I'd say probably the closest is New Zealand. No lawful state on earth will ever be good, since the entire history of the world is one of oppressors' victory over the oppressed, (Human beings are just terrible. Every revolution pretty much begets another wave of abuse.) but they were the first to give women the vote, they have recognized seats in their government for the indigenous, and they have some of the lowest rates of crime, very little political corruption, and one of the best track records on universal human rights in the world.
And for being so good and inoffensive, we typically forget to include them on our maps.
I'm in NZ and I would say we are more NG. We kind of bend and ignore the law a lot.There is also the "She will be right mate" and our drinking culture which tends to be not very lawful. Most of it is seen as recommendations for the smaller stuff anyway.
LE Nazi Germany
LN Prussia
LG Modern Germany
IDK:).
Denmark or Norway maybe would be candidates.
Though I get the impression the basic intent of this thread was maybe to slag off the US rather than discuss ethics and morality as such.
This is false. I didn't really get on a soap box until post 188 or so as a response to something you said. In fact I was ready to be done when I said "I think we have concluded that a lawful good society is a fantasy" around post 90 or so.
I am honest about my intentions, I find it inappropriate for someone to suggest something about someone you know nothing about.
He does know something about you. He can see that you're making some serious accusations based off of very little information that you don't fully understand while wholeheartedly and unquestioningly embracing the narrative of the far right.
@BigNorseWolf, and others:
I have to mention in Rogar's defence that he doesn't seem too fond of the Right Wing, either. I refer to:
Rush, and the Fox news just like the other news outlets have their own agenda. They will equally portray only their side of the story.
Look, the current PotUS is a total clown, but he's not doing anything his predecessor (who, btw, was also re-elected) didn't also do. And both of them routinely get away with stuff that would have given Nixon wet dreams.No disagreement
In theory, Christianity is all about slavery. The only choice is which personage you've sold yourself too.
Normally it speaks of one sinning and thus having sold their soul...but then it being bought in blood by the savior.
There's a reason he's called the master...and the idea that no man can serve two masters.
Debatable. A master could also be the master of servants, not slaves. The fact that you can choose between God and mammon seems to suggest the former. Slaves don't get to choose their masters; they are sold. Metaphors are good to a point, but take them too far and they lose their intended meaning.
As for slavery, James begins his epistle stating that he is a slave (though the easier word to hear is bond servant...which is a more specific type of slave).
And in essence, if you are a Christian, you are either a slave to your passions, or a slave to the Good Master.
James said servant. Even if you have a translation that says slave, we're talking about a willing subject entering a servile relationship with a master. It's willful and deliberate. There are other passages in the New Testament that tell slaves to be good slaves, but I get that it's only in the sense that we're supposed to be good in whatever situation we find ourselves. As for slave owners? Philemon was asked to free his slave Onesimus. I don't think the New Testament condones slavery at all. And the Old Testament records the Year of Jubilee in which you were required to release all your slaves, so they couldn't have had the perpetual slave system we know from 19th-century USA.
Joseph was a slave and then he brought his entire family to live with (and under him).
At the time Joseph invited his family to Egypt, he was one of the most powerful men in Egypt, second only to the pharaoh. It was a later dynasty that enslaved the Israelites.
For that matter is there an example of a good society anywhere? Anytime?
As much as I live in and fought in the armed services for my country and its people. I wouldn't say its a good country if one were to judge it by an alignment axis. I wouldn't say its an evil one by any means. I also know I am blessed to live here.
I would say that early history of my nation is one of evil. Is that true for any nation to survive? Is a new nation required to be evil to survive its infancy?
Happy Thanksgiving. Looking forward to reading your thoughts..
There was.
The City of Zion, circa 3,000 (10,000?) B.C. Enoch gathered together the believers in Jesus Christ (yes, they were Christians) together in a city. There, they worked hard for each other, seeing that everyone had food, shelter, clothes, medicine, and education. The experiment lasted until a bunch of demoniacs couldn't stand them any more and tried to get rid of them by the sword and by the tax.
It didn't work out to well.
Finally, they became too good for the planet and as Plato said, "In a single day and night" they all disappeared.
At the time Joseph invited his family to Egypt, he was one of the most powerful men in Egypt, second only to the pharaoh. It was a later dynasty that enslaved the Israelites.
By that time, Joseph was deified twice: as Ptah and as Imhotep. I think the Israelitish Hebrews were enslaved by the 16th Dynasty. By the 18th Dynasty (after Akhenaton), they got up and left, led by a very charismatic individual.
However, the Israelites were never in the official record of the Egyptians, because the Pharaohs told their historian scribes not to do so, because it would make the Pharaoh at the time be in a very, very bad light.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's really important to keep in mind that Lawful Good doesn't necessarily mean perfect. An organization could have major flaws—such as misogyny, or bigotry against other creeds—and still be Lawful Good, just like a character could be. Lawful Good ain't always a perfect, utopian ideal. Sometimes, a Lawful Good character is just another flawed guy or gal who, despite that, really tries to do the right thing. They may be uneducated or outright jerky on certain fronts, but what matters is that they're still trying and that overall they have good intentions.
Does that mean a Lawful Good organization does exist? Absolutely! And it's called——————————————————————————————————
Is this the Mormon thing? I don't recall that being specifically Christian thousands of years before Christ.
