Following Our Conscience - Right Or Wrong?

[Ahab]

What if your conscience says gay marriage is ok?

Mine doesn't, and tells me the opposite, so I'm not going to be telling anyone that gay marriage is ok while my conscience is telling me the opposite. And I'm also not going to think someone else's conscience is telling them that gay marriage is ok, because I believe our consciences should agree, since each of our consciences is the light of Christ, or Christ helping us to know and differentiate between good and evil.

So my questions would go toward asking someone who said that what it is that makes them think it is their "conscience" that is telling them that, rather than some other "voice" in their head. And is it really telling them that it is ok or is it rather just not saying much of anything, with that person interpreting that silence as approval. And what exactly is it saying is ok? I can see how it is good for 2 people of the same sex, both male, to love each other and to want to be in a special relationship with each other, even while considering each other to be sexually attractive, but I can also see and understand that it wouldn't be a good thing for those men to have sexual relations with each other and to be refusing to have a wife, to love her and build a life with her and give her the intimacy that she needs from a man.

So, basically, I would probe some more to find out what someone thinks their conscience is and why they think it is telling them to do something that my conscience tells me is bad.

I do beliwve we should all follow our conscience, but we need to be sure that what we are following is truly our conscience, and that we're interpreting our conscience correctly.

If yours doesn't tell you the same thing, or doesn't say either way which you might be interpreting as an approval, then ponder some more to analyze exactly what it is saying.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Ahab

[JLHPROF]

Mine doesn't, and tells me the opposite, so I'm not going to be telling anyone that gay marriage is ok while my conscience is telling me the opposite. And I'm also not going to think someone else's conscience is telling them that gay marriage is ok, because I believe our consciences should agree, since each of our consciences is the light of Christ, or Christ helping us to know and differentiate between good and evil.

So my questions would go toward asking someone who said that what it is that makes them think it is their "conscience" that is telling them that, rather than some other "voice" in their head. And is it really telling them that it is ok or is it rather just not saying much of anything, with that person interpreting that silence as approval. And what exactly is it saying is ok? I can see how it is good for 2 people of the same sex, both male, to love each other and to want to be in a special relationship with each other, even while cpnsidering each orher to be sexually attractive, but I can also see and understand that it wouldn't be a good thing for those men to have sexual relations with each other and to be refusing to have a wife, to love her and build a life with her and give her the intimacy that she needs from a man.

So, basically, I would probe some more to find out what someone thinks their conscience is why they think it is telling them to do something that my conscience tells me is bad.

I do beliwve we should all follow our conscience, but we need to be sure that what we are following is truly our conscience, and that we're interpreting our conscience correctly.

If yours doesn't tell you the same thing, or doesn't say either way which you might be interpreting as an approval, then ponder some more to analyze exactly what it is

 

Based on this I don't think you are actually talking about our conscience.

[Ahab]

Based on this I don't think you are actually talking about our conscience.

My conscience tells me otherwise and I see no good reason to ignore it for your approval.

[JLHPROF]

My conscience tells me otherwise and I see no good reason to ignore it for your approval.

 

Well, it's your thread.  You are welcome to define conscience however you like.  Doesn't mean that's what a conscience actually is, but you have every right to define it on this thread.

[The Nehor]

Military men, including the highest ranking, must often go against conscience in obedience to orders from above.  The same is true in law enforcement and in any intelligence-gathering agency.  The discipline must be harsh, and obedience immediate.  Lives hang in the balance.  Men don't find it easy to kill, nor do they handle the deaths of their close friends well.  Many are permanently traumatized and feel guilty for what they had to do under such circumstances (in the name of national security).  Yet the lives of a nation may be at stake, and such men are oath-bound to obey orders.

 

Fortunately we are moving beyond that. Now we just send out unmanned death vehicles and kill people with no risk. Admittedly we have no controls or oversight or transparency or even a requirement to know who the people in the area when launching such a strike. Wait....is this actually any better?

[mfbukowski]

Right or wrong?

 

LOL!

 

How do you know what IS right or wrong without your conscience????

 

What kind of question is that???

[mfbukowski]

Yes, sometimes you have to do something wrong for a greater good.

 

That is called a "sacrifice".  One good takes priority over another.

[Vanguard]

In a thread that is now closed I was promoting the idea that we should do only what we feel right about doing, and not do something when we don't feel right about it.

SOMEONE soon responded by saying something about how that sounded like a strange idea with some examples of some people doing some things even when they don't feel right about what they are doing. As if to say that we sometimes should do some things even when we don't feel right about what we are doing. As if to say that we shouldn't always follow what we generally refer to as our "conscience".

SOME OTHER PERSON soon followed that up by saying he agreed with what that other person had said.

So I'm starting this thread for others to share their ideas about whether or not we should always follow our conscience, and also to talk about what we mean by our "conscience".

