When is it okay to contradict or disobey a prophet?

[Jason]

I don't object the use of force; I object the use of unjustified force. My moral intuitions tell me, as did Christ, that I should treat others as I would have them do unto me.

Yeah, but that's just your own personal morality, right? I mean, if you see someone else using unjustified force, who are you to tell them to stop? It might be perfectly justified in their moral system, and you "draw the line" from trying to impose your own morality, right?

I am not threatening anyone with jail (or with anything) if they don't subscribe to my positions. again, trying to convince people with words is not imposition through force.

So imposing your morality on someone through any method other than justified force is a-okay? Bribery? Threats of force rather than actual force?

[elguanteloko]

Yeah, but that's just your own personal morality, right? I mean, if you see someone else using unjustified force, who are you to tell them to stop? It might be perfectly justified in their moral system, and you "draw the line" from trying to impose your own morality, right?

that is my own personal morality, yes. Moralities do indeed conflict but that is, after all, the best we can do. Having an unknowable morality of God as a guide really is to go backwards. Morality is not subjective, though, which is what you seem to think. Morality is intersubjective; that is, we all choose it together. It is the 'average' of our individual moralities in a sense. Societies like the Nazis do indeed go very wrong and that is why to close your mind and say "anything God says!" does not resolve anything.

So imposing your morality on someone through any method other than justified force is a-okay? Bribery? Threats of force rather than actual force?

...again, talking to people and trying to convince them that way is not imposition at all. Logical arguments are not imposition. Bribery and threats of violent force are more complicated issues and I would have to get into politics to explain them so I will not.

[semlogo]

I certainly don't consider them as just "suggestions", though I don't presume to think that I am above having God expand my black/white understanding of what is moral in his eyes. Unlike you, I don't view myself in a position to confine God to the narrow and fallible box of my current or past limited understanding.

My reasoning is very simple: seek not to judge God, but to humbly listen to what God declares to us about himself. I don't see how this reasoning fits very well the quoted portion of the "Small Gods" novel. Perhaps you are confusing me with something made of straw.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The similarity between your reasoning and the Small Gods excerpt is your willingness to trade a clear notion of right and wrong for some sort of ineffable contingency scheme. In short, you seem to view God as some sort of Machiavellian actor, capable of committing any atrocity for some unknowable "greater good."

Whereas I feel that if God were to commit an atrocity or asks His children to do so in His name, it isn't excused simply because he is God. If God did that, He would cease to be God. If God is not bound by moral law, then there is no moral law.

[Glenn101]

The similarity between your reasoning and the Small Gods excerpt is your willingness to trade a clear notion of right and wrong for some sort of ineffable contingency scheme. In short, you seem to view God as some sort of Machiavellian actor, capable of committing any atrocity for some unknowable "greater good."

Whereas I feel that if God were to commit an atrocity or asks His children to do so in His name, it isn't excused simply because he is God. If God did that, He would cease to be God. If God is not bound by moral law, then there is no moral law.

I am not exactly sure where you are coming from here, ask this of you? How do you view the commands that God gave the Israelites when taking the Promised Land to basically wipe the inhabitants off the face of the earth? Do you view it as (1) a mistake by God, (2) an error by the prophets, (3) a lie planted in the Bible to cover up or excuse the actions of the Israelites. Or is there another possibility that I did not cover.

Glenn

[semlogo]

I am not exactly sure where you are coming from here, ask this of you? How do you view the commands that God gave the Israelites when taking the Promised Land to basically wipe the inhabitants off the face of the earth? Do you view it as (1) a mistake by God, (2) an error by the prophets, (3) a lie planted in the Bible to cover up or excuse the actions of the Israelites. Or is there another possibility that I did not cover.

Glenn

Option 3.

[Glenn101]

Option 3.

I take it you are not a believing Christian either then?

Glenn

[wenglund]

The similarity between your reasoning and the Small Gods excerpt is your willingness to trade a clear notion of right and wrong for some sort of ineffable contingency scheme. In short, you seem to view God as some sort of Machiavellian actor, capable of committing any atrocity for some unknowable "greater good."

Whereas I feel that if God were to commit an atrocity or asks His children to do so in His name, it isn't excused simply because he is God. If God did that, He would cease to be God. If God is not bound by moral law, then there is no moral law.

Your distortions of my view aside, the difference between us is still you are dictating to God what God can or cannot morally do and remain God, and I am letting God dictate to me what he can or cannot do. As such, you essentially place yourself above God and ironically assume your position is morally superior, whereas I subject myself to God in humble acknowledgement that his position is morally superior. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

I take it you are not a believing Christian either then?