** spoiler omitted **
Oh, and since both Enoch and Moses were not descendants of Judah, it wouldn't be entirely accurate to call them Jews. Otherwise, yeah, in a way they were Christians if the term had been coined then.
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
Are you Mormon, that explains your response before.
A Bond-servant IS a slave. Just for your information. There are several different types of slaves.
Also, when talking about slavery, WE ALL sell ourselves through sinning. In fact, for non-Mormons, we were sold before we even sinned ourselves through the original sin (Mormons call it transgression).
Only through being bought can we serve another master, and hence Christians are bought via the blood of Christ.
It should also be noted that Joseph indeed WAS a slave. He was originally sold by his brothers, and then later was slave to Potipher. He could be considered twice a slave since he was then later in the Egyptian prison system, and hence when brought out, a slave to Pharaoh as well. In accordance with what would make sense, the reason he had such power was because he was a slave to Pharaoh, and hence directly part of Pharaoh as one would put it (an extension of Pharaoh, as he was the property of Pharaoh, a much more direct extension than a mere servant would have been). Being a slave did not have the same negative connotations it does in our modern age. It could be good, or it could be bad. It's only our modern interpretation of what being a slave is that makes us paint it exclusively in a negative light. (I being a modern man would see it as a negative, but that's not necessarily how the Bible portrays it). As a slave, all who were part of his family would also have been slaves...however they probably were not as the same type of slaves of the Israelites of Moses time until later. However their heritage as slaves begins with Joseph.
The fascinating thing about Mormons is how they twist themselves to fit their modern sensibilities into thoughts that go very much against what their traditions (but not their teachings, teachings have stayed the same, their traditions on the otherhand have changed quite a bit) would have.
One prime example...
It's fascinating how anti-polygamy LDS folks are. I suppose it goes hand in hand with the one man and one woman belief many push via their traditions today...but if you look over the past decade and the involvement and persecution Mormons have done to those practicing polygamy, it seems that the Mormons today would be the very people that tried to kill and jail their ancestors due to their beliefs and practice of polygamy.
However, their actual gospel is VERY different than their actual modern tradition. If you look at it, Mormons had a very open mind towards marriage, and the only reason they stopped the polygamy was due to a vision one of their prophets stated he had which showed them losing their lives, belongings and everything else if they pursued that course. They never switched to a belief that their open ideas regarding marriage was wrong, but that a different course was needed to be taken at that time.
However, the LDS teachings are rather open and lax when you get to what they actually teach on various matters. Their core theology and teachings I find rather open, enlightening, and could be a solid foundation for a LG society if they were lived by.
Myself, in regards to Christianity probably feel that the LDS teachings are far more true in regards to what a religion should be and teach than any other religion out there (personal opinion) and if one truly accepted it and believed it (and there is a heaven) it would be the surest way to get to heaven. I also lean very heavily towards a Southern Baptist type view though (so yeah, double cursed with conservative ideas in regards towards Christianity).
I'd actually say the original LDS organization was probably the closest one could get to LG.
However, there is a gross misportrayal of Mormonism by those who are anti-Mormons (I mean, come on, who in their right mind gets their info from someone who absolutely hates someone else and thinks they are getting a fair picture, that would be like asking Adolf Hitler what the Jews believe, or Stalin what Thomas Ford believed...but it seems there are a ton who do just that in this modern internet society). What's worse however, is that Mormons themselves let their modern traditions get so offended by what their own scriptures tell them that they try to rewrite them with their traditions and pride in their own society.
Which means that their society today is probably more towards a neutral arena than anything else.
Overall, a discussion on Mormonism could be absolutely fascinating, but I suppose probably not in this thread, except to note, that as far as LG societies go, the original Mormon society probably was about as close to a LG society as one could get in our modern day. AT least from what I've read up on it in my own research (and not that anti-Mormon slog people present, that gets you nowhere, go to the source/primary documents which are very enlightening to tell the truth).
Edit: just to be clear, NOT ALL Mormons are like what I describe above, perhaps not even a majority, but enough are that it is all one reads about in modern day research in regards to LDS and Mormon activity. I'm certain there are some very devout believers that act and do as their ancestors did in belief, grace, and goodness. I also stand by the statement that of all the Christian beliefs, it's the one that feels the most true of them (if one believes in Christianity) and has an extension that personally speaking, is what would logically be the most sensible if I were designing it. I of course also believe that it's only through the grace of our Lord that we are saved and he has the power to save any he so feels, which is basically anyone who accepts him...which is distinctly more Baptist then anything else I suppose.
4 words:
Mountain Meadows, Child brides
But in all the Old Testament, only Daniel used the word Messiah. So even that was rare. That's funny about Enoch speaking Greek. We have no idea what Enoch spoke...just that it wasn't Greek, Aramaic, or even Hebrew.
Are you Mormon?
I am.
WE ALL sell ourselves through sinning.
Totally agree on that part. Slaves to sin. I'm not sure we become 'slaves' to Christ though. But maybe you and I are just disagreeing on semantics. If by slave you mean a willing agent who can leave whenever he wants to serve a different master, then, yes, I'm with you.
It should also be noted that Joseph indeed WAS a slave....
Originally, yes, Joseph was a slave. But Pharaoh made Joseph a "ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Genesis 41:43). It was a later king "which knew not Joseph" who set over them "taskmasters to afflict them with burdens" (Exodus 1: 8, 11).
