? Huh?
Only education, womens rights, and economic developent are going to bring the AIDS epidemic under control
Now, let's just say as a hypothetical, that all women converted to Islam. And started following their religion. And men too. So they stopped having sex outside of marriage. Wouldn't that stop the spread of the disease? Not saying it would solve all problems of women's rights, just pointin out that your statement is just obviously false. There are other ways.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Because a lot of the people who think you should have sex according to traditional morals and values also think condoms are bad (which would help with those who don't want to live according to traditional values) and some of them even think that HIV/AIDS is God's wrath on the homosexuals and fornicators of the world.
On the other hand, a lot of the people most opposed to AIDS also react to traditional values as though there are inherently sexist (what is sexist about telling men AND women to only have sex with the person they're married to, I don't know) and are opposed to the very same patterns of behavior that would limit the spread of the disease.
I'm not really saying you can't do both, just observing that a lot of people refuse to.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
While it is possible for AIDS/HIV to spread through non-sexual contact, are you seriously suggesting it would be a world-wide health issue of this magnitude if you could only get it through, say, blood transfusion.
No, I was saying that there are OTHER diseases, such as flu, ebola, smallpox, malaria, etc. that spread just fine without needing use to have sex to do so. I wasn't talking about HIV for the statement to which you are responding.
I'm especially curious about the "given only once" condition. You sound like you're assuming that the poor are automatically too shiftless and irresponsible to remember to come in and get a booster shot in six weeks. This leads me to believe that it makes you feel more comfortable to believe that the poor are responsible for their lot in life, because it absolves you of any responsibilities or obligations. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this one statement, but given the number of people who actually think this way, I don't feel too guilty about that.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I also believe that a lot of people don't have much choice about getting AIDS. Just a few examples: babies infected at birth. Women who have been raped. Men who spend time in prison. People who are strictly faithful to people who are not. The woman who knows her husband is sleeping around, but is more afraid of losing his support than of HIV.
Nobody is disputing that personal choices lead to many cases of HIV. What we are disputing is the conclusion that messages of personal responsibility are therefore the solution. We see it much the same way we see the distinction between abstinence and "abstinence-based education." When someone defends abstinence-ed by pointing out the effectiveness of abstinence itself, I regard them as having completely missed the point.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
You must be new here. Welcome to America.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I'm especially curious about the "given only once" condition. You sound like you're assuming that the poor are automatically too shiftless and irresponsible to remember to come in and get a booster shot in six weeks.
Failure to comply with medication regimes is a major problem in developing nations. It's not because people don't want to, it's because they often can't. For example, it may take them several hours to get to the hospital and back.
In any case, you're focussing on a small part of the statement and missing the big picture. The real issue is that people arguing for increased spending for an HIV vaccine need to present a cost/benefit analysis if they want to argue that that is money well spent.
Of course, Gates has the freedom to decide for himself that he is so much smarter than the market and policymakers and pump billions into an HIV vaccine without a cost/benefit analysis, but without presenting a reasonable cost/benefit analysis, that's a publicity stunt, not useful research funding.
Explain that to me. It sounds like you think women are inherently weaker creatures then men in more than just the physical sense
That style of argumentation is inflammatory and unproductive, and I suggest you'll get along better in the world if you stop these "when did you stop beating your wife" style arguments.
In any case, rather than try to explain to you the link between women's rights and HIV/AIDS, I refer to article that explains the link. There are lots more articles on it on the Internet if you bother to look for them.
Then you start going off about a magic pill? Huh?
You have been arguing that investing in an HIV vaccine is important in order to help children and other people not responsible for their infection. With that argument, you implicitly assume that a practical, effective HIV vaccine can be developed at all. Right now, that's wishful thinking.
Improving women's rights and economic development in third world nations is difficult politically and very expensive; that's why policy makers are looking for a "magic pill" (an HIV vaccine) to avoid having to make tough political decisions or spend a lot of money.
Sure they are. They establish that infidelity is a reality. The difference is, if someone cheats when the couple is still using condoms the chance of transmitting a disease is greatly reduced. But if someone cheats in a commited relationship and catches something it's practially guaranteed that they'll pass it on. I'd say even if you go by the 2.5% statistic that infidelity is extremely common; I doubt more than 10% of cheating women are actually dumb enough to get pregnant, so you can estimate that at least 25% cheat. I'd say that based on my own observations and experiences too, even without the statistic. You can also estimate that the men cheat about the same; maybe more, maybe less, but not much either way. So with all this cheating going on, STDs propogate almost as well as if we were all "hitting it raw dog" the whole time, at least among cheaters and those that love them.
The issue with your plan is, people won't use condoms. I've been in a relationship commited enough to stop using them twice in my life. We were both tested beforehand, and at the time at least, I trusted them completely. But otherwise, it's a constant battle to use one all the time. They'll say, "Just once without won't hurt," if you don't have one on you, or figure after you've been together 5 times that's enough, or even try to take it off during. One girl even started taking it off--without using her hands--and got it most of the way before I realized what was going on. Not to mention breakage, or pinholes, or people allergic to latex--I had a married woman proposition me, but she was allergic to latex so she never used a condom.
What I'm saying is, your advocacy solution is no solution at all. There is no social solution, people's sex drives are just too strong. The best you'll manage is to make them hide it even more. The only real solution is a cure.
And once we have everything cured, it'll be the free love era again. there'll be so much fuckin' going on even a Slashdotter could get laid. Now what's wrong with that?
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
I forgot you were a Mormon--nevermind that last paragraph.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
I don't think I said anything about an HIV vaccine. I was talking about a "cure".
I gues the discussion of women's rights is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I'm certainly not acusing you of being a wife-beater or abusing women. I do think that many people engage in various forms of reverse-discrimination or cultural imperialism when they talk about 3rd-world nations, however. I really haven't seen enough of what your opinion is to know if that's what you're doing or not.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
This is why your fidelity statistics don't matter.
You're saying "people behave in this way, we can't change it" - and then you advocate condoms. So why is it that we can change one type of behavior but not another? Why is fidelity just a given - we can't influence it - but condom use is variable? It seems like your argument hinges not on the statistics, but on your assumptions about which types of human behavior can change and which can't.
All I'm saying is that - assuming all types of human behavior can be changed - the best solution to HIV/AIDS at this time is to stop having extra-marital sex. Sure - if we have a cure then that works too. But the funny thing is we've had traditional sexual values for a long time (and we have them right now) but a cure is absent at he time.
I'm not saying don't look for a cure, I'm not saying don't use a cure. I'm not saying don't use condoms. I'm saying if we think we can change human behavior the best solution right now is a return to traditional morals. The second best solution is condom-use. And the solution that isn't available now is the cure (which we should work on).
