*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 29, 2021, 04:07:42 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 85 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Getting "udner the hood" of Sins and acts of Pride.  (Read 4224 times)
Particle_Man
Member

Posts: 24


« on: December 17, 2005, 12:10:16 PM »

I am looking at Dogs in the Vinyard, trying to figure out *why* certain sins and acts of pride are such (apart from "Because it says so"). Here is what I have come up with:

1) No one is more important than anyone else. People may have different roles to play, but no one should abuse those roles to gain an unfair advantage over their fellows, or to harm others without just cause.

2) Everyone has someone directly responsible for their good (godly) behaviour. This is usually someone close, for efficiency's sake. Thus we have something like a "cell system" of stewardship where A is responsible for various B's, and each B is responsible for various C's.

3) The family (and in a larger sense, the community) must pull together to support each other. This includes doing what one can to help out (smaller tasks if one is a child, for instance) and taking care of those who are not physically or mentally capable (kids, the aged, the sick, etc.)

4) Families need kids somehow or there won't be a family. These kids must be looked after and raised properly. A corollary of this is that one should not have (heterosexual) sex unless one is willing to support (and properly educate, etc.) any children that would result from such sex. Furthermore, since sex can lead to emotional ties, all parties involved in any sex act should give fully informed consent to that sex act, and should be able to do so (children, animals, etc., would be unable to do so, since they cannot understand all the consequences of sex, including understanding the emotional ties involved).

5) Traditions need to be kept stable or there won't be a tradition. This is another reason why children must be properly educated, why exposure to other traditions (and a non-traditional worldliness) should be avoided or carefully controlled, etc.

Now (cards on the table) the reason I am going "under the hood" here is that I want to build a new set of rules on what counts as Pride, Sin, etc., that stays fairly close to that mormonish cowboy goodness of DiTV, but does so without limiting roles by gender and without considering extra-marital sex or homosexuality to be intrinsically sinful. So I am effectively trying to see what I can keep by going into why certain things are sins and pride. The above I can see as acceptable reasons. The below I would not see as acceptable reasons:

a) Homophobia. (My DiTV should be able to get their Brokeback Mountain freak on, should they so desire).

b) Misogyny. (Including fixed gender roles).

c) Hangups about sex as such (with the caveat that in this society it is well known that sex causes children and emotional ties, and no one wants children that will not be properly looked after, or emotional ties that cannot be integrated into supporting the traditions and families and community)).

So, I guess I am looking for feedback on whether I have missed some vital "under the hood" ingredients, whether there is a danger that my modified DiTV will turn into "bland boring folks with no serious conflicts in the vinyard", etc.
Logged
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2005, 12:37:51 PM »

Hey P.M.

What I want from you is a quick writeup to match these, from the book:
Quote
Pride can enter into Stewardship when:
ó You think that youíd do a better job with someone than that someoneís Steward, like if you think you know better whatís good for Brother Zacharyís wife than Brother Zachary does.
ó You think that your convenience is more important than your Stewardship, so you donít attend to it.
ó You think that fulfilling your Stewardship obligations means you deserve recompense or special consideration.
ó You think that the person with Stewardship over you is doing a bad job or doesnít deserve it, or you donít have to listen to him.
ó You use your Stewardship over someone as though it were power, not responsibility.
ó You favor some of the people over whom you have Stewardship above the others, seeing to their needs preferentially.
...
Pride can enter into Gender Roles when:
ó you arenít satisfied with the roles of your gender: you want more freedom, or the roles of the other gender.
ó you want someone of the other gender to act outside her or his roles.
ó you deny someone full access to her or his roles (by locking your unmarried adult daughter in the house or overprotecting your son, for instance).
...
Pride can enter into love, sex & marriage when:
ó you demand the love of, or impose your love upon, someone who doesnít love you.
ó you act as though you love someone when you really donít.
ó you consider your love to transcend sin and virtue, like when youíre in love with someone inappropriate.
ó you want sex, without considering love, virtue or sin.
ó you pursue marriage with someone who reflects well on you or who can advance you, not whom you love.
ó you buy the affection and loyalty of your intended spouse with money or prestige.
ó you demand that your suitor buy your affection.
...
And pride can enter into Polygamy when:
ó you consider polygamy to be your right, instead of a reward you have to deserve.
ó you think that you deserve polygamy when really you just want it.
ó youíre seeking a second or subsequent wife in order to display your worthiness and faith.
ó youíre a wife and you donít welcome a righteous subsequent wife.
ó youíre a second or subsequent wife and you resent the wives before you.
ó you put your relationships with your fellow wives over your relationship with your husband.
ó youíre pursuing or part of a polygamous marriage unapproved by the Faith.
ó youíre a wife who wants an additional husband.
...
Pride can enter into money when:
ó you think you deserve more than someone else.
ó you donít want to give up what you have when someone else needs it more than you do.
ó you exploit the poor to buy community respect.
...
Sin
1. Violence. Itís a sin to harm or kill another person, unless you have just cause. Self defense and war are just causes; ďhe slept with my wifeĒ is not.
2. Sex. Itís a sin to have sex with someone you arenít married to, unless all of the following are true: your marriage is ordained in Heaven, youíre prevented from wedding by inescapable circumstances, and you wed as soon as you are able.
3. Deceit. Itís a sin to lie, cheat, steal, or break promises.
4. Disunity. Itís a sin to conspire against another person or to profit from another personís misfortune.
5. Blasphemy. Itís a sin to call upon the King of Life in an unworshipful manner.
6. Apostasy. Itís a sin to worship the King of Life in any way not according to the dictates of the Faith, to call upon any god but the King of Life, or to turn to the demons for favors.
7. Worldliness. Itís a sin to dress immodestly, to smoke tobacco or drink hard liquor, to use vulgar language, to sleep in the same room as an unbeliever, to gamble for money, to work on a day set aside for worship, or to show comfort in the presence of sin.
8. Faithlessness. Itís a sin to neglect the duties of your office in the Faith.