I'd actually say the original LDS organization was probably the closest one could get to LG.
Thanks! I'll take that as a compliment to my faith. I'd like to think Mormons are just get better over time. That's my hope at least. I think it's interesting the dichotomy between what a group of people aspires to be and what they actually are. I think Mormons definitely aspire to be LG but sometimes, perhaps often, fall short of that mark.
4 words:
Mountain Meadows, Child brides
As for child brides, that was more early 19th-century Western culture than Mormons in particular. For example, the age on consent in England in 1875 was 13. And that's after they had just raised it.
Strange and disgusting from out perspective, but we live in (I hope) more enlightened times.
If you look at the original records (which most don't) and the things purveying during that time, they lived under a rather strict law in Nauvoo and Missouri. Even with that law, they were VERY accepting of others. They were very open in what they did and accepted. At the same time they were very oriented towards helping their neighbors.
One ironic thing is that Joseph Smith could and would excommunicate you for not doing Home Teaching. Back then (it's still supposed to be this way currently, but in practice it is far different in the LDS faith these days) a home teacher was assigned several people and was to ensure that their spiritual and physical welfare was being taken care of. If they needed anything, you would do your very best to procure it or help them do it.
So, if you didn't actually help your fellow man, you could be excommunicated. However, at the same time, it seems it was VERY easy to get back in as well, just as easy as being excommunicated. So one day you could be ex'd, the next day you're back in.
It was a very forgiving society, and if you look you see ALL types that were in that society of all different races (and even orientation though it wasn't even a quarter as big a deal back then as it is now) involved with the LDS faith.
You could still say it had distinct elements of that in Utah as well, but you could see elements of change (some of that perhaps was due to rather harsh environment they were facing, other parts of it, could be the change in those who led the actual movement and their opinions on things. It's hard to say, but you start to see some distinct shifts in some areas of Mormonism).
Now, even if Brigham Young was involved with the Mountain Meadows Massacre, I would not necessarily count that as a non-lawful act, though the good may be debatable.
Records indicate that there were ceremonies (in conjunction with other temple ceremonies) in which people would swear to avenge the death of Joseph Smith and the Saints against those who murdered and killed them. There are NO reliable records that actually record that this happened, and I have never seen these ceremonies myself so I can't actually verify them in person.
I have run across a somewhat reliable source in regards to the actual oaths (which I believe the Mormons held Sacred) but they only date back to around the 1930s at the earliest. I won't repeat what I've read here on that, as I believe these are things held sacred by the Mormons, and hence not really appropriate to actually go into detail.
However, if their assumption was that these were the same people and families that raped and killed their families, pillaged their property, stole their land, and voted to allow them to be legally hunted as prey, then many had taken a blood oath to kill them. As such, a lawful character would be obligated to follow that oath.
In addition, lawful good does NOT mean that you don't kill someone or something (in AD&D at least, those who play it that way are usually referred to as lawful stupid), but that you follow the lawful demands you have on yourself, as well as seek the good of others above yourself.
In that light, Mountain meadows may not have been legal, and whether it was good is really debatable...but lawful...I'd say it was lawful in that light from what they knew and believed.
THAT said...whether Brigham Young was involved is heavily debatable. It may never be known if he did or did not have involvement. Back then (and a practice seen today) they put pressure on some criminals if they wanted a witness against someone higher. In return for more leniency on sentencing they would have them witness against someone higher.
They didn't have anything really connecting the MMM to Brigham Young at first from what I've seen in the primary documents (on the otherhand there were may NON-reliable documents that cast accusations without any proof, and hence were never accepted in court) until one key witness came out. The problem with that witness is that they weren't entirely reliable themselves. They had too much to gain by pointing the incident towards Brigham Young, and nothing to really lose in their bargain. In fact, with as much as they would gain, one could say it was a completely compromised witness.
If it was just that, I'd say there was nothing there, but the story gets MORE interesting. That particular witness, and several with him, were excommunicated from the LDS faith. Their relatives always maintained their innocence...AND...this is the kicker, eventually these witnesses (after their deaths) were reallowed in or whatever they call it, where the excommunication is commuted or the records show that the excommunication is done away...at least from what I gather. Which could imply that there may actually have been a connection and those men were slated to take the fall.
So, pretty controversial and who knows if we'll ever have the whole picture.
As You can tell, I do a lot of religious research...but Mormon history is actually not as interesting as the current stuff I've been tracing.
Another society that could be close to LG, WHEN it was in it's ideal state (which isn't actually as often as one might want) is probably the Quakers, another religion that has some interesting history.
Baptist history has a HUGE debate on it's origins. There are three tracts...but really...we should create another thread on this stuff if people want to discuss it. It's a great hobby of mine, you could call me an amateur historian. The biggest problems with much of religious history is that the opponents like to go to those who want to destroy the religion and use secondary and sometimes tertiary sources instead of the primary sources in their documentation. The other problem is many of those who want to destroy the religion give half truths, in that they'll tell you something entirely truthful...only to follow up with a lie, or telling a part of the truth without telling you the entire story (for example, because George Washington was a British Officer he was actually fighting against the colonies instead of what history tells us, things like that which are truth mixed with lies to push an agenda anti-what really happened).