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
I'm looking at this from a purely selfish viewpoint; if everyone did the same this problem would not exist. Condoms are a great way to protect yourself, and that's it. I don't expect to change any behavior, in fact I expect that most people have way more unprotected sex than they admit to.
Traditional morals? I'll bet you dollars to dohnuts that in the '50s cheating was at best half of what it is to today, and 90% of the white dresses sold should have been pearl.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
I don't think I said anything about an HIV vaccine. I was talking about a "cure".
A cure is even less likely than a vaccine. To date, there is not a single viral disease that can be cured using drugs, and most viruses are far simpler to eliminate than HIV. Over the next several decades, HIV infection, at best, will become a manageable chronic disease for people in wealthy nations. And if HIV ever gets cured, it will likely be by gene therapy, which simply does not work for third world nations.
Medicine simply does not have a solution to the world-wide HIV epidemic. The only realistic response to the HIV epidemic is in patient, long-term development efforts.
I do think that many people engage in various forms of reverse-discrimination or cultural imperialism when they talk about 3rd-world nations
People may say things that are uninformed or prejudiced, but that's not discrimination or imperialism. Discrimination and imperialism are real mistreatment of specific people and groups of people. Equating the two is bad because it stifles debate and stifles the opportunity to eradicate misconceptions.
You're not making any sense at all.
if everyone did the same this problem would not exist
vs.
I don't expect to change any behavior
So, in other words "if people changed their behavior..." but "I don't expect them to". You're saying "If X then Y", and also saying "not X". That's the logical equivalent of saying nothing at all.
Also - you're saying the infidelity rate was 1/2 todays rate 50 years ago? And that doesn't mean anything? Seems like doubling the rate is pretty significant to me.
Look man, I don't know any statistics that contradict your fidelity statistics. What I do know is that sex before marriage and especially cohabitation lead to higher divorce rates (I can find references to studies if you don't want to trust me). What i do know is that it's not really impossible to have a healthy social life and hold sex off until marriage. What I do know is that the vast majority of my close friends who didn't do this (hold off until marriage) regret doing so (not holding out) - although they'd probably deny it if called out in group situations (I'm not enough of an ass to actually experiment on that hypothesis).
It's like this unspoken secret: everyone lies about how much sex they have (starting with like 12 to 14 year old boys), and then eventually do lose their virginity, and then they lie about liking it. I'm not saying they don't enjoy the experience (I've always enjoyed it myself), but most people regret the way in which it happened. It's this self-perpetuating social trauma. No one honestly likes it, but everyone keeps doing it. The only thing I can compare it to is binge drinking. I have a hard time believing that anybody really enoys drinking until they puke and pass out, but as a relatively recent college grad I know that most people don't even question it. It wasn't like they thought "why should I drink?" or "do I really enjoy this?" Some did - and they are the ones that quit drinking. The ones that didn't question it were the ones that got all hyped up about the prodiguous quantities of alcohol they couldn't wait to consume. (Note - I'm not against drinking alcohol, I'm talking about getting utterly and totally wasted multiple times a week.)
I'm not saying I dislike them for the choices they made - I'm saying it just didn't seem to actually make them happier. I feel the same is true with pre and extra-marital sex. Putting aside questions of how many people do it, I think the real point is that it doesn't actually seem to make most people's lives better. The other example I can think of is little kids and candy. They don't know how to say "no" to themselves - so if you leave them alone with relatively unlimited quantities of candy they end up eating until they feel sick (not to mention the toothaches that will come down the road). So it is with kids these days and sex and alcohol. I'm not against either sex or alcohol, but I feel like the vast majority of American kids are rushing into these things like kids stuffing candy into their faces until they puke.
Please don't bother to flame me for "imposing my morals" or whatever. I've expressed my opinion that it doesn't seem to make people happy. I'm sure you think it makes you happy, and I'm not about to try and argue with you that it doesn't. If you were my best friend and we were having a heart-to-heart, I might make that case. But you're not. So I'm not. I'm not imposing my morals on you or anyone else. It's possible to say "I don't think that doing X makes sense" without saying "becase you do X I think you are evil". I'm saying the former, not the latter. Kids are not very bright if they eat so much candy it makes them sick, but they're not necessarily evil for doing it.
And in any case, this is way OT by now.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
A cure is even less likely than a vaccine.
m text search for "subhuman") then you've made (in my opinion) a disciminatory remark. But if person A holds this opinion than they have a discriminatory viewpoint without necessarily have actually discriminated. It's the difference between intent to murder and murder.
8 07 - can be just as pernicious in the long run - and should be opposed as such.
I should have been more careful with my words. I suppose we can talk of three general drugs: a "cure" (which makes the condition go away), a vaccine (which prevents the condition) and treatments that mitigate the symptoms. We've made great strides with treatments, and it's possible (I think) that with time our treatments could reach the point of allowing people with HIV/AIDS to surive and live as healthy people. This is the type of "cure" I was referring to.
The only realistic response to the HIV epidemic is in patient, long-term development efforts.
I'm not sure about only. If it was the only response, we'd give up our drug and vaccine research, wouldn't we? Are you suggesting we do so?
In any case, my main point (stop having pre/extra-marital sex) would be a long-term development effort, would it not? In any case, I'm really not sure what types of long-term development efforts you are referring to. Not that I'm arguing you're wrong, but you're being excessively vague. HIV/AIDS requires (I would think) a different response in America vs. in Italy vs. Senegal vs. South Africa vs. Cambodia vs. India vs. China. The cultures and socio-economic standards of these countries vary dramatically. Africa has the largest number of AIDS cases, but the disease is growing more rapidly in South and South-East Asia ( http://www.growthhouse.org/asianhiv.html ). Even if you are saying the exact same "long-term development efforts" are needed in both locations, I'm still not sure exactly what you mean by that phrase.
People may say things that are uninformed or prejudiced, but that's not discrimination or imperialism.
This is incorrect. A sentiment can be discriminatory and/or imperialist w/out having any impact whatsoever. If you make the statement: "Mormons women are rude, mean, thieving, superstitious, perverted, abused, abandoned, verminal subhuman" ( http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/audaciou.ht
So the distinction you derive is a false one. It is possible to hold disciminatory or imperialist atitudes without "real mistreatment". You conclusion regarding "equating the two" is inapt, because the one equivicating here is you. I've pointed out that discriminatory and/or imperialist viewpoints are sometimes present, you're the one that tried to conflate these with discriminatory and/or imperialist actions. It is my position that those pernicious viewpoints - even if they have not yet resulted in the discriminatory/imperialist action - should nonetheless be opposed. Or would you have me - and others like me - stand by and listen to discriminatory rhetoric without opposing it because the rhetoric - until it is acted out - is merelely "uninformed" and not yet actually "discriminatory"? Must we wait for hate-speech to turn into hate-action before we are allowed to fight back - even if just with words?
