Balancing Truth And Tolerance

[mfbukowski]

The road to hell is paved by those that thought they were doing God(s) work in punishing the sinner.

No, it's paved with the bodies of those who have fallen in battles over semantics.

[mfbukowski]

I am curious how this squares against Joseph Smith saying that "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." This seems to be moral relativism at its core. One of the chief apologetic defenses is that leaders are a product of their time. That Brigham Young's racist sentiments must be read into the the context of history. Isn't this a form of moral relativism? Either racism is inherently evil or it isn't* (*unless its a product of your upbringing). Marrying a 14 year old today will get you excommunicated (this actually happened on my mission). Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year old was okay because he lived in a different time and people were different then. Isn't that moral relativism?

Personally these issues (Brigham Young's racism, and Joseph Smith's young brides) don't bother me. What I don't understand is how we say that morals aren't relative to the situation we are in? Help me understand this.

Thou shalt not kill

Unless we are at war

Unless it is self defense

Unless you are defending someone else

Unless it is an authorized execution

Unless it will end more deaths and more wars

Unless it is a case of rape or incest

Moral relativism? Of course not!

[cinepro]

While we must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their right to explain and advocate their positions, we are not required to respect and tolerate wrong behavior. Our duty to truth requires us to seek relief from behavior that is wrong. This is easy with extreme behaviors that most believers and nonbelievers recognize as wrong or unacceptable.

So, if I were LDS in 1970 and felt that the priesthood ban was a "wrong behavior", what would the proper course of action be?

Edited February 12, 2013 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited February 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Elder Oaks didn't say "modesty", he said that "moral relativism" leads to "piercing of body parts".

He was talking about people having more than only one piercing in each ear for one pair of earrings. That would be an example of modesty in regards to piercings. Moral relativism in regards to piercings would be when people think it's good or okay to have more than that, and in places where earrings are not appropriate.

If things like "piercings" are appropriate variables in the principle of modesty, then they are really bad examples to bring up in a discussion of moral relativity, because LDS believe these things are relative.

Moral relativity can involve all sorts of things. There's no good reason to exclude things like piercings or modesty when talking about what moral relativism is.

[Ahab]

So, if I were LDS in 1970 and felt that the priesthood ban was a "wrong behavior", what would the proper course of action be?

Ask God to help you see if or how it was the right course of action at that particular moment in time.

[cinepro]

Thou shalt not kill

Unless we are at war

Unless it is self defense

Unless you are defending someone else

Unless it is an authorized execution

Unless it will end more deaths and more wars

Unless it is a case of rape or incest

Moral relativism? Of course not!

Saying "anything that God says is right (for me)" isn't any less relative than "anything that I say is right (for me)".

We can say that God is a better standard to rely on than our own logic and/or feelings, but it's still relative and subject to change. Especially since God's standards are apparently influenced by the surrounding cultural mores of the time, just like all the other cultural relativists.

There could even be instances where God's morals (as expressed through LDS Church statements and policies) were actually behind the culture and other moral relativists of the time.

Ultimately, LDS are all moral relativists too, but we use LDS Church teachings and policies as a very important factor in determining our personal "morality".

Edited February 12, 2013 by cinepro

[Ahab]

Saying "anything that God says is right (for me)" isn't any less relative than "anything that I say is right (for me)".

We can say that God is a better standard to rely on than our own logic and/or feelings, but it's still relative and subject to change. Especially since God's standards are apparently influenced by the surrounding cultural mores of the time, just like all the other cultural relativists.

There could even be instances where God's morals (as expressed through LDS Church statements and policies) were actually behind the culture and other moral relativists of the time.

Regardless of any of that, what is morally correct isn't up to our personal interpretation or ideas of what is morally correct, though.

Something is either right, or it is wrong, regardless of how we feel about it or what we think.

Ultimately, LDS are all moral relativists too, but we use LDS Church teachings and policies as a very important factor in determining our personal "morality".

No, we are not moral relativists in the way you seem to be thinking, or at least not all of us are. Some of us rely on God to tell us what is right or wrong, not being sure about which way to go until he actually tells us. In cases like that, we're not determing what is right or wrong based on how we feel or what we think, but on what God tells us about his thoughts and feelings.

If you can't tell the difference between that and what moral relativists do, well, I'm not sure what to do to help you to see it.

[BlueDreams]

One distinction is relevant here: the nature of truth and what is true. Elder Oaks starts by saying the nature of truth is important yet little is said about it and more about what propositions are true. That Jesus is "the truth" is clearly symbolic and His answer doesn't answer what is true in the epistemological sense of the word. It would make no sense to think the answer (the true answer) to the question "What is truth?" is "Jesus".