It's a problem you have with any religious history, and part of what makes it fun. Trying to decipher the half truths, the lies, and the truths from each other. Nothing seems to bring out more people who want to tear something down than religion. But as I said, I could go on hours on many religions as it's a fascinating topic for me in amateur history (and the debate over the Baptist religions origins is FAR more controversial right now in my opinion than the Mormons, perhaps because it's a bigger religion overall), so if we want to discuss it, perhaps a different thread.
You could even title it...questions regarding GWL's atheistic opinions and outlooks on religion or something if you wanted (though I probably wouldn't label myself as an atheist by any shot...but many of my approaches and answers could be interpreted that way...for example...I personally believe there is no strong physical evidence of the truth of the Bible in the World...only that imagined by Christians...that evidence when analyzed it says something much different than they imagine it does). I would say I am quite full of faith though...which is why evidence isn't necessarily important in that regards... (and in truth almost ALL religions rely on one having faith in something not seen or touched instead of hard physical evidence like science).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mountain meadows may not have been legal, and whether it was good is really debatable
You want to argue that the slaughter of children is somehow not Evil? I'm interested in hearing this.
Mountain meadows may not have been legal, and whether it was good is really debatableYou want to argue that the slaughter of children is somehow not Evil? I'm interested in hearing this.
Under some interpretations of the alignment system, it's not as long as those children are evil.
I don't agree with that stance, but unfortunately it does exist and it does give Grey a basis for arguing the stance.
Josephs' Smith's attitude is an interesting one. I think this statement is telling. This is only part of the statement and I edited it slightly due to some of the wording of the day some may find offensive in these modern times.
I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situations with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated African American, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black gentlemen will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1976 , pp269
However, at the time he was not so much for intermixing, so probably not so much for inter racial marriage. He was for them being equal to everyone else however.
He makes this statement in regards to them when discussing Texas
The South holds the balance of power. By annexing Texas, I can do away with this evil. As soon as Texas was annexed, I would liberate the slaves in two or three States, indemnifying their owners, and send the former slaves to Texas and from Texas to Mexico, where all colors are alike. And if that was not sufficient, I would call upon Canada and annex it.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1976 , pp334-335
Of interest, they did have African Americans that were saints and were basically on even ground with any of the other saints. Joseph Smith also ordained them to the priesthood at that time. Now this changed after Joseph Smiths death. Brigham Young made it so no more African Americans were ordained eventually, though it seems he was afraid to try to nullify at least one African American family that Joseph had ordained to the priesthood and continued to let their sons be ordained to the priesthood while he was prophet. Brigham Young obviously had slightly different views on the evils of slavery as well. I believe Utah became a slave territory (though it sided with the Union in the Civil War I think).
On the Native American, they were also treated as equals when among the Mormons. Joseph Smith based his religion off the idea that they were the children of Israel and hence automatically part of the chosen people. For the Book of Mormon, it is directed towards them as being first for them in listing, and then the Jew and then others. He sent missionaries that had their primary mission to the Native American. However, I don't believe he dealt with them as much as Brigham Young did on the frontier, and hence due to the limited information we have, it's a little harder to tell of his opinions.
In regards to the Quakers, you may be right. The Quakers however, have some pretty strong values that guide them more towards a Good society (if not a definitive lawful one) than many other religions out there, and for some reason (I don't understand everything about them) there seems to be a strong preponderance among many of them to follow these tenets. If you have a group of these like minded people, who strive for the ideal, they seem to tend more towards lawful good. I imagine if you could ever have a large population composed of them, we could see if a LG ideal would be widespread or they would turn out as the Mormons have in Utah today.
The Book of Mormon posits that black people are black because God hates them.
While he was an EXTREME outlier who doesn't seem to have been very devout, Nixon was a Quaker.
I wouldn't use Nixon as a really good example of a Quaker by any shot. Considering there were a few groups of Quakers that seemed rather opposed to his actions...probably not the best example of an exemplary one.
On the otherhand, it's a good point. Being a quaker does not make one LG or doing what other Quakers may consider rather un-good or non-lawful actions (going by the alignment system...which of course they really don't think in, but trying to draw the parallels).
The Book of Mormon posits that black people are black because God hates them.
????
Not in the fashion you are stating.
In the Book of Mormon it DOES have a group of people that have their skins made like flint. These are supposed to be what people call the Lamanites...NOT the African Americans. These Lamanites, according to Joseph Smith are the same as the native Americans that were in the Americas at the time he was alive.
Though they had darker skins, I don't think it states that they are black people as most would understand it, and most wouldn't say the Native American is a black person.
Furthermore, this was originally on Nephi's brothers. Later on, many of their descendants converted and were considered even better people than the "white" or Nephites...hardly a condition I would call being hated by anyone in the heavens.
In fact, one particular story in the BoM has a Samuel the Lamanite, who was called as the prophet and came to call the Nephites (the whites as you would put it) to repentence. They of course try to kill him, but are unable to as he is protected from direct harm by God.
Finally, in the end, the Nephites fall to iniquity, and are considered at that point to be more evil than the Lamanites (or darker skinned people). Because of their iniquity, the Nephites fall to the Lamanites. Most of the Lamanites at this point did not know the gospel of Christ (according to the BoM), and their children would definitely not know the Christ. The BoM gives this as one of the big reasons why it is written, to tell them of their history and to bring them to Christ (Moroni 10:1).