The only difference is that in addition to harmful hate-action (outright discriminatory viewpoints) I see that we also have a problem with benevolent discrimination. This discrimination - like helping a chick out of it's shell http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1006052918
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
We've made great strides with treatments, and it's possible (I think) that with time our treatments could reach the point of allowing people with HIV/AIDS to surive and live as healthy people. This is the type of "cure" I was referring to.
Well, that's not a cure, and our treatments are already almost to that point. But that's not an option for third world nations.
I'm not sure about only. If it was the only response, we'd give up our drug and vaccine research, wouldn't we? Are you suggesting we do so?
Drug and vaccine research is very useful for developed nations. But it's not a solution to the AIDS crisis in the third world.
then you've made (in my opinion) a disciminatory remark.
Making a discriminatory remark isn't the same as discrimination, just like sexual innuendo is not the same as rape.
It is possible to hold disciminatory or imperialist atitudes without "real mistreatment".
Holding a discriminatory attitude isn't the same as discrimination, just like being horny isn't the same as having sex.
Or would you have me - and others like me - stand by and listen to discriminatory rhetoric without opposing it because the rhetoric - until it is acted out - is merelely "uninformed"
Quite to the contrary: you should use the opportunity to counter it. But if you equate a discriminatory attitude with discrimination, you will never have the opportunity; discrimination is illegal, and if discriminatory speech becomes illegal, you simply can't talk about it.
(I find it ironic that a Mormon would want to "oppose discrimination", given the discrimination that the Mormon church actually practices against all sorts of groups. Of course, you have the legal right to choose to practice whatever religion you like, but I consider your choice immoral.)
I don't. I never did. You took something I wrote the wrong way and haven't listened to me since. No one here is talking about discriminatory viewpoints being the same as discriminatory action. I can't state this any more clearly than I already have.
(I find it ironic that a Mormon would want to "oppose discrimination", given the discrimination that the Mormon church actually practices against all sorts of groups. Of course, you have the legal right to choose to practice whatever religion you like, but I consider your choice immoral.)
What do you hope to gain with snide comments like this? The Mormon church believes:
You've also got:
There are those who say the Mormon faith oppresses women, that it oppresses gays, or that it oppresses blacks. These things are not true. We believe that men and women have different roles. Historically, we've allowed social prejudices to bleed into our church - that is true. But Utah was also at the forefront of the suffrage movement:
There's nothing sexist about Mormon theology. We're one of the only Christian religions to view Eve not as a screw-up, but as the instrument for putting God's plan into action. (That's not just a minor theological scrap - that's the source of most Christan misogony throughout history.) The theology is often misunderstood by those who see only that men hold the priesthood and women do not, but that is because they do not understand that according to Mormon theology the priesthood is to serve - and never to command - and that men are not given the priesthood because they are superior (if anything - because they are inferior). As my mother put it: "If Christ had suffered and died for our sins as a woman - no one would have noticed! Women are always putting others ahead of themselves. That Christ - a man - was willing to do so was what made the story so remarkable".
Regarding blacks, I'm sure you're referencing the fact that until 1978 the priesthood was given only to white men. This does look very damning. Either the leadership was tainted with genuine racism, or the church was merely enacting God's will: for which there is precedent. When Christ was on earth, he restricted his teachings by race at first, and
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
What do you hope to gain with snide comments like this? The Mormon church believes:
They aren't "snide comments". You make judgements about supposed discriminatory speech by others; that makes your own morality and ethics very much an issue.
You may contest all of this as you wish, of course, but in the end I just have to ask why we would be so careful to come across as non-racist and non-sexist if we truly were?
You attempt to establish that your church doesn't discriminate simply by redefining the terms to suit your needs. But it's pointless to debate this further. My own faith tells me that you have chosen a religion that is immoral in both some of its fundamental tenets and some of its practices, and that includes, specifically, its practices in third world nations. Therefore, I think it's pointless to continue this discussion: to me, you are trying to defend the indefensible and you simply have no moral basis from which you can make arguments about issues of discrimination or development. Furthermore, if your own faith doesn't already tell you that the actions of your church are wrong, nothing I say will likely change you.
What on earth are you talking about? Ordinarily when someone critcizes my church I don't take them very seriously because I've almost always heard it before. I have to admit, though, that you sound like you've got some fascinating new spin I've never heard of. I'm shocked that anyone that knows anything about the Mormons would claim they have a troubled past in their dealings with third world nations. There are a lot of things to criticize in the history of the Mormon religion: but I have no idea why you'd pick this as your target from all the others.
This is from a semi-recent Times article about LDS finances:
and then there's this (from the same article):
(article found reprinted here: http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml )
The Mormons - with their vast financial and capital resources and strict hierarchal organization - are frequenty fist-responders to international crises. We either go in their ourselves or just as frequently donate the funds and materials to the organizations placed to get things done. Charitable work is the one thing that Mormons are just plain really good at it. A lot of people don't like our theology, but I've never met anyone that didn't like our welfare efforts.
We've got a vested interest in long-term financial growth in these nations too. Although currently limited to Mormon members, the Perpetual Education Fund is one such example. In the 19th century Mormon converts making the long journey to Utah from Europe could borrow from Perpetual Emigration Fund, make the travel, set up a new home, and then pay back the loan for others to use. The idea has been restarted for poorer countries where eduction may help life people form poverty to (relative) middle class lifestyles. Mormons can get loans for education or to start businesses in South and Central America (as well as African and Asian nations, I believe) and use the education to move from the poorest classes to the middle classes. The education is usually for learning a trade or skilled labor as opposed to a liberal arts education. Then they repay the money into the fund for the next person to use. The intial funds for the program were derived from contributions from members in 1st world nations (like the US). Mormons care very passionately about charity and education. You don't start the donation level at 10% if this isn't something that really matters to you in your life.
I'm just really not sure where you are coming from. I'm not offended at all that you called my religion immoral. I think it's best to be honest and to call it like you see it (although for the sake of full disclosure, nothing you've said indicates to me that you or your religion or faith are immoral. Mistaken, perhaps, but certainly not immoral.)
And you jibe about "redefining" discrimination is unwarranted. From wikipedia: To discriminate is to make a distinction. There are several meanings of the word, including sta
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
The Mormons - with their vast financial and capital resources and strict hierarchal organization - are frequenty fist-responders to international crises. [...] We've got a vested interest in long-term financial growth in these nations too. Although currently limited to Mormon members, the Perpetual Education Fund is one such example.
