Why Can'T We Talk About This Topic?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You are sweet, PaPa. I think a part of me never really left.

I am still on the rolls.

Now move back into a congregation and pre-forgive our many faults.

[Libs]

Now move back into a congregation and pre-forgive our many faults.

If there were any faults, they are forgiven. I also forgive myself, for accepting some things, about the church and Joseph Smith, that were not true. But, I'm not going back into full activity. I embrace all that is good and true, about the LDS Church, but my path will be outside the church...sometimes parallel, sometimes veering in another direction, but we will come together, at the end of our journey, this I know.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If there were any faults, they are forgiven. I also forgive myself, for accepting some things, about the church and Joseph Smith, that were not true. But, I'm not going back into full activity. I embrace all that is good and true, about the LDS Church, but my path will be outside the church...sometimes parallel, sometimes veering in another direction, but we will come together, at the end of our journey, this I know.

No one knew Joseph better than Emma, who died some 35 years later with his name on her lips. Joseph also included God’s rebukes of him in scripture. Try as we will, none of us will ever know him or the full story concerning him. But I do not worship him, just the God he proclaimed.

[Libs]

No one knew Joseph better than Emma, who died some 35 years later with his name on her lips. Joseph also included God’s rebukes of him in scripture. Try as we will, none of us will ever know him or the full story concerning him. But I do not worship him, just the God he proclaimed.

Not so sure Emma did know him that well, since she denied he was a polygamist. Or, perhaps, she really did know and was just embarrassed by it...who knows? I empathize with Emma, as she had an extremely difficult life.

I know LDS do not worship Joseph Smith, PaPa. I know when the critics are stating untruths about the church. Took me awhile to figure some things out, but I'm getting there. I didn't understand, at first, why it was important to view the teachings with a faithful, rather than critical, eye, (facts are facts, right?) but I understand that a little more, now. Bias and judgment can taint, even, "facts"; can make them twisted and unrecognizable, even when they are "technically" true.

I'm glad you have your faith in God. That's the most important thing.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Libs

[wenglund]

So it's OK for me to murder someone, because they'll remain alive in the afterlife? After all, the afterlife is no less available to my victims than to God's. So why is killing OK for God, but not me?

In discussions like this I think it important to keep in mind the distinction between moral justification and moral authority. Even were you to find equal moral justification as God for taking human life, in many instances you lack the moral authority to do so.

This moral distinction extends beyond the religious to secular society. In certain situation a private citizens may have the same if not more moral justification as a duly appointed or elected judge in taking action against a perpetrator, though not the moral authority. Casey Anthony's parent may have as much if not more moral justification than the judge to try and sentence their daughter for murder, but they are legally prevented from doing so because they lack moral authority.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

Not so sure Emma did know him that well, since she denied he was a polygamist. Or, perhaps, she really did know and was just embarrassed by it...who knows? I empathize with Emma, as she had an extremely difficult life.

Or she was trying to protect her children. As I remember, one of her sons went on a mission to Utah, and actually met some of his wives. After coming back, he became mentally ill.

[Libs]

Or she was trying to protect her children. As I remember, one of her sons went on a mission to Utah, and actually met some of his wives. After coming back, he became mentally ill.

That's interesting. I hadn't known that story. I just looked him up. It was David, their youngest son, who was born five months after Joseph's death. This article says that his mental illness was not caused by his trip to Utah. He had, actually, made several trips to Utah (and apparently had some very nasty encounters with Brigham Young). Sounds like he was suffering from severe depression (bi-polar disorder?), which became almost incapacitating, during his last trip. Sad story.

http://www.josephsmithjr.org/history/children/68-david-hyrum-smith

Edited July 20, 2011 by Libs

[Chris Smith]

In discussions like this I think it important to keep in mind the distinction between moral justification and moral authority. Even were you to find equal moral justification as God for taking human life, in many instances you lack the moral authority to do so.

This moral distinction extends beyond the religious to secular society. In certain situation a private citizens may have the same if not more moral justification as a duly appointed or elected judge in taking action against a perpetrator, though not the moral authority. Casey Anthony's parent may have as much if not more moral justification than the judge to try and sentence their daughter for murder, but they are legally prevented from doing so because they lack moral authority.

I don't think moral authority is a useful concept, for a whole range of reasons I won't bother going into here. But even if we accept the concept of moral authority, I unequivocally reject the idea that any being could ever have sufficient moral authority to go around wiping out entire cities, nations, or ethnic groups. Any being that claims such authority should be overthrown like any other tyrant.

[wenglund]

I don't think moral authority is a useful concept, for a whole range of reasons I won't bother going into here.

I disagree. While it may have its problems, I believe moral authority beats the alternative--i.e. anarchy or vigilantes.

But even if we accept the concept of moral authority, I unequivocally reject the idea that any being could ever have sufficient moral authority to go around wiping out entire cities, nations, or ethnic groups. Any being that claims such authority should be overthrown like any other tyrant.

As a general rule, I agree. However, overthrowing such "tyrants" may create the paradox of require us, as cities and nations and groups to assert our own moral authority and do some "wiping out" of our own. In other words, we may be required to do the very thing, though perhaps to a lesser degree and for different moral justifications, to which we unequivocally and morally object--though, that is a paradox I can morally live with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2011 by wenglund

[Libs]

I think it is too easy to misuse the concept of "moral authority". Men have imagined that they have had moral authority, when clearly they did not. 9/ll immediately comes to mind, but there is a long, long history of that kind of thinking, in Christianity, as well. All the more easily justified, when we can look to our Holy scriptures for justification. That's one of the reasons I think it is much more likely that a lot of the Old Testament incidents, of wiping out whole cities, etc., was attributable to man, not God.