AS for those that some would call black today (as in those native from Africa or descended from such within the past 2000 years), they aren't mentioned in the BoM. For such, you would turn to other books that the Mormons or LDS use.
I'm not certain what that has to do with the Mormon society that we are talking about however?
While he was an EXTREME outlier who doesn't seem to have been very devout, Nixon was a Quaker.
I wouldn't use Nixon as a really good example of a Quaker by any shot. Considering there were a few groups of Quakers that seemed rather opposed to his actions...probably not the best example of an exemplary one.
On the otherhand, it's a good point. Being a quaker does not make one LG or doing what other Quakers may consider rather un-good or non-lawful actions (going by the alignment system...which of course they really don't think in, but trying to draw the parallels).
I think we need to make a distinction based on this. Societies are collections of people, and as such they are going to contain those members who are not following the society's alignment in action. And there is nothing that says individual members of a government have to match the alignment of the government as a whole. Even clerics, who typically are empowered directly by gods, are allowed some deviation from the alignment of their gods.
It matters, since the BoM does reference skin color as being a curse from God. That influences how a society thinks about such things like skin color. Even if you're story is about Group A, it's plainly obvious that Group B has an even darker skin tone.
For example, black people weren't allowed to have a celestial marriage until 1977. There were several other rites I'm not familiar with they were excluded from as well. Essentially in the Mormon religion, blacks were only part way allowed into heaven. They could only have an Earthly marriage, which would end upon their death (unlike a celestial marriage which endures into the afterlife).
Basing a religion around such stories, even if that aspect is not the dominant factor of the religion, influences how they treat people who are portrayed in those stories, such as people with dark skin.
Yes, the BoM does talk about equality and how anyone, regardless of skin tone can get into God's good graces, but at the same time you can't deny that the BoM does have passages that directly correlates skin color to sin.
I would agree that there are actually some very redeeming qualities about the Mormon religion. For example, it is part of their religion that they be prepared with food and supplies in case of disaster. As a result, the Church of LDS actually had supplies en route to New Orleans several days prior to hurricane Katrina making landfall.
I just don't think that whitewashing a violent history peppered with pedophilia is a good idea.
It appears you get most of your information from Anti-Mormon sites. You do know they lie a lot?
It's like referring to Hitler or Stalin in regards to Jews.It was under Brigham Young that many of the LDS or Mormon ordinances stopped being provided to those of color (as previously mentioned), whereas they were allotted all things under Joseph Smith. As such, I still don't see why you are bringing this up or how it has to deal with a LG society as we are discussing it...as the saints of the 1900s are explicitly NOT what I was talking about, I thought I made that clear.
In regards to the darkened skin, it says they did have a cursing, and yes a dark skin came upon those who sought to kill Nephi (the author claimed to have written the first two books of the Book of Mormon). However, that is not the ONLY marking that came about, and some of them were much more detailed. The skin as flint WAS admittedly something done directly to them as a result of their actions against their brother (and in many ways can be seen as the symbology or a reference to the same thing that happened in the Bible to Cain in the Old Testament). This is covered in a few paragraphs of one book. This could be significant as this could be seen as the Cain event, and it sets up what one could call the Mormon argument against the 19th century idea of the African American being a slave because of Cain's cursing.
The reason is significant is to see that skin tone itself did NOT matter to the Lord. Instead of being cursed forever, it only pertained to those who directly tried to kill Nephi. There were darker skinned people in the Book of Mormon, and lighter skinned, but as pointed out, those of a darker skin tone were considered more righteous than those of a lighter skin tone in several parts of the Book of Mormon.
In fact, this idea is far more talked about and covers far more of the Book of Mormon than the quarter page that you are referring to. Significant portions of the Book of Mormon are devoted to this very idea (much of it summarized in very short form in my above post).
If anything, those who converted to the Lord of the Lamanites are almost held up on a pedestal in the Book of Mormon.
There are others who had a cursing and mark placed upon them, it is interesting that you are NOT mentioning them. Maybe it's because they were WHITE and hence don't fall into your categorization. It goes into more detail on how they got marked with them...and that is that they marked themselves, placing marks upon them so they could tell the difference between them and others. In fact there were several were marked.
However, I fail to see why this is significant as one can see how people of color were integrated into the Mormon society in Nauvoo and Illinois. If anything it doesn't indicate any racism in that arena...except for Joseph Smith being against it typically.
In fact, it depends on the primary sources (instead of tertiary sources that some who don't research particularly well) that during the time of Joseph Smith, some actually saw it as an anti-slavery movement with equalization overtones with it. I don't agree with that hypothesis, BUT there are some that actually state that the true reasons Mormons were attacked in Missouri, and eventually had an extermination order written against them was this very reason. People who were pro-slavery saw a LARGE block of Anti-slavery and equality of all coming into that state and felt threatened politically by this. It IS a theory (as I said, I don't particularly buy it) and much of the evidence is driven by the theories of the Mormons of that day.
You are mentioning things that occurred under Brigham Young. That said, even then it wasn't instantaneous and occurred LATER on in the 19th century. As such, it really has nothing to do with the society I was discussing and in that way makes me puzzled why you are bringing non-relavant items into the discussion.
Is there a reason you are apparently biased?
