The Golden Rule

[_EAllusion]

I'd call Wade a wolf in sheep's clothing, but a few tufts of wool glued to his body doesn't constitute a costume.

I been called a lot worse by people acting, as you say, in their own interest rather in accordance with the Golden Rule. How this may benefit the whole is anyone's guess. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You don't ever act in your own interest at the expense of not acting to advance what others desire? Don't worry. I'll answer for you. Yes, you do. Do you think that makes you a massive hypocrite or do you think that maybe, just maybe one is not obligated to act to fulfill others desires to the best of their ability at all times?

We all - well many of us anyway - know you are a meanspirited person who does a questionable job of cloaking this in the language of building bridges and pop-therapy/personal betterment. My personal favorite was when you went to a gay online discussion forum to discuss homosexuality as "sexual attraction disorder" or SAD for short. Classic. For what its worth, I occilate between getting a kick out of your style of trolling others by carefully implying insults and terrible arguments then retreating behind implausible denials and faux niceness and viewing it with contempt.

[_dartagnan]

Islam:
“Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.” – The Prophet Mohammed, Hadith

Call for references.

Hadith?

There are thousands of them, most of which are not considered authoritative. The Quran doesn't contain the Golden Rule. It only says to treat other Muslims well. Non-Mulisms are to be treated with intolerance, subjugated by force and humiliated in public.

[_beastie]

You don't ever act in your own interest at the expense of not acting to advance what others desire? Don't worry. I'll answer for you. Yes, you do. Do you think that makes you a massive hypocrite or do you think that maybe, just maybe one is not obligated to act to fulfill others desires to the best of their ability at all times?

We all - well many of us anyway - know you are a meanspirited person who does a questionable job of cloaking this in the language of building bridges and pop-therapy/personal betterment. My personal favorite was when you went to a gay online discussion forum to discuss homosexuality as "sexual attraction disorder" or SAD for short. Classic. For what its worth, I occilate between getting a kick out of your style of trolling others by carefully implying insults and terrible arguments then retreating behind implausible denials and faux niceness and viewing it with contempt.

Yeah, that was my personal favorite, too. Don't forget he invited them to his website for whatever cure or healing he was offering, and the website made homosexuality equivalent to pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality. And since Wade has never chosen to "repent" of his past behavior and distance himself from those noxious ideas, I continue to conclude that website still represents his thoughts on the matter.

[_EAllusion]

Right, it's actually quite simple. Put yourself in the shoes of another. That's it! Wala! How would you feel if someone did that to you? Would you appreciate it if someone did such and such to you? If not, it's a good rule of thumb you should refrain from doing something that you find painful when it is done to you. Do you enjoy certain behaviors because you derive pleasure from them -- look to others to see how they too would derive pleasure and how you can go about ensuring that you don't cause displeasure.

Something I didn't mention is that thinking about how one would like to be treated when thinking about how to treat others also kicks in our sense of empathy which makes it easier to behave in a moral fashion. It's easy to dehumanize others. Some more than others. Reciprocity helps.

[_wenglund]

I'm sort of stunned that this went off into a tangent about the Church itself (Wade -- you always derail my threads!)

I recognize the inclination of some to "blame" (ironically in the process of speaking about derailing a thread that is not about "blame"), but not wishing to go there (and thus FURTHER derail the thread--hint, hint), let me just say that I am sorry for allegedly derailing the thread by responding to OTHER people's (hint, hint) claims about my Church as it relates to the topic of the thread, if not also the general subjectmatter of the board (which, in case people may have forgotten, is "Mormon Discussions"). ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh! Wade, I'm so hurt! By saying I'm blaming you are you blaming me for blaming you?

If you look a little more closely, you will see that I did not mention YOU at all. I made a generic reference to what some people may be inclined to do (not to be confused with "blaming"), and I explicitly said I didn't wish to go there (i.e. I did not wish to get involved with discussion involving blaming). So, now that you correctly understand things, I trust that your odd hurt will subside.

This thread is how the Church emphasizes the GR principle. Not just the Church in general. There's a specific emphasis here. :)

I appreciate you reinforcing what I already knew. ;-)

Some replied that they didn't believe it did. That's a valid reply since the OP asked for instances of posters experiencing this. If the OP asked if the Church emphasized Satanic worship would it be okay for people to discuss your Church and reply it did not? ;)

If you would like to refute their points perhaps you could show how the Church DOES forward this principle in its teachings.

I am not here to argue or refute. Instead, I wish simply to pose alternate views for consideration.

You discussed how you personally practice the GR by saying that those on this thread that discuss your religion are somehow not practicing this principle and how you attempt to always do this.

That comes as news to me.

Personally I'm often frustrated when you sometimes place a motive on discussions. I think there can be discussions of religion and the practices without it having to be an attack. I mentioned growing up in Japan --- can I discuss the festivals and talk about how different and strange (yet stunningly beautiful) they were to me as an outsider? Is that disparaging anyone? What if I asked what precisely does Shintoism stress? What if some posters disagreed with some of the practices/beliefs of Shintoism -- is this not appropriate or somehow violating the GR? I don't see it as such.