Yes, and why do Mormons collect all this money and use it in this way? Among other things, because it helps the organization grow, because church members are pressured to do it, and because you can brag about it (as you just did). Those acts may still be good, but they are not charity, because charity is self-less. Charity would be for the Mormon church to give the money to nondenominational aid organizations or to local churchas; but combining one's own religion and aid is not charity, it is taking advantage of vulnerable people for one's own benefit.
And you encourage this selfish thinking at the individual level: you say that "if you do this, then you'll be rewarded after death; if you don't do this, or if you do that other thing, then you'll be punished after death". The Mormon church appears to have a particularly pernicious form of this tit-for-tat deal compared to other churches by promising restoration of the healthy body and mind after death, playing on fears about the body and dying (that is tempered by the fact that its notions of "heaven and hell" are considerably more palatable than brimstone and fire).
In different words, when an atheist and a Mormon perform the same good act, then in the atheist, it's a sign of good character, while in the Mormon, it's probably just a desire for a reward that causes him to behave in that way.
Another issue is Mormon attempts to legislate morality. Why is that an issue? First, you are imposing your own religious beliefs on others that way. Second, you are depriving people of the ability to be good by simply making it illegal to commit sin.
These are just exemplary points, but they illustrate that fundamentally Mormons (they are not alone in this) confuse good deeds and good character, and this confusion is deliberate because it furthers the worldly goals of the church.
Religions and churches like the Mormon church are analogous to prisons. Prisons keep bad people from doing bad things, but they fail to turn bad people into good people. When a prisoner refrains from doing evil, you don't know whether it's because he has become a good person or because he simply was prevented from being bad in prison (a problem parole boards face). And while the existence of prisons arguably has a positive effect on society, and while we need them until we come up with something better, prisons are not moral institutions, and many of the principles by which they operate are immoral.
There are a number of glaring mistakes in what you write, but also much that I believe to be true. I'll start out with your assertion that charity is self-less. I agree both in particular (with regards to charity) and in general (with regards to morality as a means in itself as opposed to a "gold star" system).
But the real problem here is that you're attacking a straw man.
1. The Mormon church exemplifies charity according to your definition. I know of many, many examples of charity from the Mormon chuch (because I was involved in them) that I could not find in the press The true scope of Mormon charitable giving is staggering, but we do it as quietly as possible. Sure, you can say I'm bragging about it now, but I'm trying to actually tell you something that is true. I don't know how to do this in a way that is not bragging. I either say "no really, we don't want credit!" (and you accuse me of bragging) or I just leave you with the false impresion that Mormons don't do charity, or only do it for our own sake. Mormons also, as I stated, have no problem donating a lot of money and goods to other aids organizations and then asking for no recognition in return. Many times charity is handed out by the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. to people who never know the money/goods actually came from the Mormon church.
As a final example of how this works on a local level: Each Mormon congregation is a "ward". Together the wards form a "stake". Several stakes may share a bishop's store house. This is the repository for goods (mostly groceries) intended for welfare relief in the area. The money is donated by local members, and it's distributed locally. What I like about the system the most (I've volunteered a few times) is the utter care taken to preserve the dignity of people receiving the goods. You can either "shop" yourself or get a delivery. The front of the storehouse is set up like a supermarket. There are no signs to advertise, but once you enter you take a shopping card and you shop. The only difference is you don't pay befre you leave. If you get a delivery the groceries are brought to your house in plain, unmarked paper bags. There's nothing at all to indicate to anyone else that you're getting charity. There's no reason to do that other than to simpy be as far from self-aggrandizing as possible.
2. Your attacks on Mormon theology as reward based are well-taken, but misguided. It's not a flaw of Mormon theology, but of many Christian cultures to see the rules as a series of checklists. If you do what's right - you get a gold star and you get goodies in the after life. If you do badly, you are threatened with various really scary punishments. Thus it is possible to see Christians as incentivized to do good for some ulterior motive while - for example - the humanist would be doing good for it's own sake. And I will admit that in Mormon culture this mistake (sometimes seen as works vs. grace) can be unusually prevelant. But it's a mistake people make, and not a mistake of the theology of Mormonism. Christ preached against the scribes and pharisees on exactly this topic, and the Book of Mormon also contains remonstrances against it. What Mormons actually believe, however, is that the purpose of the rules and commandments is not to gain reward in the afterlife, but to become better people. If you are not generous, then (Mormons believe) what you need to do is practice generosity. Through practice the action - which may at first be done reluctantly - may be engrained in your character. I could find exact quotes from modern Mormon leaders, but it comes down to this: Mormon theology is not concerned with what you do, it is concerned with who you are. So you see, while it may be true that Mormons (like many other people) do "confuse good deeds and good character" this is a result of Mormons failing to live up to their own religion. It is an indictment (and a valid one) of Mormons, but not of Mormonism.
3. "Mormon attempts to legis
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
The Mormon church exemplifies charity according to your definition. I know of many, many examples of charity from the Mormon chuch (because I was involved in them) that I could not find in the press
... Without denying the actuality of evil, I prefer to see the Mormon Church in terms of it's capacity to heal sinners, as opposed to prevent sin.
You keep supplying evidence for the statement "many Mormons are good and the Mormon church does good". I agree with that statement. Like any large population, the Mormon church has its share of good people, and it causes the others to behave themselves. And Mormon practices probably actually produce large numbers of people who aren't just behaving in good ways but are genuinely good people.
None of that says anything about the morality of Mormon theology itself. We can eliminate bad behavior with brain surgery and achieve generosity through electrical stimulation of the brain. We can eliminate the desire for non-procreative sex through drugs. The fact that we can produce what you consider moral behavior in this way doesn't make the application of procedures that achieve it moral.
Your attacks on Mormon theology as reward based are well-taken, but misguided. It's not a flaw of Mormon theology, but of many Christian cultures to see the rules as a series of checklists
You're quite right: many Christian denominations are. I didn't claim that Mormonism was unusual in this regard. I also didn't "attack" Mormon theology, I simply consider it immoral.
So you see, while it may be true that Mormons (like many other people) do "confuse good deeds and good character" this is a result of Mormons failing to live up to their own religion. It is an indictment (and a valid one) of Mormons, but not of Mormonism.
No, it is a fundamental flaw of Mormon theology (as well as of many other religions). The Mormon Articles of Faith specifically tell people that they will be rewarded or punished, and therefore utilitarian considerations are a built-in part of the theology. If Mormonism didn't want its adherents to make this confusion, it could simply eliminate rewards and punishments from its teachings; everything else would remain unchanged: practices, laws, teachings, theology, etc.
Through practice the action - which may at first be done reluctantly - may be engrained in your character.
