bluebell

(we'll agree to disagree on the marriage where there is no sex ever is a moral position). The line between the conditional and arbitrary is only "virtually non-existent" when talking about what can be perceived or known. If the terms exist (for lack of a better way to say it), then there is a difference between them, whether we can always perceive the difference or not. Just because something may seem like something, doesn't mean it is that thing. Something may seem arbitrary but not be arbitrary at all, and the difference might become perceivable once more information is acquired. Like how you can't perceive the difference between a star and a planet with the naked eye, but very much can with a telescope and other aides. As you know there is a very interesting discussion surrounding the ideas of what "is" and what can be perceived. To go back to my previous example, a planet 'is' whether we can perceive it or not. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are coming at this discussion from the angle of "perception is reality" though. So if we can't perceive planets then it is as if they don't exist. Likewise, if we don't know the conditions that make something moral then the conditions might as well be arbitrary, subjective, etc. Am I getting that right? If I am, I agree with you on that angle. But I'm coming at this discussion from a different angle. The angle of line upon line, precept upon precept. It's an angle that assumes (that because of our relationship with God) we are always moving towards more information and knowledge, more light and truth. Therefore there is nothing unperceivable in the universe, there is only what is. I agree it's a very interesting question, and a discussion about it would be for a different thread. I wasn't attempting to use it to prove objective morality; I was using it to prove that an appearance of subjective morality is a perception, and a perception is by definition limited. And limited understanding cannot be used to disprove the existence of anything, including objective morality. To Kant's argument, I think he's right. Corrie ten Boom grew up in a family that agreed with him and lived it. In the book The Hiding Place, Corrie tells a story about a family member who believed in the absolute morality of honesty. She raised her children to be honest, and this included being honest when a nazi asked her daughter if the woman pretending to be a maid in their home was actually a Jew. Her daughter immediately answered that she was, and the Jewish woman and the girl's mother (I believe it was Corrie's sister Betsy but I can't remember for sure now as it's been a few years since I re-read it) was also arrested. In jail I believe it was Corrie that had the opportunity to ask the family member how she could betray the Jewish woman like that and surely God would be ok with telling a lie in such a circumstance. The woman (I wish I could remember her name) simply replied that God would never allow the Jewish woman to come to any harm because her daughter refused to lie. Later they did learn that the Jewish woman escaped and made it to safety soon after being arrested. I think objective morality is extreme. Subjective morality looks on sin with a little allowance, depending on circumstances. That's a much easier world to live in. To the bolded, I don't know if I can agree. If we are the the standard that we use to measure what is moral, how can morality ever be more or bigger than us? Even if we change it as we grow, it's still never more than ourselves?

Hmmm. How was/is oppression almost a necessity?

I think from my perspective I would say that it is designed to allow people the option to oppress but not set up so that people will oppress. I would postulate that it's set up that way because of the fall and the nature of mortal life. A man isn't honest if he's never had the chance to steal. Maybe a man isn't a worthy man if he's never had the chance to oppress and instead chose something better? (Not saying that's the answer to all those issues or the problem of evil in general. Just saying that I do think that the option of sin and immorality is designed into earth life but not because God hopes we choose the bad).

So you're saying that because God is in charge of our biology (and you believe He theoretically could have put us together differently and achieved the same desired results), the way our biology works could be evidence that God wants women to be subjugated by men. Honestly asking, am I understanding you right?

This was one of my least favorite philosophy classes so I don't remember a lot about the different arguments (other than that people have been making them for centuries and no answers have been agreed upon). I would answer your specific points by suggesting that morals are external to God and those morals are neither variable nor arbitrary, but can be applied differently depending on conditions. For example, if sexual intercourse is a sin when not married but not a sin when married, then it is not the act that is either moral or immoral but the conditions under which the act occurs. So what might appear arbitrary or variable isn't actually either, it's conditional. I would also say that other contradictions or problems can be answered by taking into account understanding and interpretation. Though the commandment says not to kill, is that what it actually means? If murder is against the 10 commandments but ending a life is not always murder, then Nephi does not violate moral law and the 10 commandments can still be morally absolute, if Nephi did not did not unlawfully kill Laban. Therefore a soldier can do his or her duty in war without breaking any moral laws. However, saying all that I do recognize your bigger point. Morality may be absolute but because we aren't capable of knowing it firsthand, it's also subjective. It first has to trickle to us from outside influences--like God or culture or textbooks--and then it has to trickle through us as flawed and biased beings trying to understand and apply it. The end result is a mixed bag of all sorts of stuff, some of which will look objective and some which will look subjective depending on who's doing the looking.

It should be gone by now. Especially since anyone can be called to serve a service mission now. As I understand it, you put in your papers and you could get called to either type depending on different factors. I think most missionaries will still serve proselytizing missions if they don't have mitigating circumstances but it's not a given any more. I personally know a sister missionary that was called to a service mission and it was a huge surprise to everyone. Because I'm me, if I was in church leadership and heard this young man's plan, I would recall him to a service mission rather than let him use a proselytizing mission that way. Not saying I'd be right, but that would be my first instinct.