Until you write down and put forward your vision, in terms as concrete as these, there's really not much we can do for you. (We could talk and talk and talk, of course, but to no profit.)

Nobody's to post to this thread until P.M. posts his writeup. Thanks!

-Vincent
Logged
Particle_Man
Member

Posts: 24


« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2005, 11:23:27 PM »

Hey thanks for taking time out of looking after your kid to respond!  Anyhow, here is a first draft of my idea.  I have left some of the things below unchanged, changed others, eliminated a few, added a few, and left some with the same words, but different meaning for those words.  Of course, it is subject to revision.  Here goes:

Pride can enter into Stewardship when:
ó You think that youíd do a better job with someone than that someoneís Steward, like if you think you know better whatís good for Brother Zacharyís wife than Brother Zachary does.
[Keep this one: note that in the changed version of DiTV, women can also be heads of families and thus might be stewards of their husbands].
ó You think that your convenience is more important than your Stewardship, so you donít attend to it.[no change]
ó You think that fulfilling your Stewardship obligations means you deserve recompense or special consideration.[no change]
ó You think that the person with Stewardship over you is doing a bad job or doesnít deserve it, or you donít have to listen to him.[change last word to "him or her"]
ó You use your Stewardship over someone as though it were power, not responsibility.[no change]
ó You favor some of the people over whom you have Stewardship above the others, seeing to their needs preferentially.[no change]
...
Pride can enter into Age Group Roles when:[Note I am replacing the 6 gender and age based roles with 3 age based roles - gender is irrelevant on the new system]:
ó you arenít satisfied with the roles of your age group: you want more freedom, or the roles of another Age Group.
ó you want someone of another age group to act outside her or his roles.
ó you deny someone full access to her or his roles [(by overprotecting your son or daughter, for instance).]
...
Pride can enter into love, sex & marriage when:
ó you demand the love of, or impose your love upon, someone who doesnít love you.
ó you act as though you love someone when you really donít.
ó you consider your love to transcend sin and virtue, like when youíre in love with someone inappropriate.
ó you want sex, without considering love, virtue or sin.
ó you pursue marriage with someone who reflects well on you or who can advance you, not whom you love.
ó you buy the affection and loyalty of your intended spouse with money or prestige.
ó you demand that your suitor buy your affection.
...
[Oddly enough, all of the above can remain unchanged, since I am redefining Sin so that sex outside of marriage is not necessarily sin and sex between two men or between two women is not sin.  I would also therefore be redefining what counts as someone "inappropriate".  So the above words remain the same, but the connotations of those words change because of the new definitions of "Sin" and "Appropriate"].]