That is a good and valid principle: people become better people by becoming accustomed to doing good deeds. We teach children that way, and we also use rewards and punishments until they have learned. And that's probably the way heaven and hell were originally intended: as metaphors and teaching devices. But the Mormon church (as many others) never resolves the issue; it maintains these notions as "articles of faith". And, what is worse, it uses these promises of rewards to recruit people into the religion. Despite all the protestations of tolerance, in the end, it still ends up as "my god gives you more rewards than your god, that's why you should join us".
"Mormon attempts to legislate morality". I gather from this you are referring to Mormon opposition to legalizing gay-marriage
No, I'm not referring to it specifically. I don't care whether gay marriage is legalized or not. It's a non-issue that is being used to get people like you to the polls to vote for people like Bush.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
But that, in itself, constitutes intolerance to other religions. While your church permits others to worship as they choose, when they don't share your views about what is sinful and what is not sinful, then you try to restrict how they can act. And, furthermore, you actively attempt to change others to conform to your notions of morality, including by coercive means.
Laws are inherently mor
What I was responding to was your contention that Mormon charity was derived from self-interest. But I'm happy to set that aside to concentrate on the issues around Mormon theology.
No, it is a fundamental flaw of Mormon theology (as well as of many other religions). The Mormon Articles of Faith specifically tell people that they will be rewarded or punished, and therefore utilitarian considerations are a built-in part of the theology. If Mormonism didn't want its adherents to make this confusion, it could simply eliminate rewards and punishments from its teachings; everything else would remain unchanged: practices, laws, teachings, theology, etc.
This is where I really disagree with you. The Articles of Faith you are referring to are 2 and 3:
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
This statement is explicitly what you don't like: rewards/punishment based on actions. Not on character. But your reading of Mormon theology based on these two verses is piecemeal. You should at least read all 13 of the Articles of Faith. If you did, you'd end up with this:
You are proving that there exist non-utilitarian aspects to Mormon theology, which is obviously true, but it's irrelevant to this argument. The point is that Mormon theology contains offers of utilitarian deals to its followers. Since Mormons say can't pick and choose which parts of Mormonism you follow, this is obviously an essential part of Mormon theology. (Let's not even go into the fact that your interpretation of Article #13 as talking about character rather than actions is dubious at best; I actually se no Article that clearly supports the notion that Mormonism is concerned with character rather than behavior.)
The thing you're missing is the principle of milk before meat. The utilitarian aspect of Mormonism is something you see as an end in itself,
No, I don't see it as an "end", I see it as a means. In fact, it's a very effective means for getting people to improve their character. But that doesn't make it moral.
Let's say Article of Faith #2 said "Every Mormon child should undergo brain surgery to eliminate aggressive behavior and to eliminate desire for non-procreative sex."; brain surgery could be very safe and effective in getting people to stop doing bad things. Would the existence of Article #13 make up for the existence of such an Article #2? Wouldn't you consider any religion that requires brain surgery on children for its members immoral, no matter what its other tenets might be?
The thing you're missing is the principle of milk before meat.
I think you're evading the issue. Just answer this question: according to Mormon theology, will God actually reward me for charity, punish me for sin, and assign me to one of the three Kingdoms after death according to my behavior in the world? Or are these beliefs merely an educational device? And if they are an educational device, were they created by men or by God?
First let me just reiterate that I'm impressed with your position in general. I have really enjoyed this discussion so far. Not because it's been "fun", but because I respect your determination to stick to moral principle.
You asked a direcct quesiton and it deserves a direct answer. I promise I'm not trying to evade what you're saying, so please just do me the favor of reading my entire (direct) response to your question.
The question: Will God actually reward me for charity, punish me for sin, and assign me to one of the three Kingdoms after death according to my behavior in the world?
There are at least two dificult issues in this sentence. I'm not sure if you meant to question one or both (andn there may be others). The first is the nature of the evaluation and the second is the nature of the punishment/reward. Given the fact that this is actually a complicated question the best and most honest answer I can give you is that in general it's a "yes", but if I'm going to be really specific, it's a "no". Hear me out.
Regarding the Nature of Evaluation
You draw a distinction between behavior/action and character/being. You're claiming that what someone does is not the same as what someone is. But I'm claiming that what a person does given perfect knowledge about all factors in their environment IS EQUIVALENT to what a person is. So I think one thing you object to is the nature of judging people based on what they do as opposed to what they are. I believe this distinction ceases to exist when the one doing the judging is God. In that case, what you do IS who you are because God knows all of the circumstances involved. Circumstances + action = character.
Regarding the Nature of Punishment/Reward
Another issue you may have is the idea that God stands ready to mete out rewards to some and punishments to others. I'm not sure if this is a problem for you, but it's a problem for me. If God has the option to punish some and reward others, why not just leave out the punishment? Positive reinforcement seems so much better than negaitve, so why would our Eternal Father resort to negative punishment - especially after the fact? What good can it do? It makes no sense to me.
After a careful study of Mormon theology, however, I've come to the conclusion that God does not, in fact, mete out punishment or rewards. The punishment or reward are direct and inevitable consequences of the people that we've become (which is the same as the actions we've made). The highest reward is to dwell with God. This is not granted as a gold star for people God likes, however (or for those who've followed the most rules). The Book of Mormon explicitly states that those who do not end up in God's presence are only those people who would suffer more from being in his presence than from being wherever they do end up. God IS the reward, not the reward-giver. The same analog works for punishment.
The critical role of Christ in Mormon theology is not to judge people, but to provide a means whereby we may change who we are If it's true that your actions determine your character, than what happens when you make a bad choice? Your character has been corrupted. You can't go back in time and re-make the decision. To me, this is the true miracle of Christ and the function of his atonement. I don't claim to understand why it works, but the idea is that because Christ has suffered for our sins we have the opportunity to expunge the sins we've committed. And this means we have an opportunity to become the kinds of people we would have been had we made the right decision at the time. That is the salvation Christ offers: a salvation to effect our character retroactively. We are made perfect through the blood of Christ.
I would urge you to not take my word for this Mormon theology stuff. Go read just a chapter of the Book of Mormon and see for yourself if I'm making this stuff up or if it's what Mormons really believe. Try 2nd Nephi chapter 2 here:
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Well, thanks for your careful responses as well, and I find our conversation interesting as well.
After a careful study of Mormon theology, however, [...] The Book of Mormon explicitly states that those who do not end up in God's presence are only those people who would suffer more from being in his presence than from being wherever they do end up. God IS the reward, not the reward-giver. The same analog works for punishment.
Well, since you manage to express this concept that you arrived at after careful study of Mormon theology in plain language so that non-Mormons can easily understand it, that raises the question: why do the Articles of Faith not just use the same plain language? The articles could say:
Article #2: We believe that God in His mercy gives each man the kind of afterlife that he feels most comfortable with.
Article #3: We believe that, just like a connoisseur appreciates better wine and food through experience, men appreciate and will obtain a better afterlife through the practice of charity and purity.
