What exactly are Good Works?

[moksha]

I can see good works including giving of time and resources to help those in need, alms to the poor and needy, helping a little old lady safely cross the street, reading to the visually impaired, giving someone a ride to the store or doctor, etc.... But when I hear some people talk, it sounds like vain repetitions of religious ceremonies are their preferred form of good works.

What are your thoughts about what constitutes good works?

[20/20hind]

Tbm goggles : anything the prophet says is good works.

Paying tithing
Serve in your calling
Temple work
Cleaning the church
Doing your home and. Visiting teaching

[Give It Time]

A) Giving someone a hug.
B) Putting my arm around someone's shoulder who may be feeling a little uncomfortable in their surroundings.
C) Doing A and B in such a manner that neither A nor B is a surreptitious garment feel up, but expressions of non-agendized love and caring.

[Palerider]

Seems to me that "good works" primarily have to come as a result of the Spirit moving in our lives. I even think this includes many (not all) atheists and agnostics who would assign their impulses to do good as altruism. For if we simply do "good works" to be seen of men are they then entirely good?
Galatians:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

Your question almost echoes the rich young man's question, "Who is my neighbor?" And the Savior's response which not only defined who was our neighbor in the parable of the Good Samaritan, but answered the more important question of what a good neighbor is, which was "He that showed mercy on him."

All of the "important" meeting attendance where ward and stake leadership are rah rahed and praised as the truly faithful core of the church, the temple attendance, the assigned home teaching and all the rest of the programmed righteousness just smacks of the Pharisees and Sadducees' program to me.

Then whatever strength one has remaining members can use to be helpful to the rest of the world. But be assured, the church comes first in receiving all you have to give and that includes before your family. I know, I know, any TBM Bishops reading this will be horrified by this statement and try to claim that the church always puts the family first!

To them I would say, "Lip service doesn't get it." I've been there (in leadership) and I know. Families don't come first in the church. Not really.

So if the church really wanted to do a good work why not try allowing the members to decide when they will serve the church instead of telling members which night of the week they can stay home and do a "Home evening" with their family.......eh?

[No Tof]

So if the church really wanted to do a good work why not try allowing the members to decide when they will serve the church instead of telling members which night of the week they can stay home and do a "Home evening" with their family.......eh?

Probably a rhetorical question on your part palerider, but it shows that doing good works is not really on the radar for the church.

To try to answer the posts original question is more difficult because ultimately "good" is subjective.

Helping others in their need in the way mother Theresa did might be a good rule to measure by.

[Rob4Hope]

So if the church really wanted to do a good work why not try allowing the members to decide when they will serve the church instead of telling members which night of the week they can stay home and do a "Home evening" with their family.......eh?

Probably a rhetorical question on your part palerider, but it shows that doing good works is not really on the radar for the church.

To try to answer the posts original question is more difficult because ultimately "good" is subjective.

Helping others in their need in the way mother Theresa did might be a good rule to measure by.

The idea of "subjective" makes a lot of sense here. And, it is a dangerous idea with how the church twists it. For example, on another thread there was a reference to the "Year on Polygamy" podcast series,...and I listened to one where "Blood Atonement" was quoted really big. A "good work" in them good old days could be going over to your neighbors house and slitting their throat.

OH,...how religeous fanatics like BY and JS took the idea of goodness and twisted it into insanity, justifying criminal conduct...

Just a thought...

[Palerider]

This brings to mind an issue that the Founding Fathers had when they established the U.S. Constitution. Whether the citizenry would pass laws that were truly for the benefit of mankind. Specifically, whether they would be able to tell the difference between "Liberty" and "License".

Liberty, which we would all agree is a good thing, brings happiness when used wisely. License, only produces slavery whether to one's own appetites or those of other men.

The kind of secularization of society which brings the end to all traditional societal more's threatens to truncate civilization from the very things that brought them greatness. It leaves men struggling over definitions of what is "good" and what is "bad". Kind of like sitting in a car stopped in traffic and then having the sensation that the car is beginning to move. We suddenly step on the brake only to realize it isn't us that's moving but the traffic that is around us. We look for a streetlight post or something that is anchored and stable to be sure who is moving, us or others around us.
So are the dilemmas of defining "good" and "bad" in a purely secularized world. How do we maintain some semblance of integrity as opposed to falling victim to situational ethics?

[Rob4Hope]

This brings to mind an issue that the Founding Fathers had when they established the U.S. Constitution. Whether the citizenry would pass laws that were truly for the benefit of mankind. Specifically, whether they would be able to tell the difference between "Liberty" and "License".