And pride can enter into Polygamy/andry when: [Unchanged unless noted below]

ó you consider polygamy/andry to be your right, instead of a reward you have to deserve.
ó you think that you deserve polygamy/andry when really you just want it.
ó youíre seeking a second or subsequent wife in order to display your worthiness and faith. [Replace "wife" with "spouse"]
ó youíre a wife and you donít welcome a righteous subsequent wife. [Replace "wife" with "spouse"]
ó youíre a second or subsequent wife and you resent the wives before you. [Replace "wife" with "spouse"].
ó you put your relationships with your fellow wives over your relationship with your husband.[Changed to "you neglect your duties in raising your children, putting an unfair burden on the other spouses"].
ó youíre pursuing or part of a polygamous/androus marriage unapproved by the Faith. [Unchanged (except for one word), but what the Faith approves of would be broadened to include spouses of either gender, multiple husbands or wives or both, etc.]
ó youíre a wife who wants an additional husband. [Eliminated]
...
Pride can enter into money when:
ó you think you deserve more than someone else.
ó you donít want to give up what you have when someone else needs it more than you do.
ó you exploit the poor to buy community respect.
...
[The money stuff is unchanged.  If I am losing too many conflict opportunities, I might add in a tithe that goes back to the heads of the church way back East, and Pride would then include "you think that you should not have to pay so much to the Ancients back East" (thus replacing one of the eliminated polyandrous pride issues)]

Sin
1. Violence. Itís a sin to harm or kill another person, unless you have just cause. Self defense and war are just causes; ďhe slept with my wifeĒ is not. [Unchanged]
2. Sex. Itís a sin to have sex with someone you arenít married to, unless all of the following are true: your marriage is ordained in Heaven, youíre prevented from wedding by inescapable circumstances, and you wed as soon as you are able. [Changed to "It's a sin to have sex with someone with whom you are not prepared to accept the consequences of sex, including possible children and emotional ties; it's a sin to have sex with someone who is not prepared to accept these consequences, especially if that is because they are children, animals, etc., and thus not able to think of all the consequence].
3. Deceit. Itís a sin to lie, cheat, steal, or break promises. [unchanged - note that IF a couple had made a promise to only have sex with each other. THEN one having sex with a third person would be a sin because of the deceit involved]]
4. Disunity. Itís a sin to conspire against another person or to profit from another personís misfortune.[unchanged]
5. Blasphemy. Itís a sin to call upon the King of Life in an unworshipful manner.[unchanged].
6. Apostasy. Itís a sin to worship the King of Life in any way not according to the dictates of the Faith, to call upon any god but the King of Life, or to turn to the demons for favors.[unchanged - although the dictates of the Faith themselves have been changed].
7. Worldliness. Itís a sin to dress immodestly, to smoke tobacco or drink hard liquor, to use vulgar language, to sleep in the same room as an unbeliever, to gamble for money, to work on a day set aside for worship, or to show comfort in the presence of sin. [unchanged, except for the fact that men might also sin by dressing immodestly, and what counts as immodest for women might be loosened up a bit.  Also, what counts as a sin has changed, so there are different circumstances where one can or cannot show comfort in their presence]
8. Faithlessness. Itís a sin to neglect the duties of your office in the Faith.[unchanged, though those duties may themselves change]

So is that ok?
Logged
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2005, 04:23:06 AM »

So is that ok?

That's just right.

Go play it. I think it'll work fine, but let us know how it turns out!

-Vincent
Logged
Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2005, 08:34:24 AM »

Having been in a poly relationship that failed spectacularly, I can say that you've nailed it.
Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
Particle_Man
Member

Posts: 24


« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2005, 05:00:07 PM »

Having been in a poly relationship that failed spectacularly, I can say that you've nailed it.

Thanks for the support.  If it is not too painful, would you be able to describe your failed poly relationship in terms of town building, using the guidelines above (I assume it did not get to the Hate and Murder stage)?
Logged
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2005, 04:36:27 AM »

Uh.

Here's what let's do instead. PM, post a town based on your writeup. After you've posted one, I'll post one, and anybody else can post one too, if and as they want. Since you're the one going to be playing by these rules, you should be the first one to use 'em.

Fred, if you decide to post a town, please don't label it "based on my bad experience with polyamory," that'd be entirely inappropriate for this forum. If you'd like to talk more with PM about your experiences, please send him a private message or contact him some other way.

-Vincent
Logged
Particle_Man
Member

Posts: 24


« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2005, 08:47:27 AM »

Will do, but I am leaving for the holidays, so it will be in January.
Logged
Vaxalon
Member

Posts: 1619


« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2005, 05:20:29 AM »

Absolutely, Vincent.  I think that it falls in the scope of "Too Much Information".  I'll definitely go with PM on this one.
Logged

"In our game the other night, Joshua's character came in as an improvised thing, but he was crap so he only contributed a d4!"
                                     --Vincent Baker
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!