If I understand you, you're saying those two articles are what the actual Articles #2 and #3 amount to; so, why don't they say that? Why do they use language that obviously would be misinterpreted by the kind of converts Mormon missionaries would like to reach?
For the sake of full-disclosure, here is where I draw the distinction. You don't legislate morality directly, you legislate pragmatically to get to morality.
Let me paraphrase that. You're saying "One ought to legislate pragmatically in order to promote behaviors which conform to the Mormon view of what constitutes moral behavior."
What I can't figure out to begin with is why you even want to bother to apply your principle. Is it because you can't think of another principle? Or is it your wish to force me towards what you consider salvation, even if I don't want to? To me, your desire for resurrection of the body is one of the worst states of sin a human being can be in, how can it be a moral choice for you to impose on me and others behaviors that promote this?
Another question about your approach is where you would stop. Right now, Mormons are constrained by democracy and society, but if they were free to pass any laws they wished, what kinds of laws would they pass "to get to morality"? Would adultery and homosexual acts become ilegal again? What about masturbation and lying? How do you decide?
When you talk about "pragmatic", you are implying that that's the best practical thing to do. Actually, there is another way: you legislate pragmatically to maximize the ability of people to make their own moral choices. That principle yields laws that protect people from crimes against person or property, but otherwise interferes minimally in their lives, and maximizes the ability of religions to co-exist.
Your principle leads to conflict between religions and religious coercion, because if you try to legislate "to get morality", then a tug of war starts between different religions whose morality one ought to get. My principle leads to peaceful co-existence between religions.
But it isn't just my principle, it's the principle the US and Europe have increasingly adopted in the 20th century; prior to that, nations were using your principle, the principle in which the majority religion would coerce the minority religions to conform to its views of morality, and it led to constant conflict. Moving from your principle to my principle was a giant step forward for the West; why do you want to get back to the old principle?
As a brief aside, what do you think are "the kinds of converts Mormon missionaries would like to reach?". I'll add this to my list of questions I'd still like to get answers to. The other two are "what have Mormons done that's harmful against the 3rd world" and "what aspects of Mormonism are coercive". These aren't the main thrust of our discussion, so I don't mind them getting deferred for now.
In brief, I think your rephrasing of the Articles of Faith (2 and 3) is valid. I think you are understanding me pretty well. So the question is, why didn't Joseph Smith give something similar to that in response to Editor Long's question about what Mormons believe in 1842.
The main reason is what I referred to earlier as the milk before meat principle. The most superficial, and therefore the most readily accessible, interpretation of human morality starts with action. The most crude understanding of morality starts with things that should or should not be done. Therefore, to cast as wide a net as possible, it makes sense to start with actions and build from there. This is not somehow isolated to Mormonism, or utilitarian religions. Just take a look at the 10 Commandments. Most of them are explicitly action-based: don't make other idols, don't use the name of God in vain, don't work on Sabbath, don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't lie, don't steal. Others are less explicitly action based: honor thy mother and father, don't covet. Arguably, those are also behaviors. Do you find the criticism of Articles of Faith 2 and 3 equally applicable to the 10 Commandments? Another example of this milk before meat principle is the way in which Christ taught people in parables. At times it seems the parables were designed to encode the meaning to keep unbelievers from understanding, but the majority of parables are simply ways to wrap moral concepts up in plain-language. It seems like they too would be vulnerable to your criticism. Why tell a story about building on sand or on rock? Why not just state in plain language the point?
So I actually believe that the Articles of Faith, as stated, are more clear for people who have no philosophical or theological training. For example, I'm not sure about "most comfortable". I think "We believe God in His mercy gives each man exactly what he chooses, with the only exception being that through the miracle of the atonement, you can repent of choosing bad things." That's basically exactly what Mormons believe, but I'm not sure it's as clear, and you need to develop a framework (that you and I both share) about the intrinsic value of morality first. Any theology that requires a philosophical groundwork first, and then gets to the point second is less optimal for getting to the most people. I find the Articles of Faith, as stated, dovetail with the methods of teaching found in the Bible - both Old and New Testaments. I believe this is because Christ and His prophets followed the same principle of milk before meat for the same general reasons.
A lesser reasons may (or may not) include the following consideration:
The Articles of Faith - as you stated them - would have been hard to swallow in 1842. If the Mormons faced the persecution they did based on the Articles of Faith as written, how much worse may it have been if they'd come out with deeper philosophy out
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
OK, I completely failed to make my point. Let me try again, with a fresh start.
Actually, there is another way: you legislate pragmatically to maximize the ability of people to make their own moral choices.
This is what I believe. I agree 100% with this statement. The point I was trying to make was that this standpoint is a moral one. It makes no sense to me when people pride themselves in refraining from applying their morality to other people. This means you have, by definition, a double standard. This is hypocritical. The exact same morality should be consistently applied.
But my morality, and Mormon morality, does specify that the freedom to choose is essential. And so your position does conform with Mormon principles. As I stated, Mormons believe there are some things we should not do that are not appropriate for legislation because to legislate them would remove choice. I offered smoking and drinking as two examples. Other examples would be paying tithing, believing anything, etc.
So I'm not advocating laws to "get morality", just laws to allow morality.
Even though we agree on principle, and you phrased it much, much better than I did, I'm not going to claim that we agree on all actual applications of this principle. For example, you seem to think it's a bad idea to have adultery be against the law. This isn't obvious to me. Marriage is a contract, one of the conditions of that contract is fidelity, adultery breaks that contract. Marriage is not a contract between two people, it is a contract between two people and the gov't (otherwise it would be absurd for the gov't to hand out marriage licenses). So if you break a contract with the gov't, should it be criminalized? Possibly. I don't know that it would be a good idea to actually have cops investigate fidelity for reasons of privacy, personal rights, and practicality, but in terms of principle alone, I don't have an issue with it.
But on most issues, we actually probably agree. Mormonism wouldn't really change very many laws at all. As far as homosexuality goes, I've already stated that Mormons refuse to make thought-laws. So that would never be illegal. As for homosexual acts, consensual acts between people that don't impinge on human freedom can't be illegal. I'm comfortable with that. Masturbation? Same thing. You could argue that it's addictive, I suppose, but even if that's true, it's just an unenforceable law. And as for lying, it's not even universally immoral, how could we possibly make it illegal?
I hope I've clarified my point. Just that it's impossible not to have a moral basis for laws, and that having two moralities (one for you and yours, one for everyone else) is hypocritical. There should be one morality. But we should only legislate in order to maximize morality - and that means allowing people to do all the evil, wrong, stupid things possible up to the point where freedom to choose is curtailed. This makes sense to me.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
As a brief aside, what do you think are "the kinds of converts Mormon missionaries would like to reach?"