To me, following my conscience means to follow God, by doing what he wants me to do and also by not doing what he doesn't want me to do. It's as if God is saying No or Yes to each thing I feel in my conscious thoughts, with the guidance being the same or at least in harmony with what our Father would tell me whether by his own mouth or through others who deliver messages for him.

So of course I believe I should always follow my conscience, by doing only what I feel is right and also by not doing what I feel is wrong. Even when others, other than God (the big 3), do not agree that I should and give me counsel that does not agree with what God is telling me through my conscience.

Please chime in to share how you feel on this issue.

 

 

Your sentiments are pretty much in alignment with mine. For those who would agree with these sentiments, the challenge comes when others provide counseling contrary to how we might feel in the moment though it may be counseling that we would do well to heed. I never want to let my ego get in the way of someone who has something valuable to say for my benefit even if I might disagree in the moment.

[Ahab]

Your sentiments are pretty much in alignment with mine. For those who would agree with these sentiments, the challenge comes when others provide counseling contrary to how we might feel in the moment though it may be counseling that we would do well to heed. I never want to let my ego get in the way of someone who has something valuable to say for my benefit even if I might disagree in the moment.

That's why pondering is sometimes helpful, rather than always making quick decisions based on first impressions. Our Lord tells us to study things out in our minds, and we know our mind is our spirit, which means we are told to think with our spirits rather than by using only the other 5 senses. But the bottom line is still the same. If it feels right, on a spiritual level, do it, and if it doesn't feel right don't do it. Can't do any better than that.

[Ahab]

Yes, sometimes you have to do something wrong for a greater good.

That is called a "sacrifice". One good takes priority over another.

Like the idea that it's okay to lie to catch a Mormon in a lie and expose him for the scoundrel he really is?

No, nobody ever has to do anything that is wrong. We can't always do the best thing that could be done, maybe, but we can always do something that is good. Just ponder and study things out in your mind if you think otherwise.

[Ahab]

Right or wrong?

LOL!

How do you know what IS right or wrong without your conscience????

What kind of question is that???

The stupid kind. Your conscience is what you need to use to know what is right or wrong. Edited February 11, 2015 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Well, it's your thread. You are welcome to define conscience however you like. Doesn't mean that's what a conscience actually is, but you have every right to define it on this thread.

I'm tempted to say something sarcastic, again, but my conscience is telling me that wouldn't be appropriate now. I'll check back again sometime later. Meanwhile, you can believe a conscience is whatever you think it is.

[Nofear]

Brigham Young had this to say,

If I ask him to give me wisdom concerning any requirement in life, or in regard to my own course, or that of my friends, my family, my children, or those that I preside over, and get no answer from him, and then do the very best that my judgment will teach me, he is bound to own and honor that transaction, and he will do so to all intents and purposes (DBY, 43).

 

The Lord is not bound when we seek His will and we ignore it or set it aside "supposing they know of themselves" (2 Nephi 9:28). But it is not always the case that we will be instructed in all things and it's not always a case of ignoring God's will when we don't have an answer. God sometimes, if not frequently, expects us to exercise our own judgment and prudence. Is it possible two individuals in their individual exercise of judgment and prudence come to variant conclusions? Certainly. Nonetheless, God will honor our efforts when done with sincere intentions and when exercised in the domain of our stewardship. God is quite capable and willing to correct us (even while honoring our agency) when a particular instance of our own judgment and prudence is... well, stupid.

 

 

 

PS: Chapter 6 of the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young has lots of good and relevant quotes.

[thesometimesaint]

The stupid kind. Your conscience is what you need to use to know what is right or wrong.

 

Your conscience right to swing your conscience fist end at my conscience nose.

[smac97]

I think one should always follow his/her conscience provided that his/her conscience is A) factually well-informed, B) doctrinally well-informed, and C) spiritually well-informed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

Brigham Young had this to say,

The Lord is not bound when we seek His will and we ignore it or set it aside "supposing they know of themselves" (2 Nephi 9:28). But it is not always the case that we will be instructed in all things and it's not always a case of ignoring God's will when we don't have an answer. God sometimes, if not frequently, expects us to exercise our own judgment and prudence. Is it possible two individuals in their individual exercise of judgment and prudence come to variant conclusions? Certainly. Nonetheless, God will honor our efforts when done with sincere intentions and when exercised in the domain of our stewardship. God is quite capable and willing to correct us (even while honoring our agency) when a particular instance of our own judgment and prudence is... well, stupid.

PS: Chapter 6 of the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young has lots of good and relevant quotes.

I think this is taking into consideration what we usually refer to as common sense, or living by the light we already have accepted. I often do things based on what has worked well for me in the past, without receiving additional wisdom or insights, and I feel that it is omly right to do what I already think is right based on my past experiences which have help me to feel right about my current path in life. We don't need to keep receiving revelations from God about things we know he has already taught us.