I DO have a particular bias myself, I'll admit it right here. I have a deep dislike of those who are prejudice against groups based on religion, race, and other factors. Nothing makes me more disgusted than Anti-Catholics, Anti-Christians, Anti-Mormons, Anti-JW, Anti-Seventh Day Witnesses, Anti-Scientology, Nazi, KKK, Racist, and other wise.
I feel people have a right to speak freely, and a right to privacy, but that doesn't mean I like to see all the hatred spouted about as fact when in truth, most of it is out and out lies about some organization they hate.
Some of the most horrendous crimes of the 20th century came from those who hated religions, races, and groups (the Holocaust, and Stalin's purges). In fact, if there is one group that I would call CE in the 20th century, it would be them. (I'll also admit, some of the most heinous crimes of previous centuries came from people in the NAME of a religion...and sometimes still do).
Just to be clear, this is NOT the same as being an atheist in regards to being anti-religion. You can be an atheist and be VERY impartial, in fact more impartial than many others. It's about historical accuracy and trying to play off emotions to make something or someone look bad because you want to discriminate against them.
You last statement
I just don't think that whitewashing a violent history peppered with pedophilia is a good idea.
Comes EXTREMELY close to seeming to be part of the hate groups terminologies that I despise.
I'm interested in history, and largely religious history. Yes, in many ways there are some terrible things done in the name of religion, but if you are going to portray such things, do it in an accurately historical context.
I find many times those who are anti-something will burn the scholars, kill the professors, and destroy the factual works because it doesn't portray the horrible things they want it to.
Ala Farenheit 451.
Simply because someone (even someone who is an outside party and more impartial) shows facts and items that don't promote hate...they will lump them into that same group to hate on...similar to how the Nazi's grouped anyone who helped the Jewish people into the same camp.
This is a discussion on LG societies, interesting how I seem to be seeing the intrusion of what I may call CE influences into the discussion.
I am sorry about this, but when I see what appears to be hatred or hate speech starting to pop up, it does fire up something in me.
As such, if we want a thread asking for GWL's atheistic opinions on religion, maybe there should be ANOTHER thread for it (mentioned this before) as my bias against hate groups is probably starting to rise enough that I should take a break from this one.
So, is this the Less Civil Religious Discussion?
I mean, uh, "ibtl"? Or smurf, or something?
As Community's Annie once said, "Everyone's religions are weird."
You are mentioning things that occurred under Brigham Young. That said, even then it wasn't instantaneous and occurred LATER on in the 19th century. As such, it really has nothing to do with the society I was discussing and in that way makes me puzzled why you are bringing non-relavant items into the discussion.
Is there a reason you are apparently biased?
I'm just going to back out.
There's clearly no talking to you, because if I doubt for a moment that Mormon's might have done something wrong ever, clearly I'm an agent of the devil who is seeking to sow disruption.
Smith engaged in sex with pubescent girls. Do you deny this?
Look up the U.S. laws on age of consent at the time. That wasn't pedophilia even as late as 1880. In fact, in 1880, the age of consent in Delaware was 7.
Smith engaged in sex with pubescent girls. Do you deny this?Look up the U.S. laws on age of consent at the time. That wasn't pedophilia even as late as 1880. In fact, in 1880, the age of consent in Delaware was 7.
It was legal to whip a slave that displeased you prior to 1864. Just because something is legal (or even common practice) does not make it moral.
There are two parts to the concept: Lawful AND Good.
Just because something is Lawful does not automatically mean it is Good. We know this for a fact because we also have the concept of Lawful Evil.
I think we can reasonably agree that the institution of slavery in America was probably an example of Lawful Evil. I would put a society that not only permits but encourages adults to sexually abuse children in the same category.
Now, Mormonism didn't necessarily encourage men to go out and find child brides. But it did encourage the practice of gathering as many brides as possible and the leaders had a long history of presenting marriages to them as a way to secure salvation for a families soul. Joseph Smith Jr for example convince Helen Kimball's father that if he gave over his 14 y/o daughter his family would earn a higher place in heaven, as well as higher status in the community.
Just because "my religion told me to" is not justification for something to be Good. Even in the game we blatantly acknowledge that many religions are Evil, therefore we must judge a religion by the content of it's practices.
So far, the only defense for Joseph Smith presented is that potentially "someone who didn't like him made it up". Except we know that isn't true, since we have documents from Helen Kimball telling us that she married at age 14 and she and her family kept that marriage a secret initially.
I don't think that Mormonism is necessarily responsible for the pedophilia that happened within, but it is responsible for creating a culture and atmosphere for it was acceptable or at least overlooked. Several pages ago I suggested a set of criteria:
1) Evil acts are abhorred within society
2) Evil acts are not committed by the will of the people (ie, the government they invest their authority in)
3) Good members of society represent a simple majority (50.1% or more)
I would consider pedophilia to be an Evil act. If you want to try and argue otherwise, feel free. If it is an Evil act, Mormonism clearly fails the first test by not abhorring an Evil act.
|
For that matter is there an example of a good society anywhere? Anytime?
As much as I live in and fought in the armed services for my country and its people. I wouldn't say its a good country if one were to judge it by an alignment axis. I wouldn't say its an evil one by any means. I also know I am blessed to live here.
I would say that early history of my nation is one of evil. Is that true for any nation to survive? Is a new nation required to be evil to survive its infancy?