I assume anybody who isn't Mormon, but you tell me. Are there any other religions that Mormons respect enough not to attempt to gain converts from them?
The main reason is what I referred to earlier as the milk before meat principle. The most superficial, and therefore the most readily accessible, interpretation of human morality starts with action. The most crude understanding of morality starts with things that should or should not be done.
So you agree then that Mormon missionaries use the language in Articles #2 and #3 in full knowledge that their audience is going to interpret it differently from the way that they themselves interpret those articles? For example, missionaries believe, as you do, that character determines the afterlife, but their audience interprets their statements to mean that actions are sufficient to determine the afterlife. Or, to bring it more to the point: Mormon missionaries believe there to be a spiritual truth, but they are actually telling their audience something that differs from the actual spiritual truth, because they think that the audience is not ready to understand the actual spiritual truth.
Mormon missionaries want to reach as many converts as possible, and this introduction to our theology is foundational and therefore exactly what we need. This is just a simple principle of teaching: you start with simple principles, common ground, and motivating examples.
Giving students simple rules and theories that the teacher knows are not actually true is called a "teaching device". They are widely used in classrooms and mentoring and they are quite effective. The reason it is permissible not to tell the truth to students in a classroom setting is because the students (or their guardians) have consented to the teacher-student relationship and because there are strict boundaries for how teaching devices can be used.
However, Mormon missionaries are not just using such techniques as a teaching device, they are using them as a recruiting device. That is, Mormon missionaries are using teaching devices without the prior consent of the other person. In different words, Mormon missionaries are deliberately not telling the truth to their audience without the consent of their audience. Now, do you disagree with this analysis in some way, or do you simply believe that not telling the truth is justified and moral under those circumstances?
Two additional remarks. First, religions that aren't attempting to grow fast don't have to do this: almost all their instruction takes place within settings in which instructors have authority over their students. Using teaching devices to induce people to join a religion is an attempt to gain converts at the expense of other denominations and religions, and that violates Mormon claims of religious tolerance, in my opinion. Second, one principle of teaching devices is that they need to be resolved eventually; that's why we have textbooks and reference books, and why the two aren't the same. But Mormons have one set of Articles of Faith, valid and applicable to everybody from potential convert to religious scholar and philosopher. Therefore, the Articles of Faith and their meaning in ordinary language is what defines Mormon theology.
So you agree then that Mormon missionaries use the language in Articles #2 and #3 in full knowledge that their audience is going to interpret it differently from the way that they themselves interpret those articles?
I think this further highlights the vast gulf between what you think about Mormons, and the truth about Mormons. Mormon missionaries are overwhelmingly 19 - 21 year old kids. Kids. For American missions they have 3 weeks of training. For foreign-speaking missions they have 8 or 11, and it's almost all spent on learning the language.
Furthermore, there are no official Mormon theologians, there is no official canon of Mormon theology, and there is no professional clergy. The type of intentional misleading you speak of is institutionally impossible. The educational wing of the church is called CES (Church Educational Services, I think) and they specialize in getting the basics down. There has been no official attempt to capture Mormon theology definitively, and there never will be. There is no authoritative voice to say "this is what the scripture means, this is what it doesn't" except perhaps the Prophet. And the sad truth is that we haven't had a truly theological prophet since Joseph. Brigham was a colonizer, and since then they have been administrators first, and theologians second. I just want you to understand that your characterization I started this post with is not only false, it is impossible.
Also, once you understand that there is no such thing as a closed or definitive Mormon canon, you will realize that your assertions that the Articles of Faith and their meaning in ordinary language is what defines Mormon theology is equally impossible. Mormon theology can not be contained because we believe in an open canon and on-going revelation.
Now let me get to your remarks regarding "teaching devices". What you say about these are accurate, but the articles of faith are not teaching devices in this sense. I don't know how much you know about math, but one extremely tricky problem is whether you can take a limit from inside an integral and move it outside an integral. The short answer is: you can. And so in early calculus assuming the limit of the derivative is the same as the derivative of the limit is fine. But when you get to Real Analysis for the first time they tell you "guess what, this actually needs to be proven" And the proof that it is OK to do so is very difficult. So what I'm telling you is that there are teaching devices that are incomplete and there are teaching devices that are false. Both can be very useful. Chemistry, for example, is taught almost entirely with falsehoods in high school, and then you find out that everything they taught you was an oversimplification that was not technically true when you get to college-level chemistry and you have to start over again. The final picture is relatively similar, but the high school stuff is false. In contrast, when you tell your students "it's ok to move the limit outside of the integral" this is true, but you're neglecting to mention that this isn't obvious, it's actually a consequence of some extremely in-depth theoretical mathematics. Mathematic knowledge is rife with examples like these.
So your characterization Mormon missionaries are deliberately not telling the truth to their audience without the consent of their audience is not correct. First of all because missionaries never deliberately withhold the truth. You're extremely lucky if you get a missionary that actually has thought about this seriously at all. And secondly, the Articles of Faith are TRUE, they are just incomplete.
One difference we may also have, is that you think it is possible to express theology definitively. I think it is not. You believe it's possible for a human to comprehend and state the complete truth of religion. But I believe that God's thoughts are not as our thoughts. The best we can ever do is approximate the moral truths of
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Mormonism wouldn't really change very many laws at all. [...] As for homosexual acts, consensual acts between people that don't impinge on human freedom can't be illegal. I'm comfortable with that.
Well, you say one thing, but the actions of your fellow Mormons speak another language. For example, consensual sodomy has remained against the law in Utah, one of the small minority of remaining states, until the US Supreme Court finally overturned all sodomy laws in 2003. And as recently as 1997, the Utah legislature even rejected a law to decriminalize sodomy between spouses.
Having spent some time in Utah, I think it's pretty clear that Mormons restrict many behaviors that are not restricted elsewhere, and that those restrictions are made to make others conform to Mormon standards of good behavior, not just trying to ensure that each resident can act according to their own conscience without interfering with the rights of others to do so.
As usual, general Mormon attitudes temper the severity with which many of these rules are imposed, and positions more tolerant of other religions and views can probably be reconciled with Mormon theology, but right now, that's not how Mormons act at the ballot box and in the legislature. (This blog post addresses some of these issues.)
This entire post is about how Mormons behave - and explicitly about how Mormons in Utah behave. Most of what has made this conversation rewarding has been the focus on Mormonism - as opposed to Mormons. I feel no motivation to defend the actions of large numbers of Mormons - especially not ones from Utah (I don't like Utah Mormons very much).
