Terrorism…pornography…Donald Trump? Evil is a popular word these days in Mormon culture. But what is evil and what exactly do we mean when we say it? In the church, I think the word evil has a Satanic component. But non-members often understand it differently. Some dislike the word because of its supernatural religious connotations. When George W. Bush used the phrase “axis of evil” he was criticised for “religious crusading.” Others see the word evil as simply describing something which is “very bad.” With accusations of evil flying all around us these days, it might help us to understand each other if we try to unpack exactly what evil means for different people. I can think of four basic responses to the word evil depending on our political and religious proclivities.
1. Religious Conservative:
Evil is Satanic, against God’s will, and is wrong in all circumstances.
2. Religious Liberal:
Evil depends on the context and knowledge involved. Evil happens only when someone knowingly does something wrong.
3. Secular Conservative:
Evil is anything wrong, untrue, or demonstrably bad. Evil is anything contrary to universal laws of nature.
4. Secular Liberal:
There is no evil. Our choices are predetermined by culture and genetics. Evil is a cultural construct.
These categories (conservative, liberal, religious, and secular) don’t necessarily reflect any particular political party or religious affiliation. Rather, they are different approaches to truth. There can be Republicans who view evil liberally, and Democrats who view evil conservatively. These are not boxes to put ourselves in, but philosophies which we find ourselves gravitating to.
An Example: Is Pornography Evil?
A religious conservative says pornography is evil because it is Satanic and wrong (#1). But they also look for secular evidence to bolster this argument (#3 evil is anything demonstrably bad). They will focus on how unnatural pornography is, how it encourages violence against women, how it can destroy relationships, etc. Religious conservatives favour a pragmatic approach to truth. They believe that God reveals absolutes which are calculated to bring the best results in practice. Conservative secularists are similar to religious conservatives in that they also believe in absolute truths, although these truths are revealed by science, not by God.
A liberal might offer the following counter-argument: pornography is particularly bad for religious people, who believe it is very wrong, but maybe not as bad for people who don’t believe (#2 evil depends on context and knowledge). The Apostle Paul makes similar arguments regarding those who believe eating meat is evil, and those who don’t. “To he whom it is sin, it is sin, to he whom it is not sin, it is not sin.” Additionally, porn is not necessarily “evil” per se, but rather “problematic,” reflecting the built in paradoxes inherent in human sexuality (#4 our choices are predetermined culturally and genetically). We are genetically wired to crave sex in ways which cause frustration and conflict in human society. If we look at porn, we will be sexually frustrated, and if we don’t look at porn, we will probably also be sexually frustrated. There is no escape from the fraught nature of sexuality. Liberal arguments like these focus on context and nuance. Liberals see built-in paradoxes and hesitate to pronounce judgement in the absence of absolute certainties.
Drawbacks to Stark Categorisation
There are drawbacks to defining evil in only one particular way. Someone who understands pornography as Satanic opens themselves up to excess guilt and depression because they see their built-in sexual nature as Satanic. But a liberal who sees pornography as pre-determined culturally and genetically risks doing nothing to change that culture.
Most of us jump between categories. Liberals may adopt some conservative arguments. In the case of pornography, even though liberals believe human sexuality is fraught and paradoxical, some of them may accept that pornographic consumption is demonstrably bad (#3.) They may look for practical ways to “hack” our built-in genetic disposition to consume it. A “hack” could be anything, a 12-step program, accountability software, or cultivated habits of sexual control. Likewise, conservatives may find themselves adopting some liberal arguments: showing tolerance towards porn addicts because they recognise that they are acting according to their genetic dispositions, not simply making evil choices. This can help them have more patience with themselves and others as they struggle with problems we may describe as evil.
Questions:
- Which of the four approaches to evil do you most closely adhere to? Do these reflect your political views as well?
- Is pornography evil and if so, why? Which of the four approaches would you take to describe it?
- If you are liberal in your approach to evil, do you sometimes adopt aspects of the conservative argument, opposing pornography because it is demonstrably destructive, even if you also see it as natural?
- If you are conservative in your approach to evil, do you ever adopt liberal arguments, showing more tolerance towards porn addicts because you recognise that they are acting according to genetic design?
- How might you describe the nature of other possible evils: terrorism, violence, war, etc?
Wheat & Tares 
“Is pornography evil… ”
Yes. And it is huge concern in secular society as well.
The big problems:
– the distortion of human relationships it portrays (this is something that is having to be addressed in sex ed in schools, for instance, and young people are themselves expressing concern about this)
– the treatment of those used and abused in it’s creation is a massive, massive problem.
Hedgehog, I agree, and it is easy to become outraged by it.
