mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) duplicate Edited February 12, 2015 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) 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.Alright Mr. Smarty Pants, I'll rephrase the question for you by typing some extra words.1. Do you think we should always follow our conscience? OR2. Do you think the opposite, that there are times we should not follow our conscience and hence that means you think we should not "always" follow our conscience?I'm a proponent of option #1 above, but don't give in to peer pressure and just make up your own mind. Edited February 12, 2015 by Ahab
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Alright Mr. Smarty Pants, I'll rephrase the question for you by typing some extra words.1. Do you think we should always follow our conscience?OR2. Do you think the opposite, that there are times we should not follow our conscience and hence that means you think we should not "always" follow our conscience?I'm a proponent of option #1 above, but don't give in to peer pressure and just make up your own mind.I think we should reason it out in our minds and then follow our "gut" and do our best to make the best choice. That formulation is in line with what I said above in post 49 Does that help? Probably not. Follow your gut as long as it's right. You like ambiguous? I can do that too! How about a little dance number I come up with on the spot? Soft shoe anyone? Edited February 12, 2015 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 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.One more. In fact just read my quote from Calmoriah below, in my siggy- something she said, what, now 7 or 8 years ago? Holy cow! I have been here that long?
JLHPROF Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Alright Mr. Smarty Pants, I'll rephrase the question for you by typing some extra words.1. Do you think we should always follow our conscience?OR2. Do you think the opposite, that there are times we should not follow our conscience and hence that means you think we should not "always" follow our conscience?I'm a proponent of option #1 above, but don't give in to peer pressure and just make up your own mind. #2, based on my definition of conscience.
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 #2, based on my definition of conscience.Alright, I'll bite, what is your definition of conscience?
Ahab Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 I think we should reason it out in our minds and then follow our "gut" and do our best to make the best choice. That formulation is in line with what I said above in post 49Does that help?Probably not.Follow your gut as long as it's right. You like ambiguous? I can do that too!How about a little dance number I come up with on the spot? Soft shoe anyone?In my paradigm the "gut" is always right even though sometimes we "wrestle" with what our "gut" is telling us we should do. Kinda like killing a chicken and getting it ready for someone to eat it. It can feel kinda icky, at least the first time, but we all need to eat a little protein sometimes. And killing a man is never easy to do either but sometimes it still needs to be done.
JLHPROF Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Alright, I'll bite, what is your definition of conscience? Conscience is only what we are conditioned or taught to accept. The death penalty and the right to have a gun troubles a liberal conscience but not a conservative. Abortion and socialism bother the conscience of conservatives but not liberals.Our "conscience" is what our mind tells us is right or wrong based on how we believe. The ancient Aztecs conscience wasn't troubled in the slightest by cutting out a beating heart. To a cannibal's conscience they're just having a meal. Your average sociopath or psychopath can have a conscience that tells them all kinds of twisted behavior is just fine. There is not a speck of anxiety from a trouble conscience. Light of Christ is what you are calling conscience, which is when our spirit is told something is right or wrong. The gift of the Holy Ghost is a more certain version of that. (Although the difference between the LoC and the GotHG is a subject for another thread). Every man is born with the light of Christ but sometimes their conscience can actually overrule that as in the examples above. Relying on our conscience is not as advisable as you are making it sound. Relying on the spirit is much better. Conscience in my opinion is a function of mortality. That is why we need the gift of the Holy Ghost to speak to our spirits and give us peace when our conscience is troubled. Everything in the Victorian conscience of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith said polygamy was BAD!! The spirit taught them otherwise. Nephi's conscience told him it was wrong to kill Laban in cold blood. The spirit taught him otherwise. Conscience is human, the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost are divine teachers that overcome our mortal conscience.
Ahab Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 Why would you say that?Just comply, why don't ya? 1
Ahab Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) duplicate Edited February 13, 2015 by Ahab 1
Ahab Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 Conscience is only what we are conditioned or taught to accept. The death penalty and the right to have a gun troubles a liberal conscience but not a conservative. Abortion and socialism bother the conscience of conservatives but not liberals.Our "conscience" is what our mind tells us is right or wrong based on how we believe. The ancient Aztecs conscience wasn't troubled in the slightest by cutting out a beating heart. To a cannibal's conscience they're just having a meal. Your average sociopath or psychopath can have a conscience that tells them all kinds of twisted behavior is just fine. There is not a speck of anxiety from a trouble conscience.Light of Christ is what you are calling conscience, which is when our spirit is told something is right or wrong. The gift of the Holy Ghost is a more certain version of that. (Although the difference between the LoC and the GotHG is a subject for another thread). Every man is born with the light of Christ but sometimes their conscience can actually overrule that as in the examples above. Relying on our conscience is not as advisable as you are making it sound. Relying on the spirit is much better.Conscience in my opinion is a function of mortality. That is why we need the gift of the Holy Ghost to speak to our spirits and give us peace when our conscience is troubled. Everything in the Victorian conscience of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith said polygamy was BAD!! The spirit taught them otherwise. Nephi's conscience told him it was wrong to kill Laban in cold blood. The spirit taught him otherwise.Conscience is human, the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost are divine teachers that overcome our mortal conscience.You are right that I correlate our conscience with the light of Christ, but what you think of as our conscience is what I call conditioning or giving in to the power of stupidity by not seeking out intelligence and wisdom for guidance. As an example of conditioning, consider a child who is told by his parents that eating meat is bad, if he even goes to the trouble of asking them about it, and is accustomed to eating his meals without eating meat, meaning the flesh of amimals, or if not that extreme without any red meat if his parents think white meat is okay. So he just goes along with it, not thinking much if anything about it, except that it's bad if he is told anything about it because his parents told him it is bad. And of course it must be bad if his parents told him it is bad, right? Surely the thought that they could be wrong about that doesn't even enter into his mind, at least not until he gets a little bit older. But as a child he is conditioned to think that red meat is bad, and the moment he eats any of it his parents are quick to reinforce how bad it is.But then one day, as he gets a little older, he gets the idea that maybe red meat isn't really bad after all. So he thinks about it, maybe even reads an article or two about it, and after shaking off the power of stupidity arrives at the conclusion that red meat isn't really bad after all. Not as good for his body as white meat and fish, maybe, but still a good thing to eat. And it tastes good to him too. So he sees that his parents were wrong ny telling him it is bad. Imagine that. His parents were wrong, and still are wrong. And whether or not his parents ever accept the idea that red meat is good his conscience is clear when he eats red meat. He may just decide to not eat it around them because of the cpbditioning that he still remembers.