I think it's a bad idea to have so many Mormons in one place. I think it would be a bad idea to have so many Buddhists, Catholics, or Baptists in one place too. Or atheists for that matter. The behavior you see in Utah is a result of homogeneity - not theology. Even if Mormons are equally bad outside of homogenuous areas, the problem still remains: do you want to critcize what we believe, or the fact that we fail to live up to it? I'm telling you what we believe, I'm not telling you that were shining examples of all our principles. I never claimed that Mormons were better than the average person (and I never would) so I don't see why you want to claim they're worse.
Let's please keep this focussed on the theology/philosophy. I'm still waiting to hear back on several of our most hotly-debated issues. I especialy would like to see your response to my parallels between the Articles of Faith and the 10 Commandments and Parables. If all you want to do is criticize people then just let me know now so I don't waste time responding.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Oh yeah - another thing. When was the last time someone was actually prosecuted using that anti-sodomy standard? That law has been on the books in many, many states in the union. It's just a historical artificat, and doesn't really prove anything by itself.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
A final note: that blog post was from a pretty uninformed Mormon (if it was by a Mormon). I didn't read the entire thing, but in skimming it I found at least one glaring factual error. The blogger claimed Mormons deny evolution - and cited an article that is almost 100 years old. The Mormon church's official position on evolution is that it has no position. This has been the position for decades, and Mormonism's most prominent thinker (Hugh Nibley) was an obvious believer in the theory.
I myself, am not convinced one way or the other.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
Furthermore, there are no official Mormon theologians, there is no official canon of Mormon theology, and there is no professional clergy. The type of intentional misleading you speak of is institutionally impossible. The educational wing of the church is called CES (Church Educational Services, I think) and they specialize in getting the basics down. There has been no official attempt to capture Mormon theology definitively, and there never will be. [...] Also, once you understand that there is no such thing as a closed or definitive Mormon canon, you will realize that your assertions that the Articles of Faith and their meaning in ordinary language is what defines Mormon theology is equally impossible. Mormon theology can not be contained because we believe in an open canon and on-going revelation.
The problem isn't that there isn't a complete statement of Mormon theology, the problem is that you are unwilling to commit to even individual statements about Mormon theology, even those made by Joseph Smith. Whenever I try to reason starting from one of those statements, you say that there are some other statements that I don't know about that modify the truth of that original statement, or that the words don't really mean what they mean in ordinary language.
And while you don't hesitate using your own behavior or the behavior of other Mormons to support what Mormonism is all about, when others give examples that don't fit your views, then you just say that those don't count for some reason, because they don't live up to Mormon ideals for example.
The problem here isn't my state of knowledge about Mormonism, the problem is that you are unwilling to commit to any set of premises about the religion. I do appreciate the time you have taken for your responses, but I think that makes further debate pointless.
The problem isn't that there isn't a complete statement of Mormon theology, the problem is that you are unwilling to commit to even individual statements about Mormon theology, even those made by Joseph Smith.
That's a trap, and you should know it. The problem is that you keep trying to prooftext Mormon scriptures. This means you are taking exact quotes out of context and then trying to hold me accountable for what without context they seem to mean to you. There is no lack of commitment on my part. I have not once shied away from the truth of the Articles of Faith. I have no backed down a single iota. The only thing I have refused to commit to here is your interpretation of the Articles of Faith.
I'm not accusing you of being deliberately underhanded in your prooftexting. But unless you've actually read the entire Pearl of Great Price (which contains the Articles of Faith) how can you really expect to avoid prooftexting it? Any attempt I make at this point to say "this is what Muslims believe" based on quotes from the Koran would be inevitably prooftexting because I haven't read the entire Koran. I'd be finding quotes and taking them out of context. The only way to avoid this is to actually read the entire Koran. If you're going to criticize Mormon theology (which, in itself, is OK) you should realize that until you've read the entire basic Canon (Old and New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) any attempt you make to quote from these books will likely result in you getting the meaning wrong because you don't have the context.
There's nothing wrong with me going to my Muslim buddy and saying "I think this is what Muslims believe, and I think it's wrong". Sometimes I'm right (about what they believe) because I've come across parts of the Koran that you can use without context. The parts that say Christ is not God's Only Begotten Son because God does not beget, he creates, is right. So we agree to disagree on that one. But there have been other verses I've come across that I quoted at him only to have him respond "you don't understand what that means because it is part of this context". And if he says that, I would never respond by telling him "no, really, it means what it says" because he would be right: some elements of scripture (of any text!) need to be taken in context. Whether my prooftext will actually be right or be wrong is a crapshoot.
If you have spent a lot of time arguing with other Christians then this misunderstanding is understandable. You don't have to worry about prooftexting very much when a Baptist and a Lutheran talk scripture: they use the same text. And so when you and I discuss the Bible prooftexting is not such an issue. But the second you start using scripture you haven't actually read you should be aware of the danger of getting what you read wrong because of what you haven't read.
As far as Mormons v. Mormonism goes, here is the disambiguation. I will defend Mormonism or go down in flames with it. I will defend the Mormon Church and Mormon people only to the extent that I have to based on the theology. This means I'm liable to take issue with statements like "the Mormon church is evil" but let statements like "Mormons are evil" pass. The Church is Christ's Church - that's part of our theology. But Christ calls the sinners, and not the righteous to repentance. So why should I have to argue that the people in the church are all great, wonderful, good and kind? We're all sinners - just like everyone else.
So that's my direct response to your post. But here's the one thing I'd like take issue with. I have either responded directly to each of your initial points or requested clarification of them. You have, so far, largely neglected to provide the clarification requested (e.g. how is Mormonism coercive, what is it that Mormons have done regarding the 3rd world that you find evil) and - more disturbingly - you've completed and totally dodged my main
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
One other thing.
- 1/qid=1154004630/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6105923-4548025? ie=UTF8&s=books ) and Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0252060121/sr=1- 2/qid=1154004630/ref=sr_1_2/002-6105923-4548025?ie =UTF8&s=books ). Yes, Bushman is an active Mormon. But the first book is published by Knopf and the second by the University of Illinois. This means the second book, in particular, rises to the highest standards of academic scholarship. While I'm suggesting books, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195168887/sr=1-1 /qid=1154004833/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6105923-4548025?i e=UTF8&s=books )is the first (and so far only) scholarly overview of the Book of Mormon as a religious text. It contains a pretty good overview of some Mormon theology as well as the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I'd be happy to send you a copy at no charge. Seeing as how the author is my father, I can get copies for free. I've already sent 2 out to people I've debated with on Slashdot.
even those made by Joseph Smith
I'm assuming this referred to my refusal to acquiesce to your interpretation of the Articles of Faith. If there's something else Joseph Smith said that you think I'm not standing behind, let me know. But before you accuse me of not standing behind Joseph Smith maybe you should study the things he actually said. (Again: it's all about context.)
Richard Bushman is a foremost expert on that topic. Two of his books are Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400042704/sr=1
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.