[Ahab]

What about Saul/Paul? He was traveling the holy land to persecute the christians. From what I read Saul/Paul thought he was doing right, but the Lord did set him straight. Just a thought.

The writer of Acts said that our Lord told Saul/Paul that it was hard for him to kick against the "pricks", which is the same word the writer of Acts used when talking about how a lot of people felt after Peter talked to them on the day of Pentecost after our Lord's resurrection. They were pricked in their hearts. They were celebrating and honoring their religious duties while not realizing, some of them at least, that the Jesus that had been crucified was their Messiah. And Saul/Paul was among those who didn't realize what had happened while he continued to observe his religous duties. Later he even saw Stephen being stoned to death, per the law that said blasphemers should be stoned to death, but our Lord knew he didn't feel right about that even as he helped to persecute the "Christians".

So I'd say Saul/Paul was an example of someone on auto-pilot, doing what he had been taught to do without fully realizing what he was doing, persecuting those who followed God while not realizing they were following God and that he wasn't, at that time, even though he thought he was following God. And he was acting against those pricks on his heart, even though that wasn't easy for him to do. It was hard for him to kick against the pricks but he was doing it anyway. He was going against what his conscience was trying to tell him

And then later, when our Lord went to an extreme measure to help Paul realize what he had done, he repented.

[mfbukowski]

I think one should always follow his/her conscience provided that his/her conscience is A) factually well-informed, B) doctrinally well-informed, and C) spiritually well-informed.Thanks,-Smac

Well since most investigators do not qualify in any of those areas, there goes Moroni 10:4

[smac97]

Well since most investigators do not qualify in any of those areas, there goes Moroni 10:4

Your post seems like a drive-by cheap shot, but I'll treat it as an earnest statement anyway. Here are a few thoughts:

1. I've never considered the study of The Book of Mormon and seeking prayerful confirmation of it is a "matter of conscience." That is, a person dealing with "a matter of conscience" must address an issue, the rightness or wrongness of which, or the morality of which, is up for principled debate. For example, same-sex marriage can be seen as a "matter of conscience." Same with the legalization of marijuana or other drugs, or disputes about the death penalty, or female ordination in the LDS Church, and many other things. Reading, studying and praying about the Book of Mormon does not seem to fit into what I normally think of "matters of conscience."

2. I met my wife, dated her for a few months (4), then took a break for two months (she went home for summer break from college, I did some military training), then I flew to her home to meet her parents and propose to her, then we had a 6-month engagement, then I married her. I married her less than a year after I met her, and I did so with the intention of staying with her for the remainder of my life. Prior to proposing I thought about her a lot, prayed about her, went to the temple about her, talked with her to ascertain her feelings for me, and so on. In all of this, I never considered marrying her to be a "matter of conscience." I did not have to choose between good and evil, moral or immoral. I think the same can be said about sincere study of The Book of Mormon.

3. Some decisions in life require a leap of faith. So I think a person can read The Book of Mormon and obtain a spiritual witness of its truth claims and proceed accordingly. This is principally a matter of faith. Of course, we are also commanded to continue to study and gain knowledge about the Restored Gospel. So becoming A) factually well-informed, B) doctrinally well-informed, and C) spiritually well-informed are necessary components to maintaining one's testimony and exercising one's agency in determining "matters of conscience."

In sum, I don't see any conflict between what I wrote and Moroni 10:4.

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

I think this is taking into consideration what we usually refer to as common sense, or living by the light we already have accepted. I often do things based on what has worked well for me in the past, without receiving additional wisdom or insights, and I feel that it is omly right to do what I already think is right based on my past experiences which have help me to feel right about my current path in life. We don't need to keep receiving revelations from God about things we know he has already taught us.

 

Common sense isn't very common.

[The Nehor]

Common sense isn't very common.

It actually is common. What is uncommon is actually using it.

[KevinG]

 We don't need to keep receiving revelations from God about things we know he has already taught us.

 

On the other hand we often need reminders of what He has already taught us.

[Ahab]

On the other hand we often need reminders of what He has already taught us.

So where are we at now? I should have started this thread with a poll. Do you think we should always follow our conscience, or not?

[mfbukowski]

Your post seems like a drive-by cheap shot, but I'll treat it as an earnest statement anyway. Here are a few thoughts:

1. I've never considered the study of The Book of Mormon and seeking prayerful confirmation of it is a "matter of conscience." That is, a person dealing with "a matter of conscience" must address an issue, the rightness or wrongness of which, or the morality of which, is up for principled debate. For example, same-sex marriage can be seen as a "matter of conscience." Same with the legalization of marijuana or other drugs, or disputes about the death penalty, or female ordination in the LDS Church, and many other things. Reading, studying and praying about the Book of Mormon does not seem to fit into what I normally think of "matters of conscience."

