Conference tecrus::mormonism

>truth ("your eyes shall be opened") with a lie ("ye shall not surely die").

	actually, Satan said "ye shall not surly die THIS DAY" (emphasis mine).

	notice that no one did die that day which was in God's reckoning was
	1000 of our years.  the lie was even more subtle than it looks.

>Anybody get the drift here?  Basically, there is a simple but effective tactic
>being used nowadays to entice people to commit grievous sins.  That is, people
>are being told not to sin, then are told how to sin in a way that is "right".
>The obvious response is to sin and to dismiss any feelings of guilt.

>What think ye?


	Steve,
		It is a shame, isn't it?  It is just like church members 
	trying to drink non-cafinated coffee.  The Lord didn't say what 
	kind of coffee, tobacco, or alcohol - just that we should not engage 
	in those things.  This will take us back to the spirit of the law 
	rather than the letter of the law.  It seems like your examples 
	are showing more toward letter than spirit.  We have seen what 
	happened to the House of Israel when they put the letter of the 
	law above the spirit of the law.

	Another way to dismiss any feelings of guilt is rationalization.  We
	should see more and more of this as the world gets more corrupt.  I
	see this kind of thing with homosexuality where they are now trying to
	say that these kind of people have no control over themselves, and it
	is, therefore, out of their control.  Hogwash!  Either the word of
	God is correct or it isn't.  I have seen newspaper articles where the 
	scriptures relating to this kind of conduct are just rationalized away,
	and that God will love them anyway.  I think this is the same thing 
	you were trying to point out Steve.

	We must take a stand and determine what is right, and what the Lord
	wants us to do.  The only correct and steadfast way is through the
	spirit.  Then we must decide if this is the true gospel or not.  If
	it is then we should follow it to the utmost of our abilities.  
	Otherwise we should look elsewhere, and end up being tossed to and 
	fro like the rest of the world.

	Anyway, these are my feelings on the subject.

	Charles

Hi Steve,

Interesting topic!

I think you've brought out an important technique used by many: tell people
to do right, thus gaining their confidence and trust, then tell them that
doing "wrong" is still "right".  Pretty clever!

One thing that isn't clear from your description of the interview is why the
person said "Don't commit adultery."  Was it because he thought it was a sin,
or was it because he thought it would ruin relationships with spouses.  His
comment about not telling one's wife indicates he may have counseled "no
adultery" only because of its effect on relationships; hence, if you do do it
then keep it secret to avoid impacting your relationship.  

It seems that he believes the end justifies the means, i.e. being dishonest
with a spouse is justified if that dishonesty protects a "good" relationship.
One problem with that logic is that eventually the truth comes out, like for
example when one comes down with AID's and the spouse knows it didn't come
from her or him.  Another problem with the end justifying the means logic is
that a relationship containing dishonesty really isn't a good relationship.

Allen

    re: -.1
    
    The reason that he gave for not committing adultery was that there are
    lots of diseases you could get out there.  He didn't go so far as to
    suggest that one take steps to "protect" yourself.  Didn't need to. 
    Went right into the "... but if you do ..." stage.
    
    I remember growing up with my peers asking our leaders, "How far can I
    go on a date before I have to talk to the Bishop?  Is french kissing
    okay?"  It's got to be a lot harder now with so many folks doing the
    "right" thing and instructing our children how to perform homosexual
    acts.  
    
    I brought this up in another conference when AIDS was under discussion.  
    One of the responses I got in defense of the way sex education is being 
    taught is that it is pointed out that abstinence is the best protection.  
    I've seen this in a Digital facility on a "public service" poster at
    MSO1.  Abstinence and fidelity were mentioned at the beginning as the best 
    ways to avoid AIDS.  That was it.  The rest of the poster had to do with 
    what you do assuming abstinence is out of the question. 
    
    This is a lot like me telling you over and over not to think of a white
    horse.  Guess what you're going to think of?  We tell our kids
    constantly that if they decide to have sex with each other do it this
    way.  Guess what they're going to do?
    