You are free to do whatever you choose.

I fear I just created anther Ping! Pong! moment. :) If you do reply to me, perhaps, you could state how you see the Church emphasizing this principle? Please?

While the GR, along with a number of other principles of the gospel, are mentioned in the LDS canon of scripture, and frequently espoused and somewhat explicated in talks, lessons, articles, etc. throughout the history of the Church, I don't know that it is "emphasized"--at least not in any systematic way.

So, given how narrowly you have restricted the topic, and your stated intollerance for supposed "tangents", I am not sure there is much if anything of substance that can be said, or any point in me participating further.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

You don't ever act in your own interest at the expense of not acting to advance what others desire? Don't worry. I'll answer for you. Yes, you do. Do you think that makes you a massive hypocrite or do you think that maybe, just maybe one is not obligated to act to fulfill others desires to the best of their ability at all times?

We all - well many of us anyway - know you are a meanspirited person who does a questionable job of cloaking this in the language of building bridges and pop-therapy/personal betterment. My personal favorite was when you went to a gay online discussion forum to discuss homosexuality as "sexual attraction disorder" or SAD for short. Classic. For what its worth, I occilate between getting a kick out of your style of trolling others by carefully implying insults and terrible arguments then retreating behind implausible denials and faux niceness and viewing it with contempt.

Yeah, that was my personal favorite, too. Don't forget he invited them to his website for whatever cure or healing he was offering, and the website made homosexuality equivalent to pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality. And since Wade has never chosen to "repent" of his past behavior and distance himself from those noxious ideas, I continue to conclude that website still represents his thoughts on the matter.

Since the two of you feel the need to smear me using an event that occured eight years ago and a website that you not only lack the capacity to accurately understand, but which hasn't been operative for over a half-year now, could you at least have some respect for moniker, and start another thread where your spite for me wont be off topic. She is rather sensative about such derailings, though for whatever reason I seem to be the only one she chooses to mention it to. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Nehor]

"Do unto others as should be done unto them."

That's a tautology. Rephrased, it just says, "You ought to treat others as you ought to treat them."

Moral rules that express reciprocity are trying to say something more interesting. They're saying that if you want to know how a person should be treated, think about how you like to be treated, and that should give you a good idea how to treat them. I think this is best understood in terms of something like a desire fulfillment theory of morality. It works because our inner worlds are similar enough that we share a great deal of our desires in common. The more trivial the desire, the more variety we'll see. So while John might like Tom Ka Tofu soup, Suzy might hate it. But they're more likely to like food that tastes good to them. And they're even more likely to want to experience pleasure. So if John wants to know how to treat Suzy well, fulfill her desires, a handy test is to think about how he'd like to be treated. Of course, since our desires do not line up perfectly, this is not a hard rule that binds us. John would be mistaken give Suzy Tom Ka Tofu soup. In order to correct for this intuition, you propose that we ought to treat others as they'd like to be treated - or perhaps more accurately treat them in a way that will result in the most fulfillment. That's the idea. Looking inwards is supposed to help us determine how to do that. But this leads to you recognizing that if we just act selflessly for others all the time, that will reduce our own fulfillment. For one, people will take advantage of us. I think you're right. It isn't a hard rule. I think what benefits the "greater good" and thus what is moral has to allow for a good deal of freedom for people to act in their own interest and those in their social networks.

It is a tautology but it also allows for individual difference as you said.

The great scripture to 'love your neighbor as yourself' means just that. If you are destroying yourself to help others you are in violation of this commandment. Or from an old TV show, said to a hero, "It never occurred to you did it while you were out giving your all to save the people of this world that you might be one of them? Well, you made the cut."

[_Moniker]

I'm sort of stunned that this went off into a tangent about the Church itself (Wade -- you always derail my threads!)

I recognize the inclination of some to "blame" (ironically in the process of speaking about derailing a thread that is not about "blame"), but not wishing to go there (and thus FURTHER derail the thread--hint, hint), let me just say that I am sorry for allegedly derailing the thread by responding to OTHER people's (hint, hint) claims about my Church as it relates to the topic of the thread, if not also the general subjectmatter of the board (which, in case people may have forgotten, is "Mormon Discussions"). ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh! Wade, I'm so hurt! By saying I'm blaming you are you blaming me for blaming you?

If you look a little more closely, you will see that I did not mention YOU at all. I made a generic reference to what some people may be inclined to do (not to be confused with "blaming"), and I explicitly said I didn't wish to go there (I.e. I did not wish to get involved with discussion involving blaming). So, now that you correctly understand things, I trust that your odd hurt will subside.