Liberty, which we would all agree is a good thing, brings happiness when used wisely. License, only produces slavery whether to one's own appetites or those of other men.

The kind of secularization of society which brings the end to all traditional societal more's threatens to truncate civilization from the very things that brought them greatness. It leaves men struggling over definitions of what is "good" and what is "bad". Kind of like sitting in a car stopped in traffic and then having the sensation that the car is beginning to move. We suddenly step on the brake only to realize it isn't us that's moving but the traffic that is around us. We look for a streetlight post or something that is anchored and stable to be sure who is moving, us or others around us.
So are the dilemmas of defining "good" and "bad" in a purely secularized world. How do we maintain some semblance of integrity as opposed to falling victim to situational ethics?

I recall reading somewhere about Dallin Oaks giving a talk on Universal Ethics as opposed to Situational or "relative" ethics. Oaks was hitting seriously on Universal, saying that any other interpretation was wrong. The funny part was the person who critiqued it quoted from the Hellon Mar Kimball letter where JS said God commands one way in one situation and another in a different. TOTALLY RELATIVE.

Again...the total inconsistency manifests.

[GoodBoy]

But when I hear some people talk, it sounds like vain repetitions of religious ceremonies are their preferred form of good works.

Awesome.

For me, good works involve doing something for someone else that doesn't benefit you in any way. This means it is usually pretty hard to motivate yourself to do it.

[Ghost]

The kind of secularization of society which brings the end to all traditional societal more's threatens to truncate civilization from the very things that brought them greatness. It leaves men struggling over definitions of what is "good" and what is "bad". Kind of like sitting in a car stopped in traffic and then having the sensation that the car is beginning to move. We suddenly step on the brake only to realize it isn't us that's moving but the traffic that is around us. We look for a streetlight post or something that is anchored and stable to be sure who is moving, us or others around us.
So are the dilemmas of defining "good" and "bad" in a purely secularized world. How do we maintain some semblance of integrity as opposed to falling victim to situational ethics?

This is something I think about a lot. Some people who have jettisoned religion wish for a world without it, assuming that we'd all get along and eventually form some sort of utopia. But maybe that's not at all what would happen. Who can say?

Some who maintain belief sometimes argue that one reason it's important to believe is to have a standard by which to measure good and evil. Obviously someone making an argument like that believes their particular standard to be the right one, but the argument assumes that the lawgiver in question exists and gave those particular laws, and also doesn't explain why that makes them right even if that's the case.

Even if the God of one tradition or another is real and has an opinion on what's right or wrong for us, does that opinion matter only because God said so, or are those things right or wrong in some cosmic sense that even God must acknowledge? Whichever of the options in the Euthythypro dilemma is the right one, problems remain and there are yet deeper questions to ask.

I find that for me, good works are defined by a combination of instinct, parental guidance, Mormonism, culture, conscience, and reason. But I can't help but feel that it's all arbitrary, even at the same time that I feel strongly that something is right or wrong.

[deacon blues]

This brings to mind an issue that the Founding Fathers had when they established the U.S. Constitution. Whether the citizenry would pass laws that were truly for the benefit of mankind. Specifically, whether they would be able to tell the difference between "Liberty" and "License".

Liberty, which we would all agree is a good thing, brings happiness when used wisely. License, only produces slavery whether to one's own appetites or those of other men.

The kind of secularization of society which brings the end to all traditional societal more's threatens to truncate civilization from the very things that brought them greatness. It leaves men struggling over definitions of what is "good" and what is "bad". Kind of like sitting in a car stopped in traffic and then having the sensation that the car is beginning to move. We suddenly step on the brake only to realize it isn't us that's moving but the traffic that is around us. We look for a streetlight post or something that is anchored and stable to be sure who is moving, us or others around us.
So are the dilemmas of defining "good" and "bad" in a purely secularized world. How do we maintain some semblance of integrity as opposed to falling victim to situational ethics?

I recall reading somewhere about Dallin Oaks giving a talk on Universal Ethics as opposed to Situational or "relative" ethics. Oaks was hitting seriously on Universal, saying that any other interpretation was wrong. The funny part was the person who critiqued it quoted from the Hellon Mar Kimball letter where JS said God commands one way in one situation and another in a different. TOTALLY RELATIVE.

Again...the total inconsistency manifests.

Polygamy is THE example of relative morality. In the 19th century the LDS church used all its resources to defend it, now they do just the opposite; and they don't see the Problem with this?