Glenn

Why would you assume that?

[semlogo]

Your distortions of my view aside, the difference between us is still you are dictating to God what God can or cannot morally do and remain God, and I am letting God dictate to me what he can or cannot do. As such, you essentially place yourself above God and ironically assume your position is morally superior, whereas I subject myself to God in humble acknowledgement that his position is morally superior. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not sure self-proclaimed humility counts as genuine humility. Just a thought.

[wenglund]

I'm not sure self-proclaimed humility counts as genuine humility. Just a thought.

Then you don't correctly understand the true and genuine nature of humility--as if your posts haven't made that abundantly clear already.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[semlogo]

Then you don't correctly understand the true and genuine nature of humility--as if your posts haven't made that abundantly clear already.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Apparently not.

[Ahab]

Apparently not.

Then allow me to make it clear for you.

Humility stems from a person first knowing his/her own weaknesses due to his/her own lack of perfection, in comparison to how perfect and perfectly good God is, and then by that person feeling a sincere desire to become a better person, with God's help.

When a person both knows that, and feels that, sincerely, when comparing himself/herself to God, that person can then say that he/she has truly been humbled, and is humbled, based on what he/she knows about himself/herself and his/her standing before God.

It's not something a person shouldn't be able to acknowledge, as if he/she doesn't know if he/she is truly humble or not.

I have felt and can still feel the weight of my own sins, daily, and I sincerely want to become a much better person than I have ever been, even when I've been at my very best behavior, so I feel like I know what it truly means to be humble and I have no problems at all acknowledging my own humility when comparing myself to God.

Joseph Smith, who was one of the greatest men who has ever walked this Earth, once said that he knew his place and standing before God and he felt the need to repent of all of his sins, even while knowing Jesus Christ paid the price for those sins and was in the very act of helping him to become a much better person than he had ever been.

If you think you can relate to that, then feel free to go ahead and tell us how humble you feel and what your humility leads you to want to do to become a better person, yourself.

And here's a tip: if you ever feel like you can criticize anyone on a person level, as if to act as their judge and their jury, then you can know that you aren't as humble as you should be, at which point you should compare yourself to God (again) until you can at least get a tinkling feeling of how far you still have to go to reach perfection.

[semlogo]

Then allow me to make it clear for you.

Humility stems from a person first knowing his/her own weaknesses due to his/her own lack of perfection, in comparison to how perfect and perfectly good God is, and then by that person feeling a sincere desire to become a better person, with God's help.

When a person both knows that, and feels that, sincerely, when comparing himself/herself to God, that person can then say that he/she has truly been humbled, and is humbled, based on what he/she knows about himself/herself and his/her standing before God.

It's not something a person shouldn't be able to acknowledge, as if he/she doesn't know if he/she is truly humble or not.

I have felt and can still feel the weight of my own sins, daily, and I sincerely want to become a much better person than I have ever been, even when I've been at my very best behavior, so I feel like I know what it truly means to be humble and I have no problems at all acknowledging my own humility when comparing myself to God.

Joseph Smith, who was one of the greatest men who has ever walked this Earth, once said that he knew his place and standing before God and he felt the need to repent of all of his sins, even while knowing Jesus Christ paid the price for those sins and was in the very act of helping him to become a much better person than he had ever been.

If you think you can relate to that, then feel free to go ahead and tell us how humble you feel and what your humility leads you to want to do to become a better person, yourself.

And here's a tip: if you ever feel like you can criticize anyone on a person level, as if to act as their judge and their jury, then you can know that you aren't as humble as you should be, at which point you should compare yourself to God (again) until you can at least get a tinkling feeling of how far you still have to go to reach perfection.

Did you read the whole thing?

[semlogo]

For the moral relativists/Machiavellian theory of God proponents, how far do you think God could (theoretically) go before ceasing to be God? Is there no atrocity that couldn't be explained away by an appeal to ineffable divine purpose? Or is there a limit to what you could accept? If so, what would that limit be?

[Jason]

that is my own personal morality, yes. Moralities do indeed conflict but that is, after all, the best we can do.

No, it really isn't.

Morality is not subjective, though, which is what you seem to think. Morality is intersubjective; that is, we all choose it together.

There is little practical difference between the two ideas.

If a moral system is a matter of opinion, even if it is the average of a large group opinion, it cannot be logically justified.

Why should I consider the opinion of a large body of peple as more accurate than my own? Simply because a large body has the power to enforce their opinion on individuals?

In fact whether an action is morally right or wrong in no way depends on how many people believe it is right or wrong.

...again, talking to people and trying to convince them that way is not imposition at all.