Happy Thanksgiving. Looking forward to reading your thoughts..
Define lawful good. Mountain tribe x has laws that require warriors eat any enemies of the tribe they kill, and women and children are expected to eat relatives who die. Its done for the good of the tribe.
I would put a society that not only permits but encourages adults to sexually abuse children in the same category.
How do you define "adult" for the purposes of this? Because if you define it as the age of 18, that firmly puts most of the modern United States in the Evil category. The ages have moved up, but it's still legal to marry someone who is legally a minor (18 is unusually high for an age of consent in the U.S.).
This is one area that often annoys me when people bring up Smith... they bring up that he was married to one wife because she was not an adult while ignoring that it's still legal to marry someone who isn't an adult in most of the United States.
Plus, the necessary science to tell them what they were doing was evil didn't even exist yet. So all they had to go on was the laws of the period, so you really can't blame them for not knowing it was evil when they had absolutely nothing to indicate it was wrong. And keep in mind that, for the most part, that science wouldn't even really exist until after the age of consent laws had changed on the federal level; child psychology didn't see much of its development until the 20th Century, so many of the laws of the era were made without even half of the information we have about what children go through.
I'm not saying what he did was right. I am saying you are judging the actions and moral positions of people back then by knowledge that did not exist at the time. The same can't be said of slavery; slavery was known as evil by Europeans before they even started practicing it.
I would put a society that not only permits but encourages adults to sexually abuse children in the same category.How do you define "adult" for the purposes of this? Because if you define it as the age of 18, that firmly puts most of the modern United States in the Evil category. The ages have moved up, but it's still legal to marry someone who is legally a minor (18 is unusually high for an age of consent in the U.S.).
This is one area that often annoys me when people bring up Smith... they bring up that he was married to one wife because she was not an adult while ignoring that it's still legal to marry someone who isn't an adult in most of the United States.
Plus, the necessary science to tell them what they were doing was evil didn't even exist yet. So all they had to go on was the laws of the period, so you really can't blame them for not knowing it was evil when they had absolutely nothing to indicate it was wrong. And keep in mind that, for the most part, that science wouldn't even really exist until after the age of consent laws had changed on the federal level; child psychology didn't see much of its development until the 20th Century, so many of the laws of the era were made without even half of the information we have about what children go through.
I'm not saying what he did was right. I am saying you are judging the actions and moral positions of people back then by knowledge that did not exist at the time. The same can't be said of slavery; slavery was known as evil by Europeans before they even started practicing it.
Recheck the thread topic, this is not a philosophy class, this is a discussion of game terms and using them to look at the real world.
When I say "Good", I don't mean "my modern sensibilities", we're talking about the Good alignment in D&D/Pathfinder. Good is not subjective. Just because something is legal does not mean something is Good. We know this, because things can be Lawful Evil, meaning that they adhere to rules (or laws) but are the opposite of Good. Legal does not inherently mean Good.
We aren't doing comparative morality throughout history. We are determining whether something meets the definitions of Good, Neutral and Evil in game terms.
It doesn't matter that in dozens of states during the 1700's, it was perfectly legal to whip a slave for ANY REASON YOU DEEMED APPRPORIATE. It still wouldn't qualify as a Good in D&D terms.
I'd love to hear how Joseph Smith's situation fits the definition of Good or Neutral. Remember, in your narrative of this situation you have to account for:
1) Joseph Smith was 38 years old, his bride was 14.
2) Joseph Smith had 27 other wives.
3) Joseph Smith was both the religious and civic leader of his community
4) Joseph Smith used his standing as both religious and civic leader to persuade the father of the marraige
These are all facts. We know these facts because both of writings from both Joseph Smith AND Helen Kimball. I'm not making these facts up. I'm not getting them from people who hated Joseph Smith. I'm getting them from the people directly involved in the marriage.
Now, I agree, that this is something that creeps me out with my modern sensibilities. That said, in my RPG experience of 20+ years, I've found that most things that make my skin crawl tend to be Evil. Maybe this isn't, but if you're going to explain it, you need to do better than "it was legal at the time". You need to explain how it qualifies as a Neutral act in game terms (or Good if you so choose).
Note, there were accusations of sexual misconduct dating back to 1827, 3 years prior to his first transcribing of the Book of Mormon. There's no proof anything was forced (Smith wasn't a rapist, he wanted willing partners), but he seems to have a penchant for teenage girls. Some of the charges were probably drummed up. Some are probably just angry fathers/husbands/brothers, pissed off that their women folk had sex, with little or no merit to the charges. The prevalence of incidents and number of wives is fairly consistent and constant throughout his life.
Of course, this could all be a conspiracy against Mormonism that started 3 years prior to the first appearance of the word.
TL:DR
Not philosophy class, we're utilizing the game terms of alignment.
Recheck the thread topic, this is not a philosophy class, this is a discussion of game terms and using them to look at the real world.
When I say "Good", I don't mean "my modern sensibilities", we're talking about the Good alignment in D&D/Pathfinder. Good is not subjective. Just because something is legal does not mean something is Good. We know this, because things can be Lawful Evil, meaning that they adhere to rules (or laws) but are the opposite of Good. Legal does not inherently mean Good.
We aren't doing comparative morality throughout history. We are determining whether something meets the definitions of Good, Neutral and Evil in game terms.