You’ve articulated the “secular conservative” argument, and my question to you is whether or not you moderate your views with any liberal understandings, for example, seeing pornography consumption as a natural consequence of normal human sexuality mingled with the artificiality of a digitally unlimited capitalist state? Are conservative, categorical declarations of evil always helpful in combating a problem which is fundamental to human nature and the digital age?
Nate, there are very very few scenarios in which it is only the individual consumer who is being harmed by this, so I’m hard-pressed to see any self-respecting liberal (by your definition) argument stand up to scrutiny.
Back when I was a student some 25 years ago, the college newspaper did an investigative journalist piece on the topic, and admitted they were shocked by how close the links to organised crime were, even at a soft porn level.
I think the term “evil” is not very useful as a category but more as a rhetorical device. It is something or someone that is so bad that we don’t think it’s even worth debating its merits. It is a call to action to defeat the thing or person, to avoid it like the plague. I prefer to think about whether something or someone is harmful. So it is not so much the thing in itself, but rather its impact, that makes it evil. That probably puts me more in the secular-conservative camp.
Fantastic article Nate. I’d love to see a poll on your first question to keep it segregated from the porn example and focused on the perception of evil alone before further discussion.
I am a secular liberal in my belief of evil- but with a twist I guess. I thing God is too, actually. I think evil is a construct for living with others that helps our development as a people. I have trouble seeing individual things as huge sins on their own, if a person is isolated but we aren’t, we live in groups and sin hurts our relating to others.
So, for example, porn isn’t the end of the world but it doesn’t make relating to others better. It’s fairly destructive to human groups for all the reasons cited and all the studies done on it show that. That’s why HF doesn’t like it. He wants the best for us.
In my brooding teenage years, I wrestled with questions like “what is evil”, “what is truth”, “what is beauty”, and so forth. I suppose it was during my “I know everything and my parents are idiots” phase. 🙂
The only conclusion I reached was that evil was what I called “imposition of will”. When you rob, murder, rape, etc. you are imposing your will on the victim. It’s too early in the morning for me to think about this, but that’s what I came up with 50 years ago. 🙂
Joel, very well said. When “evil” is replaced with the word “harmful,” it looses the supernatural element, making it accessible to traditional problem solving. A supernatural evil can only be overcome with a supernatural good. But living in a world where belief in God increasingly rare, it is unhelpful to define something as supernaturally evil because this renders most of the population powerless to do anything about it. They don’t believe in God, so they can’t call on Jesus to save themselves and society from porn. Porn is a problem and it is harmful. If we can all agree to that, we can all think up solutions for it, instead of getting caught up in supernatural dilemmas. The supernatural CAN help individuals who actually believe, but it is useless when discussing something publicly among non-believers.
Jenonator, I totally agree. Even for God, I think the idea of evil is entirely contextual. And it’s a great idea to think of evil as something that hurts relationships, rather than specific, abstract actions.
Ender Anderson, your youthful idea of “imposition of will” was probably inspired by the idea of Satan’s plan, and I think this fits in perfectly with the LDS view of evil, which is that Satan’s plan is about taking away free will, about making us slaves, things to “be acted upon” rather than “things to act.”
@Nate
“Satan’s plan….”
That’s not Satan’s plan. Satan’s plan is just when I’m old enough to retire and enjoy a quiet relaxing life on a tropical island, all my parts start falling off, and the kids are asking to borrow money and talking about putting me in a home.
I realised from your post that I rarely think of evil, only about my choices. I no longer abstract it in these terms as it doesn’t help me take responsibility for my own life, and feel quite disturbed when I encounter others who see their choices as motivated by an external evil.
I tend to think about useful or less useful choices, and explore the parts of myself that may be engaged in these choices.
I would still say I believe in the reality of evil, but probably in a more abstract way.As you point out though, it’s an idea that has little traction, so I tend to think and speak about the damage done by behaviours of groups and individuals.
I don’t think I’ve become a secularist, I’ve just learnt that certain words create more heat than light.
Evil is the opposite of good, and equally difficult to define. But there is value in trying to define it, because it helps our thinking and teaching and therefore our actions. The more we talk about it, the more we can clarify what is really evil and what is over simplified definitions of it.
Porn is just as evil as alcohol. Neither of them have healthy benefits or good to it. So it becomes a sliding scale of evil and actually differs from different people who may be more prone to it’s evils as others.
Casual consumption to porn would have little different affect as a casual glass of wine with a plate of pasta. For most people, that just is not going to be a big deal. Some might even suggest a little wine is good for the heart and therefore healthy. Maybe so…maybe they’ll do more research and say grape juice is good, not alcohol…who knows…but this we do know…the person sipping wine occassionally will not automatically become a drunken loser with no ability to control themselves from beating their kids. The extreme is not the rule.
As I said, same for porn. Some may say a little is natural and no big deal, and even a little healthy release for some, or healthy stimiluation for some couples. That argument can be made, and doesn’t sound like the same evils that Hedgehog raises, which I think are real.