    Back to the topic, I think it's fundamental that if we tell people not
    to sin, then tell them how to sin and avoid some consequences we sew
    the seeds of our own doom.  I detect that this type of thing is
    becoming the trend.  I'd be interested in other examples where people
    might be seeing this.
    
    We are already seeing fornication and now adultery being handled this
    way.
    
    Another example is gambling.  The State has laws prohibiting gambling.
    The results of gambling are well-documented.  Yet, the State takes
    prime time on TV to promote gambling in the form of lotteries.  Again,
    the message is that gambling is wrong.  But, if you want to gamble, the
    "right" way to do it is to play the lottery.
    
    Another is murder.  There are laws against murder.  The State says not
    to murder.  But, murdering unborn children is "right" and is perhaps
    more like getting a divorce or more like having an appendectomy.  
    Murdering elderly people or people who want to die is quickly becoming 
    "right".  Now, there are rare situations where there could exist a
    moral high ground (incest, rape, health of the mother come to mind).
    But, the majority of these situations involve convenience (being
    rephrased ambiguously as "rights") and do not retain any pretense of 
    moral high ground.  Babies are being aborted, for example, because they
    are the wrong sex or because someone may have to go to some expense to
    care for them.  Increasingly, there seems to be monetary justification 
    for euthanasia.  I suspect that such "convenience" issues will have
    more weight in the future as children increasingly shed responsibility
    for their parents and parents increasingly shed responsibility for their
    current and future children.  Kind of the reverse of the spirit of 
    Elijah ...  (Malachi 4:6)
    
    Any others anyone can think of?
    
    Steve 

    BTW, abortion and homosexuality have already been mentioned.  The
    methods for teaching about both (in a favorable light) using this model 
    ("don't sin, but if you do, do it right") may come under fire.  As you may 
    know, the homosexual communities tend to be staunch supporters of abortion.
    Yet, recently there has been medical evidence presented indicating that
    there is a physical, verifiable condition that may be related to 
    homosexuality.  It is already a common practice to abort a fetus based on 
    the results of testing (for Down's syndrom, sex and other things).  One 
    reason that the homosexual community may have reacted so violently to the 
    new medical findings may be because it may be possible in the future to 
    test a fetus for homosexuality - and have an abortion if the tests are not 
    favorable, one way or another.  That could threaten the percentage and
    influence of the homosexual population.  I have only read about this 
    potential situation and have not seen much more on it.
    
    Steve

    This sounds alot like some of the things Rush Limbaugh says on his
    radio show.  I don't get to listen alot, but I read summaries of what
    his show talks about.  He is constantly saying that the disintegration
    of families is what is causing alot of the problems in our country.  He
    was amazed one day when he was talking to a mother who said her kids
    were teenagers and virgins.  He even had the mother put her daughter on
    the phone and he asked her point blank if she was a virgin.  She said
    yes, she was.  He said alot of the same things you are saying about
    abort fetuses if a test shows that it is prone to a homosexual
    lifestyle if it had a certain size hypothalmous gland.
    
    I don't like having to resort to the model which is mentioned here. 
    What other alternatives are there, though?
    
    scott

    I'm sorry Scott.  I don't understand the question.
    
    BTW, I've heard of Limbaugh, but have never listened to his show.  I
    don't pay much attention to talk show hosts.
    
    Steve

    I mean, the method that is being used today.  Where we tell people the
    best way to deal with this problem is to not do that, however, if you
    are going to do that, then you need to do this to minimize the
    problems.  An example is in teenage sexual activity.  The best way to deal
    with it is to practice abstinence until marriage, however, since teens
    are going to do it anyway, use protection - whether the pill or
    condems, etc.  I guess you can call it a max-min method.  Teach the way
    to get the maximum benefit and at the same time, teach the way to get
    the minimum amount of damage.  It does seem like a conflicting message. 
    
    scott

    So, the question is "What better way can we teach teenagers to minimize
    the damage of promiscuity?"  That is, the "max-min" method seems the
    best way to do it so far.  
    
    If I understand correctly, my response is that we should emphasize
    the "max" part of the method rather than the "min" part.  But, few
    seem to want to do that.  As far as my kids go, they are really going
    to have that "max" part emphasized, underlined and carved in stone!
    
    Steve