[wenglund]

I think it is too easy to misuse the concept of "moral authority". Men have imagined that they have had moral authority, when clearly they did not. 9/ll immediately comes to mind, but there is a long, long history of that kind of thinking, in Christianity, as well. All the more easily justified, when we can look to our Holy scriptures for justification. That's one of the reasons I think it is much more likely that a lot of the Old Testament incidents, of wiping out whole cities, etc., was attributable to man, not God.

Could you be misusing moral authority by presuming to judge those involved in Old Testament incidents?

And, if you think moral authority is too easy to misuse, what do you think the state of affairs might be without that regulating precept?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

Could you be misusing moral authority by presuming to judge those involved in Old Testament incidents?

Could be.

And, if you think moral authority is too easy to misuse, what do you think the state of affairs might be without that regulating precept?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Truthfully, I think if people listened more carefully to that still, small voice inside, there would be a lot less chance of abuse.

I don't mean to say that we should just do away with the concept, but we do need to use discernment...even in reading our scriptures.

[wenglund]

Could be.

Truthfully, I think if people listened more carefully to that still, small voice inside, there would be a lot less chance of abuse.

I don't mean to say that we should just do away with the concept, but we do need to use discernment...even in reading our scriptures.

I can't argue with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Chris Smith]

Wade,

The biggest problem with the concept of moral authority, as I see it, is that it implies that one can possess the right to set the terms of morality. I fully accept that what is morally permissible under one set of circumstances may be morally impermissible under another set of circumstances, but in my opinion the governing moral principles must remain the same. No being or set of beings can have authority over those principles. Ultimately, the only authority must be the principles themselves.

Peace,

-Chris

[wenglund]

Wade,

The biggest problem with the concept of moral authority, as I see it, is that it implies that one can possess the right to set the terms of morality. I fully accept that what is morally permissible under one set of circumstances may be morally impermissible under another set of circumstances, but in my opinion the governing moral principles must remain the same. No being or set of beings can have authority over those principles. Ultimately, the only authority must be the principles themselves.

Peace, -Chris

In a way, that would be ideal.

However, we don't currently live in an ideal world. Instead, we humans differ, sometimes considerably, over what principles we accept, how we interpret the same principles, and the extent to which we are willing to adhere to the principles--i.e. the degree of authority to which we permit the principles to have over us.

Were every man an island, then it may be fine to leave each individual to live according to the authority of their own respective principles, and to personally reap the consequences thereof for good or ill.

But, as the poets have made clear, no man is an island. As such, the principles of ordered society and prudence suggest that a system of governance, external to the diversity of principles in the pluralistic society, be established to formulate shared principles and to enforce those shared principle. Hence, moral authority.

Also, in certain situation and under certain circumstances, various principles may be at odds. The conflicting principles lack authority, of themselves, to resolve the conflict. External governance, then, is required. Hence, moral authority.

The good news is, the noted causes that rightly justify the existence of moral authority is done away by bringing mankind into a oneness of heart and mind and spirit and principles with God. Such is the worthy mission of Christ's restored gospel. May God bless us in striving towards that end. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 21, 2011 by wenglund

[Chris Smith]

Wade,

There's a huge difference between legal authority and moral authority. I agree that legal authority is necessary for the peaceful functioning of society, but ultimately legal authority is simply based on power. Having power does not give one moral authority, to set the terms of moral behavior. Moral principles must be independent of both law and power.

-Chris

[Libs]

I think there is a big difference between civil law, established by a majority rule, and "moral authority". Big difference, in many cases.

Arguably, true moral authority comes from God, right? The problem is, there are wide variations on what people believe God is saying. So, (I believe) there is a final moral authority out there, but we (all of us) are, generally speaking, not very good at discerning it.

Edit: Did not see Chris' post up there, before I posted this.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Libs

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Not so sure Emma did know him that well, since she denied he was a polygamist. Or, perhaps, she really did know and was just embarrassed by it...who knows? I empathize with Emma, as she had an extremely difficult life.

I know LDS do not worship Joseph Smith, PaPa. I know when the critics are stating untruths about the church. Took me awhile to figure some things out, but I'm getting there. I didn't understand, at first, why it was important to view the teachings with a faithful, rather than critical, eye, (facts are facts, right?) but I understand that a little more, now. Bias and judgment can taint, even, "facts"; can make them twisted and unrecognizable, even when they are "technically" true.

I'm glad you have your faith in God. That's the most important thing.

She knew...it was a Hyrum's insistence that D&C 132 was put to paper, he was determined (Hyrum) to take to Emma himself. He love for Joseph never wavered even after 35 years beyond his death. We will never understand this fully. She was reported to have died with these work, “Joseph, I am coming”.

[wenglund]

Wade,

There's a huge difference between legal authority and moral authority. I agree that legal authority is necessary for the peaceful functioning of society, but ultimately legal authority is simply based on power. Having power does not give one moral authority, to set the terms of moral behavior. Moral principles must be independent of both law and power.

-Chris

Evidently, we understand the term "moral authority" differently. And, that is okay. When I speak of moral authority, I am essentially speaking of legal authority in relation to moral issues.

So, let me restate my earlier point using your language to see if we now agree:

In discussions like this I think it important to keep in mind the distinction between moral justification and legal authority in moral issues. Even were you to find equal moral justification as God for taking human life, in many instances you lack the legal authority to do so.

This distinction extends beyond the religious to secular society. In certain situation a private citizens may have the same if not more moral justification as a duly appointed or elected judge in taking action against a perpetrator, though not the legal authority. Casey Anthony's parent may have as much if not more moral justification than the judge to try and sentence their daughter for murder, but they are prevented from doing so because they lack legal authority.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-