Society is concerned with the evils that arise from invididuals not knowing how to keep it in check, and react to real situations of distruction and harm. If there was no evidence of destructive harm in society, porn would not be viewed as evil…or at least the teachings by religious conservatives would not hold up to experience. So … safest thing is for the church to take the extreme position and abstain from it all (don’t drive the wagon close to the edge, if your remember that youth story). That will be a blessing for some. It will be unnecessary for some, but at least it reduces the outlier situations of great risk, and can be a common denominator for all.
Like hyped up security at airports, we all have to make concessions for the security of our society.
In the church, that is alcohol and porn. They are defined as evil, and reinforced, and taught…and perpetuates evil in our minds.
It is better to have those boundaries and deal with little slip ups than to allow it unchecked and wait until the sliding scale of evil is so great it is very costly to deal with. It is just too bad it is talked about with extreme hyperbole in church and causes fears and judgments that can also be evil.
Perhaps we trade one evil for the lesser evil (evil, eviler, evilest…that should be a Dallin H Oaks talk).
I’m not an alcoholic. I could handle my liquor. It doesn’t make it not evil…just not as evil as other things on the sliding scale for me. That’s how I frame this discussion on evil.
Personally…I don’t believe in a devil. I am the devil. I am an angel. I walk the line of good and evil in my life each day and don’t see hard and fast categories for all people. Just things to talk about so we try to learn and get along with each other.
The best definition of evil I’ve seen is from the late Sir Terry Pratchett, in the Book Carpe Jugulum:
“There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin, for example.”
“And what do they think? Against it, are they?”
“It is not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”
“Nope.”
“Pardon?”
There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”
“It’s a lot more complicated than that–”
“No it ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes-”
“But they Starts with thinking about people as things…”
Treating people as things, that’s the start of all evil, small to large. Porn, most of the time, is not about the people involved but reducing them to objects. Can it not be evil? Sure, but it’s rare.
Lucifer’s plan wasn’t evil in wanting everyone to return no matter what, it was evil in not caring about the individuals involved. We were a means to an end, not people who needed to grow.
“People as things, that’s where it starts.”
Frank #11, I love that quote and appreciate the point and simplicity.
That is the starting point for a discussion on it. But…the tricky part is how to apply it.
For example, when a cop gives me a ticket, and I ask what I did wrong, he won’t say “Is started back there on main street when you began treating people as things”.
If we are to pass a temple recommend interview with a bishop…there will be more detailed discussion of what is evil and sin, and what is not.
The underlying principles may be simple. The application and judgement is left up to agreed upon standards and rules, which…are not so simple.
But I like your story and how it frames the discussion for people to have, and whether Donald Trump is treating people as things or not, for example.
“To he whom it is sin, it is sin, to he whom it is not sin, it is not sin.”
Reference?
@Other Doug
Captain Redundant?
Other Doug, can’t see that it’s a direct quote, but he’s referencing the controversy over eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8. Paul felt it was not sinful to eat the meat, but he recognized that some members felt it was sin. Those who did not feel it was sinful didn’t need to worry about eating the meat *unless* they were in the presence of someone who considered eating the meat sinful. Then they needed to refrain out of concern of weakening the faith of that member. Paul concludes by suggesting if eating that meat could realistically cause the falling away of a close family member, it might be best to just abstain from the meat altogether.
Well Doug, you got me. This is my simplified version of Romans 14, specifically verse 14. “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”
He doesn’t use the word “sin” but it is clear that Paul defends the Jews personal views that eating unclean things is a sin, even though he himself doesn’t find it unclean. Therefore for the Jews, it is a sin, but not for him. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Romans 14:5)
If Joseph Smith can create his own translation of the Bible, why can’t I?
Frank, thanks for the quote. That really is a fantastic definition of sin. Fundamentally, that was the whole mistake of Nazism in WWII, which saw individuals as expendable “things” in the service of a transcendent State. All forms of government or religion with this philosophy will ultimately fail, whereas humanist governments like Democracies will thrive, as well as religions which believe “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
With regards to porn, it is particularly apt, as porn is entirely about objectification of the individual. I think it is important to recognise however, that God plays a role in creating man’s nature in this regard. Scientific studies show that when men who are shown erotic pictures of women, the same synapses light up in their brain as when they are shown pictures of tools. The male brain’s default setting sees women and tools in the same category.
@Nate
If you are talking about the 2009 Fiske study, brain areas associated with goal oriented behavior (as when men use tools to accomplish a task) light up when men view images of women in bikinis. It’s not that men consider women equivalent to inanimate tools, but that viewing attractive women invokes a goal or action response, i.e. to have sex with that woman.
porn is not necessarily “evil” per se,
Someone doesn’t think exploitation of women is evil…per se.