In your moral system. But if you speak to someone who does believe that trying to convince people is in fact an immoral imposition then you are guilty of what you have said you will not do - imposing your moral views on others.

When you give up the idea that morality is objective you also give up any logical justification for trying to convince others that your viewpoint is correct.

[ERayR]

Current prophets are probably wrong about some point of doctrine or another. We know this because past LDS prophets have been wrong about the laws of God, and we have no reason to believe that current prophets are any less fallible. So why is disobeying a prophet such a big deal? Is it worse to say that President Monson is wrong about the sinfulness of same-sex relations than that President Young was wrong about the sinfulness of interracial relations? At least one prominent Mormon apologist has said that Young was wrong, but none have said that Monson is wrong. Why? What standard do Mormons use to determine whether it's permissible to contradict one of their prophets?

It is OK to contradict a Prophet when you are certain he is wrong, but you better be d*** sure you are right.

[Ahab]

Did you read the whole thing?

Yes, silly, and I also thought about it as I wrote what I later read after I wrote it.

Do you understand that I was talking about judging a person, on an individual level? I'm not talking about not judging the actions of people, by the actions themselves. I judge actions practically all of the time, but I avoid judging people on a personal level because I don't always know what was really going on inside of their minds, or their spirits, which caused them to do the things they did.

Try thinking of me thinking of people as fruit trees, and then imagine me trying to judge people by the fruits I can see from them, rather than by what kind of tree I think they are. Some people may actually be some kind of hybrid fig tree which puts out both figs and thistles, even though the only fruit I see from them are thistles. I really can't judge what kind of tree they are, but I can tell what figs and thistles are based on my own experiences with figs and thistles.

[Ahab]

It is OK to contradict a Prophet when you are certain he is wrong, but you better be d*** sure you are right.

If a "Prophet" is ever wrong, then he isn't acting as a prophet/Prophet, so you are okay then.

[Jason]

For the moral relativists/Machiavellian theory of God proponents, how far do you think God could (theoretically) go before ceasing to be God? Is there no atrocity that couldn't be explained away by an appeal to ineffable divine purpose? Or is there a limit to what you could accept? If so, what would that limit be?

Although I reject the idea that I am in any way a moral relativist, it's possible that you were addressing me.

God would cease to be God the moment He commanded something actually immoral.

Is there any act that we can say with certainty is always immoral, regardless of circumstance, however?

Without using morally-charged terms like murder or rape, which are by definition wrong (the same way a bachelor is by definition unmarried), I'm not sure that there is.

[ERayR]

If a "Prophet" is ever wrong, then he isn't acting as a prophet/Prophet, so you are okay then.

I repeat you had better be d*** sure you are right.

[semlogo]

Although I reject the idea that I am in any way a moral relativist, it's possible that you were addressing me.

God would cease to be God the moment He commanded something actually immoral.

Is there any act that we can say with certainty is always immoral, regardless of circumstance, however?

Without using morally-charged terms like murder or rape, which are by definition wrong (the same way a bachelor is by definition unmarried), I'm not sure that there is.

Are you saying that simply by calling an act a different name we negate the immorality of it?

[Jason]

Are you saying that simply by calling an act a different name we negate the immorality of it?

No, not at all.

[wenglund]

For the moral relativists/Machiavellian theory of God proponents

That excludes me. But, I will try and answer your questions from my perspective nevertheless.

...how far do you think God could (theoretically) go before ceasing to be God?

Since I am far from being God, I really have no idea. Only God can answer that for himself--which is why I believe it makes most sense to let God instruct us rather than the other way around.

Is there no atrocity that couldn't be explained away by an appeal to ineffable divine purpose?

Again, I have no idea. Only God can answer that for himself--which is why I believe it makes most sense to let God instruct us rather than the other way around.

Or is there a limit to what you could accept? If so, what would that limit be?

I accept the limits that an all wise and loving and perfect God sets for himself. Unlike you, I don't consider myself or any other finite and fallible person to be in a position to set those limits for him.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[semlogo]

No, not at all.

Perhaps you could explain the difference to me, then. You seem to be saying that God is incapable of commanding anything that was immoral because, no matter what God commands, it becomes moral when He commands it, even if it is normally considered to be something decidedly immoral. You also object to "morally-charged" terms. What does the term matter to you, if the morality isn't changed by changing the word?

[semlogo]

I accept the limits that an all wise and loving and perfect God sets for himself. Unlike you, I don't consider myself or any other finite and fallible person to be in a position to set those limits for him.

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

If God hasn't set the boundaries of morality and immorality, of what use to us are the scriptures?