Quick point that I don't know if it's been made yes....but Jesus as "the truth" isn't necessarily 'clearly symbolic." In fact I think the gospel and bible make more sense when that is taken more literally than allegorically in the church. THe answer is only illogical when it's taken from the greek-influenced idea of life, word, and truth.

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

Saying "anything that God says is right (for me)" isn't any less relative than "anything that I say is right (for me)".

We can say that God is a better standard to rely on than our own logic and/or feelings, but it's still relative and subject to change. Especially since God's standards are apparently influenced by the surrounding cultural mores of the time, just like all the other cultural relativists.

There could even be instances where God's morals (as expressed through LDS Church statements and policies) were actually behind the culture and other moral relativists of the time.

Ultimately, LDS are all moral relativists too, but we use LDS Church teachings and policies as a very important factor in determining our personal "morality".

Sorry. I don't have a clue what you are saying and how you got two rep points for this or what this has to do with my post.

[TAO]

Cinepro, it might be good to clarify what you think moral relativism is before you address mfb's post. I think you guys are using different definitions.

[Sky]

Elder Oaks' main concern with moral relativism can be summed up to this:

“More and more of our citizens support the idea that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made and can be accepted or rejected as one chooses. Each person is free to decide for himself or herself what is right and wrong. Our children face the challenge of living in an increasingly godless and amoral society.”

...“moral relativism leads to a loss of respect for religion and even to anger against religion and the guilt that is seen to flow from it. As it diminishes religion, it encourages the proliferation of rights that claim ascendency over the free exercise of religion.

He's talking about something much larger than just what happens within the LDS Church.

For more detailed information about his concerns, see here.

[Sky]

Can someone explain to me how LDS in 2013 are not "moral relativists" compared to the LDS of 1865, 1920, and 1955?

Have some things changed? Absolutely. But shouldn't we expect this in a church that claims to be led by continuing revelation? While certain policies have changed and some ideas have fallen out of favor (which were never doctrine in the first place), the core principles and doctrines of our faith have remained constant.

...future generations of LDS will probably have drastically more liberal attitudes compared to ours (and Elder Oaks').

that's probably true. But there will always be a living prophet at the head of the Church. And he will occasionally say things that may irritate us, or challenge our modern sensibilities and notions.

Heck, when it comes to "piercing of body parts", how is it not "moral relativism" to accept one pair of earrings for women while condemning anything else? How could anything be more arbitrary and "relative" than that?

I'm assuming that the prophet at the time (President Hinckley) prayed about the matter. And God confirmed to him that one pair of earrings for women is acceptable to Him, but is less than pleased with anything more. Is wearing more than one pair of earrings a grave sin? Probably not. But our bodies are temples, and God wants us to treat them with respect. The true test may have been to test our attitudes and our willingness to obey the prophet's direction. These, as I understand it, are absolute truths.

[Ahab]

Sorry. I don't have a clue what you are saying and how you got two rep points for this or what this has to do with my post.

Little green men have sychopants, too, ya know. Whatever he says is "truth" to them.

[cinepro]

Elder Oaks' main concern with moral relativism can be summed up to this:

He's talking about something much larger than just what happens within the LDS Church.

For more detailed information about his concerns, see here.

So the "moral relativists" rail against religion for infringing upon their freedoms, while the religionists rail against the moral relativists for infringing upon their freedoms.

How poetic.

[Ahab]

So the "moral relativists" rail against religion for infringing upon their freedoms, while the religionists rail against the moral relativists for infringing upon their freedoms.

How poetic.

Not railing against their freedoms, but railing against what they consider to be moral.

They are free to say whatever they want is moral, but the fact that they say it is moral doesn't mean it is moral.

[cinepro]

Not railing against their freedoms, but railing against what they consider to be moral.

They are free to say whatever they want is moral, but the fact that they say it is moral doesn't mean it is moral.

That's not what he said:

As [moral relativism] diminishes religion, it encourages the proliferation of rights that claim ascendency over the free exercise of religion.

[cinepro]

I'm assuming that the prophet at the time (President Hinckley) prayed about the matter.

There is nothing more comforting than a moral absolutist who has to assume the prophet prayed about something.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am really confused about what moral relativism means I guess.

...“moral relativism leads to a loss of respect for religion and even to anger against religion and the guilt that is seen to flow from it. As it diminishes religion, it encourages the proliferation of rights that claim ascendency over the free exercise of religion.

Isn't the free exercise of religion a result of moral relativism? I mean isn't it the idea that maybe I don't have a monopoly on god and I should live and let live the reason we have the first amendment? If we believed in moral absolutism shouldn't we be modeling our government similar to how they run things in Iran? Is that what we are pushing for?

[Ahab]

I am really confused about what moral relativism means I guess.

Isn't the free exercise of religion a result of moral relativism?