I think there is individual and group evil.
The most evil thing I can imagine is a child soldier being initiated by being forced to kill his family slowly. But this also part of a group culture.
I do not think that because one person, or one group believes something is evil, it necessarily is. I do not, for example accept the assertion by the church, that gay marriage is evil.
I do think that you would want to be very sure you were right/ and be willing to justify, before you label someone’s actions as evil, because if not correct you could be doing an evil yourself.
Another question is how much an evil contaminates a person. Can you be a racist, and otherwise a good person? A prophet even?
I believe any discrimination has an element of evil.
jpv, just to clarify, I would say that porn is not evil ‘per se’ but that it is problematic, that it has a shocking tendency to spiral out of control, into terrible expressions which are degrading and exploitive of women, and these expressions ARE evil. But porn in and of itself is simply erotic expression. God designed us to respond to that expression in a certain way. These natural responses are problematic but not evil. But they certainly can LEAD to evil. That is my interpretation.
Geoff, thanks for the comment, which I wholeheartedly agree with. There could be aspects of a culture which are “evil” and which members of that culture participate in, without being evil themselves. I think most people are doing there best, and that is good enough for me. Let’s put the blame where the blame is due: culture.
I wasn’t trying to “get” you Nate. You put it in quotes so I assumed you were quoting something. I was having difficulty finding the verse and I thought I’d just ask for the reference. My apologies.
Mote/beam
Great post and discussion. Before I go further, kudos to everyone for the civility and respect I usually see here at Wheat and Tares and particularly in this post. You guys are great.
I suppose when it comes to the good/evil thing, I’d call myself a sort of secular, liberal hippie with overtones of Mormonism. And in that case, I’d say evil is a construct, just like pure goodness is, in order to keep us on the straight and narrow path. I think it’s a mistake to perhaps get too literal about it. If one took the literal approach, for example, one could argue that God depends for his very existence, indeed, his very goodness on evil, right? You can’t have ultimate good without ultimate evil in the Christian system, so that means God depends for his goodness on Satan. That kind of literalist logic might make a fair amount of Mormons uncomfortable, I’m guessing.
Re porn: It’s always struck me as strange that we, as Mormons, seem fine with lots of violence (Book of Mormon, anyone?) but we freak out about acts of love/sex. IMHO, that’s because the church surrounds issues of sexuality with the discourse of fear (second only to murder?) and therefore, I don’t think we think about sex in terribly healthy, well-adjusted ways.
The strange thing about porn to me is that I’d think both liberals and conservatives would absolutely embrace it. Liberals, who generally champion women’s rights, equality, etc., should feel good that female actresses get paid a lot more for their work than the men do (and in what other fields does that happen?) and conservatives would like the entrepreneurial, capitalistic nature of porn, seeing as how it’s now often made by people in their homes and there is clearly a demand for it, so it’s providing a product to meet consumer demand. But I certainly see and acknowledge the huge downsides, too.
In the end, I think I’m with Heber13 and Geoff – Aus: The sliding scale is a great metaphor. Even if you don’t believe in ultimate evil or in a black and white moralistic approach, it’s always good to think about the effects of anything you might partake of, be it wine, porn, violent movies, cynicism, etc. I think the best question we can ask is: what harm or good could come from my choices regarding these things? I also like Geoff’s point about individual and group evil. I think we, as Mormons, tend to focus on the individual stuff, esp. given our emphasis on agency and on choices and consequences. Fair enough, and that’s always a helpful, good thing to dol. But I think there are also larger, social evils and that they’re the truly insidious ones. For a Mormon, drinking a glass of wine or watching porn are sins, and likely fairly egregious ones, but in the larger context, they pale in comparison to, say, Apartheid or slavery.
Fyi, I thought this was very well written and thought out. Thank you for writing it.
Holy cow…evil of a child having to slowly kill family …that is the worst thing I have heard of.
I hate evil. It’s stupid. Not fun to think about real evil in the world.
I haven’t seen the musical “The Book of Mormon” but have read and heard about it. From what I gathered, it makes a very poignant point about evils LDS missionaries worry about vs real evils that exist we are sheltered from.
I can’t help but wonder why God doesn’t have a boundary on evil. I understand the concept of agency in this plan, but why is evil allowed unchecked? The BOM musical makes a pretty good point, even if it uses crude language.
Nate – “With regards to porn, it is particularly apt, as porn is entirely about objectification of the individual. I think it is important to recognise however, that God plays a role in creating man’s nature in this regard.”
This hearkens back to the old philosophical debate on how could a good God have creations that do evil things. To me, it comes to the determination of proper use. I did not say that all porn was making people into objects. For example, depictions of your significant other in the nude can be a part of your whole view of their being. It depends very much upon the attitude and intent of the person viewing.