It doesn't matter that in dozens of states during the 1700's, it was perfectly legal to whip a slave for ANY REASON YOU DEEMED APPRPORIATE. It still wouldn't qualify as a Good in D&D terms.
I'd love to hear how Joseph Smith's situation fits the definition of Good or Neutral. Remember, in your narrative of this situation you have to account for:
1) Joseph Smith was 38 years old, his bride was 14.
2) Joseph Smith had 27 other wives.
3) Joseph Smith was both the religious and civic leader of his community
4) Joseph Smith used his standing as both religious and civic leader to persuade the father of the marraigeThese are all facts. We know these facts because both of writings from both Joseph Smith AND Helen Kimball. I'm not making these facts up. I'm not getting them from people who hated Joseph Smith. I'm getting them from the people directly involved in the marriage.
Now, I agree, that this is something that creeps me out with my modern sensibilities. That said, in my RPG experience of 20+ years, I've found that most things that make my skin crawl tend to be Evil. Maybe this isn't, but if you're going to explain it, you need to do better than "it was legal at the time". You need to explain how it qualifies as a Neutral act in game terms (or Good if you so choose).
Note, there were accusations of sexual misconduct dating back to 1827, 3 years prior to his first transcribing of the Book of Mormon. There's no proof anything was forced (Smith wasn't a rapist, he wanted willing partners), but he seems to have a penchant for teenage girls. Some of the charges were probably drummed up. Some are probably just angry fathers/husbands/brothers, pissed off that their women folk had sex, with little or no merit to the charges. The prevalence of incidents and number of wives is fairly consistent and constant throughout his life.
Of course, this could all be a conspiracy against Mormonism that started 3 years prior to the first appearance of the word.
TL:DR
Not philosophy class, we're utilizing the game terms of alignment.
Except that any perusal of any argument on alignment would reveal that you can't even discuss alignment as defined by the game terms without getting heavily into philosophy as to what is good and evil. Let me start by quoting the actual rules on alignment as to the definition of good:
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
And the good alignments:
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Now the evil:
Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil.
Neutral Evil: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
And here's where we get into a sticky mess. Marrying a 14-year-old girl was not considered an evil act in the era in which he did it. The idea of marrying a 14-year-old girl, some would argue, was not done with cruelty or intent to oppress; people had absolutely no knowledge at the time that it was an act of cruelty just because of her age.
The issue is that evil itself requires intent within the game alignments. Which brings us right back around to the philosophy class because the game rules on alignment enshrined that philosophy class into all discussions on alignment. It's impossible to assign an act of history as evil without getting into the intent behind the act, and in order to get into the intent behind the act we need records from that era and the historical context in which the act was committed. And I'm pointing out that, by the historical context of the era, marrying a 14-year-old girl was not considered an evil act. Unlike slavery and oppression of Africans, both of which were acknowledged as evil acts before they even began and which remained as evil acts for the entirety of their existence (this actually makes the U.S. an excellent example of a Lawful Evil culture).
Now, the other three items you listed? By the standards of the era, evil acts. Notice I never argued they were not.
TL;DR: It is a philosophy class because it's impossible to discuss alignment without it.
Marriage at fourteen was still better than the principle of marriage after the first menstruation that has probably been the standard for a pretty long time through history. Age of consent has a pretty shifting history, and in many countries, 14 has been used as age of majority for a very long time.
By those terms, it's pretty difficult to see it as Evil. Inappropriate, perhaps, creepy, maybe, considering the age difference, but not Evil.
By who?
There certainly were people who believed slavery was evil while it was going on. There were also plenty of others who believed (or at the very least claimed to believe, which is all we can go on) that it was good and far more who thought it was not evil. The US certainly did not openly and proudly acknowledge that it was an evil state. Those who wished to continue and expand slavery did not claim they wished to continue and expand evil.
As for "marrying a 14-year-old girl", that's not quite the context. Using your status as the founder of a religion to convince a 14-year-old girl (and her parents) that she should "marry" you as one of your many wives, is a lot creepier than what most people even of the day would have been happy with. "Marry" is quoted because these were not legal marriages, only a religious one. No real checks on that, since he was the prophet.Note: There are some doubts about the nature or even existence of Smith's plural marriages. There is no confirmed primary source that I'm aware of, but there are documentation from slightly later in Mormon history, but well within the life span of those who were there. Consider all of this wrapped in a big "Assuming these claims are true".
Also, not all or even most of the alleged marriages were with teens. The issue to me seems far more using his religious status to gain sexual access than pedophilia (hebephilia, really) specifically, though it's more problematic with the younger girls, for the obvious reasons.
The very people who started the slavery practice that the U.S. continued knew it was an evil act; that's what they used to justify their own slavery practices after learning Africans practiced slavery. Basically, the logic was "they're doing it to themselves, so they must deserve it." Which we know is just self-justification for an act one knows is evil.
Which, in turn, set up an entire system of self-justification. Considering its beginnings and how people continued to call it out as evil, I can't say they had no reason to not know it was an evil act. History vindicates the position it was an evil act, so we can say for certain those who argued that it was were ultimately correct.
Now, using his position to justify that someone should marry him? Undoubtedly evil; I am not saying otherwise. But I am addressing only one aspect of that to point out that a particular accusation does not apply and that calling the act evil because of age runs across a nuance problem. One which the vague alignment system allows.