It probably wouldn't silence many, but it would be replayed by news stations and recounted by articles and podcasters for a while to come, and that school would utterly shame itself.

We need @mfbukowski here if we are going to get into the classic philosophical discussion on whether or not something is moral because God says it is or if it’s moral because God is moral. I’m not sure I’m following your argument on how if something is right under one circumstance but wrong or another then it is subjective though. I thought subjective meant based on opinion and personal taste. But it sounds like you are using subjective to mean changeable?

Imagine if the announcers had taken a moment to tell the cincinnati fans that the church had just donated almost 30,000 tons of food to the students to help with food scarcity during the chant.

Do you mean that he created women physically weaker than men, or something else?

Maybe @Calm can help?

Typically in these situations now they would be called on a service mission, right?

It seems disingenuous to accept a call to serve 24 months knowing you are not going to serve 24 months. But it's been him and God.

It won't change as long as it's culturally acceptable to do.

Wouldn't it be insane if someone could repent from stealing while allowed to keep what they stole? To me it seems equally crazy if someone could repent from sexually abusing children without getting the law involved. But different people have different ideas I guess. It would be a shame if a person who was not harmed had the final say on what restitution looks like. I would not want to be that wife and mother if she was the reason this man was allowed to go about his life with no consequences for the harm he did.

If he was excommunicated for sexual crimes against children, I don't how he could have been re baptized without confession to authorities. Restitution is part of the repentance process. Plus, he should never ever have a calling that puts him in contact with children. As a bishop's counselor and a ward clerk, he would have been in violation of church policy. Those are the kinds of sins that are supposed to stay on someone's membership record for the rest of their lives, even if they have been rebaptized, right?

My 21 year old didn't serve. I don't know how parents should feel but in this case I feel fine. If it was a different kid and the reason for not serving was different, then I would probably feel differently. If my kid didn't want to serve because it was too hard or they didn't want to not date or not be able to play video games for 2 years, then I'd be really annoyed. I wouldn't pressure them to do it because that kid would be a disaster on a mission, but I'd struggle with a grown adult child with that perspective on life. On marriage, for me personally, it would matter much why someone didn't serve than that they didn't serve. Lots of young men who served missions go for the wrong reasons and would make terrible husbands. I'm assuming lots of young men that didn't serve would make great husbands. Intention is more important me than the act itself. Having said that, I knew that I was s supposed to marry a return missionary because of a spiritual experience with God, but I always assumed that that was specific to me and not general instruction for all. But then I also believe that sometimes God instructs active members to marry nonmembers so i'm probably apostate in my beliefs on that. For senior missions, my parents haven't served one and probably won't and they don't come better than those two. I know that they are right with God and couldn't care less what anyone else thinks about it. (Though as far as I know, no one thinks anything bad at all). And I do think social pressure can cloud our ability to know what God wants for us and what we want for ourselves.

I forgot to add that if he's innocent then I hope they can prove that quickly.

If it's true then I'm glad he has been arrested and I'm happy that the victims will be able to seek justice. I am heartbroken (for the victims of course) for his family because I can't even imagine having a parent/child/sibling accused of something so evil and vile. Is this the brother that is gay or does he have more than one brother?

Do you mean why is there a perceived priesthood duty to serve a mission? I think it's included in the oath and covenant of the priesthood but to be honest I haven't really studied it and have just taken our leaders at their word. Or do you mean why are there obligations in general? If an obligation is a moral duty (like the online dictionary says), then I can't imagine how the gospel of Christ would work without them. All covenants comes with moral duties attached to them. I think someone could try to argue that the covenant of the priesthood does not include the obligation to preach the gospel, but I don't think there's any way to argue that the covenant of the priesthood includes no obligations at all. I don't know if a church should obligate people, but I think that God should. If a church is authorized to act in the name of God, then I think the church would have to teach people about the existence of the obligations attached to the covenants members make with God, and also exhort them to keep them. I think our leaders have probably taught things as obligations that actually aren't sometimes (and maybe sometimes they have failed to teach us that something is an obligation that we don't think is).

I agree that’s a good thing!

Same. I am so incredibly grateful for my mission but I do not want to do it again. My husband has shared that he sometimes has similar dreams and feels the same. It makes sense when someone is happy that a really hard thing is finished.

I don't really get it either. A virtue is a high moral standard. It doesn't seem like the devil would possess any virtues, let alone all of them. I'd love to ask the speaker what he meant by that phrase.

I'll watch it!

Sometimes there’s the idea that if some sacrifice is good then more is better. If and when God asks me to sacrifice then I will do my best. But sacrificing for sacrifice’s sake doesn’t make sense to me.