Despite being fairly TBM and a bit round in the middle, I do occasional work as a nude model for art classes. To me, it’s a way I can help students learn to make art using the human form, since I very much lack and artistic ability.
The thing is – I’m literally making myself into an object. This is not evil in itself, but it does give opportunity for others to treat me in a fashion that can be called evil. (and it’s a weird experience getting such icky responses; can’t imagine what women have to wade through)
Just as it does not count against me for making something that could cause evil reactions, is it not counted against God for making bodies that are capable of evil reactions. We are our own beings, responsible for harnessing ourselves.
Frank, how amazing that you moonlight as a nude model. That is genuinely cool.
I agree that “objectification” per se, is not necessarily a bad thing. Abstractly, in the Book of Mormon sense, we can ask ourselves if we are an object “to act, or to be acted upon.” Lehi never said that “being acted upon” was a bad thing, but I think we generally assume that it is. The reality is that we are all both objects and agents, acted upon, and acting upon each other.
If we use someone as an object without making any space for their individual agency, that of course would be wrong. But to use or influence someone respectfully, while at the same time respecting their individuality and agency, that could be good.
Even within a healthy sexual context, objectification has a role to play. The philosopher Alain de Botton wrote “the most loving, well intentioned, and empathetic sex can sometimes look a lot like complete indifference to what someone else feels or wants.” In other words, during sexuality, human beings often return to their ancient animalistic roles, when the woman needs to feel possessed, and the man needs to feel possessive. Modern society has taught us to be more equal and civilised towards each other. But sexuality doesn’t follow the same rules as comfortably. So objectification has its place, but only as sexual role-play within a broader context of civility and respect.
Nate,
I’m sorry that I didn’t comment here sooner, since I absolutely LOVE taxonomies like this.
My problem with your approach is that while it is a decent summary of “things each group would say”, they don’t amount to much more than tautological cliches that remain divorced from the social context in which each group would say it and why. I would be a lot more impressed if your taxonomy could address questions such as the following:
Who decides good and evil within each group?
Who decides and speaks for god’s will, the relevant context, what is “demonstrably bad”, or which social constructs are “better/eviler” than other?
What are the historical trajectories (decline vs ascendancy) of each group?
What are the primary moral threats, as perceived by each group?
In what ways do the interests of each group systematically clash with those of others in a zero-sum fashion?
In what ways does the morality of one group depend (through a logic of adaptive resistance) upon the the existence of the others?
Personally, I prefer to trichotomy of aristocratic, liberal and socialist values.
Aristocratic: For hierarchy within a parochial community. Produces castes of authority. Pro-loyalty, purity, strength and greatness.
Liberal: Ignores hierarchy and community. Produces classes of power. “Authority” is based in nothing more than merit of “expertise”. Ideology of individualism, realism, work-ethic and “mobility”.
Socialist: Acknowledges and fights all caste/authority and class/power hierarchies and asymmetries. Pro-emancipation and “authenticity”
Jeff, you are probably right that these taxonomies are little more than descriptions of self-evident realities. If they are of any use, I think it would be to demonstrate that while most of us gravitate to one of the four groups, but that we also find ourselves jumping between them frequently. We all have both liberal and conservative dimensions in our identity.
Those are great follow up questions, and I’d have to spend some time thinking about the implications. But briefly, I think that authority is really important for both religious and secular conservatives. Religious authorities (Bible or prophets) are the arbitrars of these questions. For secular conservatives it is the authority of scientific consensus. Religious conservatives assume that a correct understanding of science will always ratify their dogmas, because they believe that all truth is one great whole. So if science contradicts religious dogma, it is because it is bad science (in the mind of a religious conservative.) Fundamentally, religious and secular conservatives are deeply intertwined in their views on the importance of authority and absolute truths.
Religious and secular liberals reject outside authorities, instead looking with nuance at the individual circumstances to try to come to a tenuous judgement on whether or not something can be defined as “evil,”
Historical trajectories? The modern world is more secular and liberal than the ancient one, but secularists can be extraordinarily dogmatic in their views, so conservativism is as alive today as it has ever been.
As a liberal, I don’t think there are “zero-sum” clashes between the groups. Religious conservatism is simply a particular phenomenon of the natural world, which contributes to the diversity of the whole. It doesn’t matter that it is dogmatic, as long as that dogma doesn’t become universally accepted. But it is also human nature to be antagonistic to viewpoints that are not our own. We may think these are zero-sum games, but they are not. We need ALL points of view. They all potentially contribute positively. But only from the perspective of the liberal, who values differing points of view.
Geoff, you lost me in your second comment, you’ll have to break it down for me a little as I’m not quite getting your definitions.