2. I met my wife, dated her for a few months (4), then took a break for two months (she went home for summer break from college, I did some military training), then I flew to her home to meet her parents and propose to her, then we had a 6-month engagement, then I married her. I married her less than a year after I met her, and I did so with the intention of staying with her for the remainder of my life. Prior to proposing I thought about her a lot, prayed about her, went to the temple about her, talked with her to ascertain her feelings for me, and so on. In all of this, I never considered marrying her to be a "matter of conscience." I did not have to choose between good and evil, moral or immoral. I think the same can be said about sincere study of The Book of Mormon.

3. Some decisions in life require a leap of faith. So I think a person can read The Book of Mormon and obtain a spiritual witness of its truth claims and proceed accordingly. This is principally a matter of faith. Of course, we are also commanded to continue to study and gain knowledge about the Restored Gospel. So becoming A) factually well-informed, B) doctrinally well-informed, and C) spiritually well-informed are necessary components to maintaining one's testimony and exercising one's agency in determining "matters of conscience."

In sum, I don't see any conflict between what I wrote and Moroni 10:4.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate your response.

 

Unfortunately I have a habit of responding in a way designed to provoke a response, and to boil my point down into a very terse, pointed, and sometimes rude manner, in order to "stir the pot" and get people thinking.   Unfortunately that is often taken as rude, and indeed I am beginning to understand that that is the way it is most often taken.

 

I guess it comes partially from my smart-aleck personality, some personal arrogance, and perhaps too much time debating on internet boards with critics of the church who I think deserve a punch in the nose

 

But that is not you, nor is it most members of this board.

 

I really have to work on that.

 

But I do appreciate your throughtful response.  It points up some good discussion points that I think we all need to think about.

 

I can agree with all you wrote and I think I understand your point, and the distinction you are making.

 

My thought processes are a bit different, however.  I am a student of efforts made throughout the 20th century in what is called "analytical philosophy" which really is about studying how we SPEAK about abstract, philosophical subjects.  Most of this philosophy, nearly all of it in English- indeed it is what American and British philosophers DID for 75 years or so, as distinguished from "Continental Philosophy", as practiced in continental Europe, in the 20th century. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/bridging-the-analytic-continental-divide/?_r=0

 

So the bottom line is that by my training, I naturally think in terms of clear definitions of abstract terms like "conscience" and tend to eschew making fine distinctions which perhaps are not easily defined.  When you raise such a distinction, I want to know precisely how "matters of conscience" can be distinguished from "moral truths" and say, personal revelation that a particular belief is "right"

 

The bottom line for me is that I don't think such a distinction can be made in a consistent and logical manner.   Is knowing that murder is wrong a "matter of conscience"?   Is knowing that a given passage in the Book of Mormon is "right", a "matter of conscience"?  Is it a matter of "personal revelation"? 

 

I really appreciated your story about meeting your wife- indeed my experience was very similar.  I knew for a fact that we would be married in fact, on our first date, though I would never admit that until probably a year or two later.  I took her to a movie and sat there crying for most of it because I knew I had found my soul-mate after perhaps knowing her for, in total, after a few brief discussions, an hour.   After that movie we talked for hours and hours and it just confirmed what I already knew.   We did not get married for a year "just to make sure", and have been married now 35 years, and I cannot conceive being without her.

 

But what was that??   Was it a "matter of conscience"?  Was it "personal revelation"?  Was it "knowing it was right"?  Was it an abstract experience of "truth"?

 

I have no clue how to parse that.   I don't think we can make such distinctions with precision.

 

It's what we commonly call something you "know in your gut".   It is what your heart tells you.  It comes from your innermost being, from who you are as a person.

 

So for me, there is no useful distinction which can be made between an Alma 32 experience and a Moroni 10 experience and knowing "in my gut" that I need to be kinder on the internet, or that murder is wrong, or that I love my grandchildren and would die for them in a flash.

 

It's not a question of whether we can say that there IS a difference- I think that clearly personal revelation is different than falling in love.   I think that clearly falling in love has very little to do with knowing that murder is wrong.

 

Yet can those differences be sliced and diced into clear and logical distinctions which can be defined, and parsed, and re-asserted without confusion or ambiguity?

 

Not a chance!   All these are things you just "know" from your "gut" or "heart" or "brain" or "intuition" or whatever word you want to pick.  Indeed that is the problem- picking the word.

 

Ultimately it comes down to semantics, and how any given individual wants to express it.   I suspect you will want to parse it and create a distinction which we could debate until doomsday, but at this moment I am skeptical of the utility of such an exercise.

[mfbukowski]

So where are we at now? I should have started this thread with a poll. Do you think we should always follow our conscience, or not?

Yes.

 

What does that "yes" mean?  It means I think we should follow our conscience or not.

 

The question itself is too ambiguous.  A poll would not have helped.