That's a good way to look at it, yes, from each religion stating what they believe is true (including what is moral) as if what they believe is true even though it may not be what is actually true. The free exercise of religion doesn't prohibit someone from actually finding the truth and declaring what they then believe is true, though. We have many religions who believe they have the truth, on many issues, but not all they believe is true is the truth.

I mean isn't it the idea that maybe I don't have a monopoly on god and I should live and let live the reason we have the first amendment?

No, that's not what the idea behind moral relativism is, but that is often associated with the idea.

If we believed in moral absolutism shouldn't we be modeling our government similar to how they run things in Iran? Is that what we are pushing for?

I don't know much about how they do things in Iran. What do you mean, exactly?

[cinepro]

Sorry. I don't have a clue what you are saying and how you got two rep points for this or what this has to do with my post.

Let's use your first point as an example:

Thou shalt not kill

Unless we are at war

There is not universal agreement on this point even among believers in God. For example, there have been religious groups that do not view war as a moral exception to the commandment not to "kill".

Since there is disagreement on this point among religions, are we saying that religions themselves can be "moral relativists"? And if religions can get their "morality" on certain issues wrong, it then falls to each of us to discern where they are right, and where they are wrong, and we've found ourselves in the same position as all the other "moral relativists".

We each decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, some using religions as a big influence (among many others), some not so big, and others almost none at all. The only difference is that apparently some have a better understanding of how the system actually works.

You don't even have to go outside Mormonism to see this point. Can you name a single social/moral issue upon which all faithful, active LDS agree? Even on basic issues, you can find a variety of moral beliefs in almost any ward. Are the people that have personal beliefs that contradict LDS policy or common assumptive LDS positions somehow less "LDS" and more "relative" than those who always toe the line?

And since LDS moral practices and interpretations can change over time, how do we know whether someone is on the road to apostasy, or just ahead of their time?

Edited February 13, 2013 by cinepro

[Ahab]

We each decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, some using religions as a big influence (among many others), some not so big, and others almost none at all.

Again, for the record, we don't all decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, because some of us aren't sure either way until God lets us know what is right and wrong. At that point he is the one who has done the deciding, and people like me are perfectly okay with his decision even though I and others may have some trouble living up to his standards.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No, that's not what the idea behind moral relativism is, but that is often associated with the idea.

I don't know much about how they do things in Iran. What do you mean, exactly?

From wiki:

Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; andnormative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

Can you tell me what moral relativism is to you? It appears to me that moral relativism means that we recognize that different people believe different things and decide to tolerate such beliefs. Hence we stopped burning protestants at the stake a few hundred years ago. It's the belief that we should let other people live according to the dictates of their own conscience. If we didn't have moral relativism wouldn't we run things as a theocracy (like Iran) and enforce our morals by law? Shouldn't we punish adulterers and other sinners?

[cinepro]

Again, for the record, we don't all decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, because some of us aren't sure either way until God lets us know what is right and wrong. At that point he is the one who has done the deciding, and people like me are perfectly okay with his decision even though I and others may have some trouble living up to his standards.

But in a Church with fallible leaders, I would hope we would at least be "relativists" at a measure equal to the fallibility of our leaders.

[Ahab]

From wiki:

Can you tell me what moral relativism is to you?

To me, moral relativism is about thinking something is moral because we think it is moral.

Now consider the idea that what we think is moral may not actually be moral, and the fact that just because we think something is good doesn't necessarily mean it is good. Whose standards would we go by, then? If we don't trust our own judgment because we acknowledge the fact that we may be wrong, who do we look to for guidance? For me, those persons are God, regardless of what others may say.

It appears to me that moral relativism means that we recognize that different people believe different things and decide to tolerate such beliefs.

First I try to teach others who disagree with me (and God) how they can know what is true, as I do, from what God has told me, and then I just try to tolerate it if they still want to believe something contrary to what God has told me. What else can I do without getting myself into trouble?

Hence we stopped burning protestants at the stake a few hundred years ago.

Yeah, better to hope they'll learn later, before it's too late, than to send them on to the next stage of our existence while they are wrong in their beliefs. And the Catholics shouldn't have been doing that anyway, since they were usually the ones who were wrong.

It's the belief that we should let other people live according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Yeah. I mean they're going to do that anyway, as I see it. I'd rather just hope they'll learn more as they keep on living.

If we didn't have moral relativism wouldn't we run things as a theocracy (like Iran) and enforce our morals by law? Shouldn't we punish adulterers and other sinners?

I think we should, but we should be lenient and merciful while holding out hope for those who haven't learned everything yet. Not all crimes or violations against God's will have to be punishable by death, ya know. And rehabilitation is better than punishment, too.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Ahab