Nice response. Let’s see if I can’t develop my own thoughts a bit more here:
I see the religious/secular divide a difference with regards to authority – the ability to legitimately command others. The conservative/liberal distinction, in contrast, is a difference with regards to asymmetries of non-explicit power/influence/control. Thus:
1) Religious conservatives are okay with authority and asymmetries of power: God gives some people more power than others and we do what the “right” people tell us to do.
2) Secular conservatives, by contrast, do not think that anybody has the right to command others, but they are okay with some people exercising more influence and power than others.
3) Secular liberals are not okay with either of these things. Nobody has the authority to command others and asymmetries of power are merely an indirect way that this happens.
4) Religious liberals, however, find themselves in a bit of an unstable pickle since they reject asymmetries of power but accept authority. Thus, they will only accept the authority of a) dead or heavenly beings, or b) pure, unenforced charisma. There is a strong tension with “organized” religion whereby authority is enforced through institutionalized asymmetries of power.
Jeff, I like your response. But it seems to me that the distinction in determining what is evil between groups is that religious see it defined by authority figures and secular by experience or science (proven by experience).
Conservative is from standards already established, liberals by new experience and refreshed for today’s world.
While individuals polarize to different viewpoints to help them choose in their lives, there is not inherent evil in and of itself. Even porn. Even killing another human.
Authorities help us agree as groups what we will accept our definitions to be.
In other words, “evil” is like “cold”. It is relative. It requires an opposite term in order to have meaning. Once that is established, authorities will give boundaries and masses will accept based on conservative or liberal tendencies, religious or secular preferences.
As a married priesthood mormon, all things that can be defined as porn are evil. My authorities have taught me this, my wife would be hurt by it, I sustain them, regardless of how others view it.
@Heber13
“all things defined as porn”
What’s your and your wife’s stance on:
The Rape of Proserpina (Bernini)
The Kiss (Rodin)
David (Michelangelo)
Pan Copulating with a Goat (ancient Pompeii)
It seems to me that every Mormon you ask, including the authorities, could have a different opinion about whether an item is or is not porn and, therefore, whether it is or is not sinful.
Also, for example, in Japan the nape of a woman’s neck is considered highly erotic. It’s on par with exposed breasts in the West. So, if a Japanese Mormon woman exposes her neck, is she being immodest? Is a photograph of her neck porn and therefore sinful?
As far as the power thing goes, the religious liberals do feel they can question the authority if they don’believe it is inagreement of how they understand Christ would want it. So the concern with the policy.
There is also conflict because they understand the Gospel completely differently, but the believing conservatives, will not acknowledge that there are other understandings.
I just came home from HP, where I tried to point out that Uchtdof presented his understanding of the Gospel, and contrast it with Oaks understanding. No one could see the difference. Is there any point bothering?
I’m not sure where evil comes into this, except of course that any understanding other than the conservative one, is obviously evil.
Evil is simply the opposite of good/ godliness. There is no such thing as pornography that is good or Godly. If we are unsure then just look at the fruits of something. No good fruits come from pornography, its fruit always leads to unhappiness and sin and the loss of control of our agency. The problem of pornography is the devils greatest tool to destroy mankind and chain them down to an everlasting destruction. It is my firm belief that the sexualization of women in particular is the leading cause for the destruction of the family and society as a whole. That, by very definition of “fruits” is the very brand of evil itself.
@Elder Anderson #36
None of those are porn to me or my wife.
As I stated above, and as you stated, it will vary by person. I agree.
I’m not concerned much with others. Just if my wife feels it bothers her. Anything that might drive a wedge between my wife and I is evil.
It is like saying it is cold in the office. Some women in my office seem more sensitive to it than others or us guys. It doesn’t mean because it is not cold to me, it is not cold to them. I can’t tell them what they should or shouldn’t feel cold about. And I also think the sliding scale gets to a point that it really is reasonable we all can agree something is cold. Negative 18 Celsius is cold…while I can’t tell others if they are cold, I can’t imagine they are being honest if they won’t admit -18 is cold. Porn may have some subjecivity (like those art pieces you mentioned, or a shoulder, or a neck, or other things), but there is evil porn, and there is less evil porn, and no big deal porn, and normal/healthy erotica.
@Rob #38…I wouldn’t agree it is the greatest of the devil’s tool or the leading cause of family destruction.
I’ve been through divorce. Had nothing to do with porn. Seems sometimes people like to point to an easy target like porn as the root of all evil, when family problems are not nearly so simple. Selfishness is the root of all evil. Not porn.
Things like mental illness are far greater factors. And mental illness itself isn’t an evil…but leads to so many evils, which can sometimes be hard to make sense of how accountability for evil is handled when capacity to perceive and choose good or evil varies by person. It is not simple.