Wade, I was joking. Get your sarcasm/joke meter checked out. It's on the fritz. ;)

This thread is how the Church emphasizes the GR principle. Not just the Church in general. There's a specific emphasis here. :)

I appreciate you reinforcing what I already knew. ;-)

Well, I was hoping you'd have something to add...

Some replied that they didn't believe it did. That's a valid reply since the OP asked for instances of posters experiencing this. If the OP asked if the Church emphasized Satanic worship would it be okay for people to discuss your Church and reply it did not? ;)

If you would like to refute their points perhaps you could show how the Church DOES forward this principle in its teachings.

I am not here to argue or refute. Instead, I wish simply to pose alternate views for consideration.

That would be great! Refute = alternative views, whichever you're comfortable with.

You discussed how you personally practice the GR by saying that those on this thread that discuss your religion are somehow not practicing this principle and how you attempt to always do this.

That comes as news to me.

Well, perhaps I can show you how I read your first comment on the thread in reply to BishopRic saying that Church did a poor job of emphasizing the principle. Here is your reply to him:

While people can reasonably debate the origins of Christianity and the Golden Rule, I don't know if it is edifying to proffer sweeping judgements about Christian observance (or lack thereof) of the Golden Rule. Instead, I think we would be better served to focus our analysis of GR observance inward, where we are in possession of all the pertinent facts, and where we are in a position to affect change rather than simply judge. At least that is what the GR directs me to do.

Obviously I shouldn't have said "you attempt to always do this". I read your comments to as chiding others for looking outward at the GR principle and that specifically what the OP was about. Look about and give examples of how the Church does this well or poorly. The only way this can be done is to look at those outside yourself and make observations. Matter of fact this is sometimes, I believe, the best way to teach the principle of GR -- see it in action. Discuss how it is successful and what impact it makes on you and how you may even find inspiration from those that do practice this principle. I find great value in observations of others and seeing how we may want to live up to their example or how we would choose other ways in which to act.

Personally I'm often frustrated when you sometimes place a motive on discussions. I think there can be discussions of religion and the practices without it having to be an attack. I mentioned growing up in Japan --- can I discuss the festivals and talk about how different and strange (yet stunningly beautiful) they were to me as an outsider? Is that disparaging anyone? What if I asked what precisely does Shintoism stress? What if some posters disagreed with some of the practices/beliefs of Shintoism -- is this not appropriate or somehow violating the GR? I don't see it as such.

You are free to do whatever you choose.

Agreed! I am! I am asking you if it is somehow violating the GR when I do so?

While the GR, along with a number of other principles of the gospel, are mentioned in the LDS canon of scripture, and frequently espoused and somewhat explicated in talks, lessons, articles, etc. throughout the history of the Church, I don't know that it is "emphasized"--at least not in any systematic way.

So, given how narrowly you have restricted the topic, and your stated intollerance for supposed "tangents", I am not sure there is much if anything of substance that can be said, or any point in me participating further.

I don't mind tangents as long as they tie into the OP. :)

Are you intolerant of my intolerance! Oh, I'm so hurt! (That's a joke!;)

[_wenglund]

You discussed how you personally practice the GR by saying that those on this thread that discuss your religion are somehow not practicing this principle and how you attempt to always do this.

That comes as news to me.

Well, perhaps I can show you how I read your first comment on the thread in reply to BishopRic saying that Church did a poor job of emphasizing the principle. Here is your reply to him:

While people can reasonably debate the origins of Christianity and the Golden Rule, I don't know if it is edifying to proffer sweeping judgements about Christian observance (or lack thereof) of the Golden Rule. Instead, I think we would be better served to focus our analysis of GR observance inward, where we are in possession of all the pertinent facts, and where we are in a position to affect change rather than simply judge. At least that is what the GR directs me to do.

Obviously I shouldn't have said "you attempt to always do this". I read your comments to as chiding others for looking outward at the GR principle and that specifically what the OP was about.

I appreciate you clarifying this. However, I think it would be helpful for you to understand that my statement above in no way suggests that those discussing my religion on this thread are not practicing the Golden Rule--primarily because no such thought crossed my mind. Nor can it rightly be viewed as "chiding others for looking outward at the GR principle." You are mis-reading those things into what I said. Rather, my comments may best be understood as a kindly suggestion as to where our consideration of GR adherence may serve us best.

Look about and give examples of how the Church does this well or poorly. The only way this can be done is to look at those outside yourself and make observations. Matter of fact this is sometimes, I believe, the best way to teach the principle of GR -- see it in action. Discuss how it is successful and what impact it makes on you and how you may even find inspiration from those that do practice this principle. I find great value in observations of others and seeing how we may want to live up to their example or how we would choose other ways in which to act.

I said as much in a follow-up comment to BishopRic. Great minds think alike. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Moniker]

Wade, I wonder why I always misread your comments? Is it me, or is it you? It's one of us!

Perhaps Ping Pong doesn't work.

It's more like playing catch. You throw high and to the left, and I throw the ball and it lands at your feet. :)