Jeff G, thanks for your response. I would like to think that secular liberals are broadminded enough to allow various authorities, both religious and secular, to exercise influence in the public sphere. For a liberal to categorically reject all authorities would itself represent an appeal to authority, the authority of a progressive, liberal agenda. Progressives have a universalist, moral approach to truth, which has more in common with religious conservatives than the true spirit of secular liberalism (at least as I am defining liberalism.) A true liberal recognises value in diversity, including the diversity of authorities and religious beliefs.
Rob thanks for your comment. The phrase “by their fruits you shall know them” comes from Christianity, but is actually in a more secular, scientific spirit. Religious conservatives do not always accept dogmas on pure faith. You don’t oppose porn just because the prophet told you so. You oppose it because you see the harmful fruits. But it would be interesting to see if you oppose something like gay marriage, whose fruits seem much less nefarious than porn, but which is just as vociferously opposed by the church. If you oppose gay marriage, your opposition should be grounded almost entirely upon your faith in the authority of religion,as it is hard to defend it based on “evil fruit.” But if you support gay marriage, you probably place more emphasis on the secular, scientific idea that “by their fruits you shall know them.”
Heber13, I like your definition “anything that would drive a wedge between my wife and I.” For me, that is the fundamental problem with pornography and many other “evils.” I think accusations of violence, objectification, moral wrongness, etc., can sometimes distract from this real problem: porn takes men out of the real world and gets them hooked on digital sex, which obviously has terrible implications for a marriage, or any relationship with a real woman.
@Heber13
I get your point. My question had to do with the pretty definite assertion “all things that can be defined as porn are evil”. It seems your intention was along the lines of “all things *I* can define as porn *I consider* evil”.
I’m not defending pornography, but “porn takes men out of the real world and gets them hooked on digital sex” is a broad generalization akin to “drinking turns people into alcoholics”. As I mentioned above, the definition of “evil
pornography” varies widely among people, genders, and cultures, e.g. “evil porn” for one is art for another.
Nate,
I am vehemently opposed to gay marriage because of the exact reason of its bad fruit. No good fruit comes from gay marriages. I guess if you call sexually transmitted diseases as being some kind of “good fruit” then the devil has already tricked ya. Statistics show that same sex couples do not stay together nor stay monogamous with each other over long periods on average. It’s all bad fruit.
I just came home from HP, where I tried to point out that Uchtdof presented his understanding of the Gospel, and contrast it with Oaks understanding. No one could see the difference. Is there any point bothering?
Geoff (no. 37),
The point is to learn what you can from each teacher — it is not necessary or desirable that the two teachers teach exactly the same message — the scriptures say there is safety in a multitude of counselors. Besides, I’m sure the two you mentioned agree far more than you give them credit for.
Rob, you can’t be opposed to gay marriage because of “bad fruit” because gay marriage is so recent that there is not enough data to be able to form an unbiased opinion. And the fact that you say “sexually transmitted diseases” shows that you are not in fact talking about gay marriage at all, but homosexuality in general, which you believe is irredeemably promiscuous. Gay marriage encourages homosexuals to be less promiscuous, so I don’t know how it could produce more sexually transmitted disease. It may be that you believe that by “civilising” homosexuality through marriage, you actually encourage people to choose it, if you believe it is a choice, and that this could lead to more homosexual promiscuity.
But this again is a “prediction,” not an empirical judgement based on evidence, because there is no evidence at this point. Your prediction is based on prophetic warning, so as much as you would like to assume that your beliefs are grounded in statistical facts, your beliefs are actually grounded in faith. Your worldview proceeds out of your faith, but your faith does not proceed from your views of the world.
So categorically, I would say you are firmly in the 1st camp, letting religious beliefs define what evil means to you. Then you assume that you can always find secular “bad fruit” evidence to back it up, which Alma assumed too, when he wrote “wickedness never was happiness.” But Alma didn’t actually take a poll to see if this was correct. He was assuming based on his faith.
Statistics do show that homosexual couples overwhelmingly do not stay monogomous nor together. Its the nature of homosexuality to be focused on self fulfillment and self sexual satisfaction. This is proved especially amongst male homosexuals by the amount and fequency of promiscuity and is still the leading cause of new HIV and AIDS cases in this country. If we generally look at just what the “fruits” are of male homosexuality is on average, it is overwhelmingly the bad fruit of promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases. Adding the “marriage” equation into homosexuality does nothing to make bad fruit good, it just trys to legitimize immoral promiscuous behavior.
Rob, homosexually is “traditionally” promiscuous, that is what your statistics show, but the tradition of promiscuity was fostered over decades as an underground counter-culture rejected by mainstream society. Any underground culture will typically reject the morality of the mainstream who reject them. It’s human nature. If someone rejects you and denies your identity and values, you reject them and their values.
But with mainstream acceptance and same-sex marriage, homosexual culture is changing. You believe this acceptance will increase homosexual promiscuity. You can make predictions, but those predictions are not grounded in empirical data, because we have no good data, because we are only beginning to see this change in culture.
While your predictions might turn out to be right 10 years from now, they are by no means self evident or logical assumptions. Logic would assume that inviting a promiscuous culture to become monogamous would increase monogamy. It would be illogical to predict the opposite. I think you MUST admit that your rejection of same-sex marriage is NOT based on empirical data and logic, but on your faith in the church.
Nate,
You are making predictions yourself. Polls done recently show that around 50% of homosexual marriages are not monogamous but are accepted open marriages that allow other partners with the others consent. I don’t have to look at faith on this issue. It’s as apparant as the day is light that homosexual activity bears nothing but bad fruit.
50% monogamy is a remarkable improvement on traditional promiscuity don’t you think Rob? You actually want to discourage monogamy by telling these faithful 50% that they are not worthy of it?
Except for the fact that homosexuals define “monogamy” different than heterosexuals. Most homosexuals define monogamy as no emotional ties but still open to multiple sex partners.
Rob, I feel like Abraham conversing with the Lord. Lord, can you save those homosexuals who commit to marriage? No, only 50% of them are monogamous. Lord, can you at least save the 50%? No, even most those who say they are monogamous are not really monogamous. Lord, can you at least save the few few who actually define monogamy as having only one sex partner? I’m not sure where you are getting all your expertise on homosexuality, but I personally know four monogamous, committed, married homosexual couples who live conventional married lives. In these particular cases, marriage is a meaningful symbol of their love and commitment to each other, and I would never accuse them of being unworthy of it because I don’t trust them to keep their pants on around other men.
I suspect your math is a bit off, but I’m not an expert. I’m open to whatever data may eventually come out of this ongoing transformation of homosexual culture.
Nate, I personally believe that homosexual marriage is an entirely different thing than traditional heterosexual marriage. When I first heard about male homosexual promiscuity I was blown away. Its so extremely far away from anything normal. According to studies, around half of white gay males, have over 500 sexual partners during their lives. If thats not bad fruit I dont know what is. This is a pretty good readhttp://www.josephnicolosi.com/an-open-secret-the-truth-about/
Thanks for the article link Rob. Those are numbers from a 1968 study. There is no question that traditional 20th century homosexual culture is promiscuous. Men are more promiscuous by nature than women and they are less sexually possessive in their relationships than women. So relationships with two men are naturally more promiscuous. Your article talks about how the gay counterculture deliberately rebelled against the Judeo-Christian morals of the day, a rebellion fuelled by resistance to the homophobia directed at the culture from mainstream society. So with those two factors, promiscuity obviously runs rampant. But that culture is changing as homosexuality is no longer a counter-culture. I see a lot of homosexuals wanting to nest, to create domestic paradises with a single partner. Maybe they all get together and have orgies every night, but not the ones I know.
In the end, my views of homosexuality are informed by relationships I have with lots of homosexuals, as I work in the arts. I see firsthand the good fruit that comes from loving relationships between homosexual couples. I know there is an underground culture I’ve not experienced, and I don’t understand everything that goes on sexually, but when you work with these people for years, and see a lot of happy, healthy, high functioning homosexuals, it makes you wonder about the anti-LGBT narrative. I’m happy to see my gay friends get married and I see real joy and love manifest through it. Maybe God doesn’t want that for Mormons. Fine. But going back to my thesis on evil, I don’t think you can really resist gay marriage on statistical data showing that gay marriage is some kind of disaster. You can only PREDICT disaster. We are only at the beginning of this process. I suspect the only disaster for the church will be that there is no disaster at all, and more and more people turn against the church for harping about something that seems to be a good thing. But I could be wrong.
I dont buy that gay marriages produce good fruit. Its interesting that those who are pro gay marriage have nothing but positives to say about all the gay couples they know and how they are just like hetero marriages. They paint this picture that all is fine and perfect. But, why is it that we have so many statistics that show the opposite and that in truth, gay couples have a lot more problems with promiscuity, std’s, abuse, suicide, depression and mental disease, etc. We cant just say its culture, or blame it on us Mormons like so many LGBT fringe Mormons do.
Statistics- the numbers do not lie. Psychologists who professionally study relationships know there is a fundamental problem in gay relationships in general.
Rob, we’re talking about two different things. I’m not saying that homosexual culture in general doesn’t have vulnerabilities, what you call “bad fruit.” I just don’t see the evidence that same sex marriage contributes to those vulnerabilities. I’d say it helps. Your best argument is that SSM further legitimizes homosexuality in general with its accompanying vulnerabilities, leading to its wider practice. I disagree, as I think homosexuality is less of a choice than you do, and that makes an existing, vulnerable population less vulnerable. But you could be right. I leave you with that…thanks for the interesting discussion.
Yes, thanks Nate.
unfortunately they have the four letter word LOVE confused with LUST.