JLHPROF Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 You are right that I correlate our conscience with the light of Christ, but what you think of as our conscience is what I call conditioning or giving in to the power of stupidity by not seeking out intelligence and wisdom for guidance.As an example of conditioning, consider a child who is told by his parents that eating meat is bad, if he even goes to the trouble of asking them about it, and is accustomed to eating his meals without eating meat, meaning the flesh of amimals, or if not that extreme without any red meat if his parents think white meat is okay. So he just goes along with it, not thinking much if anything about it, except that it's bad if he is told anything about it because his parents told him it is bad. And of course it must be bad if his parents told him it is bad, right? Surely the thought that they could be wrong about that doesn't even enter into his mind, at least not until he gets a little bit older. But as a child he is conditioned to think that red meat is bad, and the moment he eats any of it his parents are quick to reinforce how bad it is.But then one day, as he gets a little older, he gets the idea that maybe red meat isn't really bad after all. So he thinks about it, maybe even reads an article or two about it, and after shaking off the power of stupidity arrives at the conclusion that red meat isn't really bad after all. Not as good for his body as white meat and fish, maybe, but still a good thing to eat. And it tastes good to him too. So he sees that his parents were wrong ny telling him it is bad. Imagine that. His parents were wrong, and still are wrong. And whether or not his parents ever accept the idea that red meat is good his conscience is clear when he eats red meat. He may just decide to not eat it around them because of the cpbditioning that he still remembers. I agree with your example 100%. But I still maintain that this is conscience, separate from the Light of Christ. I consider our conditioning to be our conscience. I consider the Light of Christ (and more fully the Holy Ghost) to be the thing that supercedes our conscience.
Ahab Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 I agree with your example 100%. But I still maintain that this is conscience, separate from the Light of Christ. I consider our conditioning to be our conscience. I consider the Light of Christ (and more fully the Holy Ghost) to be the thing that supercedes our conscience.Yeah I know so we just do not agree on this issue. You might want to give it some more thought though. The light of Christ isn't really superseded by the Holy Ghost, for one thing. Think about how they both should be in agreement.
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Why would you say that?Huh?You mean you saw it before I changed it?
USU78 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Huh?You mean you saw it before I changed it?Joke
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Generally one's sense of right and wrong can be relied on but not always. Which side was Abraham's conscience on when he took his son on a day trip up Mount Moriah? Why do you assume that Abraham made the right choice? Is it your recommendation that someone should kill another person if they believe God is telling them to do it? My advice would be to check into a mental institution.
mfbukowski Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 JokePhewI thought I was busted- that was not really a "duplicate"
Ahab Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 PhewI thought I was busted- that was not really a "duplicate" Yeah I know. It was an imperative to duplicate. And I did, just as you commanded. 2
Ahab Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 Why do you assume that Abraham made the right choice? Is it your recommendation that someone should kill another person if they believe God is telling them to do it? My advice would be to check into a mental institution.My advice would be to do as God commanded as long as you were totally sure it was God who commanded you to do that. If God told you to do that, why wouldn't you at least proceed as if you were going to do that?
wtrdog Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 My advice would be to do as God commanded as long as you were totally sure it was God who commanded you to do that. If God told you to do that, why wouldn't you at least proceed as if you were going to do that? This is highly irresponsible advice imho. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/05/woman-kills-toddler-while-reenacting-story-of-abraham/ How exactly might someone be "totally sure" it was God commanding them? I'm hoping I don't have to make a list of all the things prophets have gotten wrong...? Given how often prophets have been wrong, completely and totally wrong, on what basis do we conclude Abraham was being 1) commanded by God and 2) that choosing to murder his son was the correct choice? There is no basis. Assuming the incident actually happened, perhaps it was an object lesson on what not to do, to not be persuaded to follow false spirits. What is the line in the sand, what exactly would be required to qualify as "totally sure?" I personally do not believe that God would command me to commit evil. And if I did truly believe I was being commanded by God, my reaction would be to ask "why?" I wholly reject the idea of blind obedience, "I know not save the Lord commanded me." This is an old testament letter-of-the-law mindset which is precisely what Christ taught against. The purpose of the atonement is to become master of the law, not a subject unto it. It is not possible to truly follow the law without understanding it.
The Nehor Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Why do you assume that Abraham made the right choice? Is it your recommendation that someone should kill another person if they believe God is telling them to do it? My advice would be to check into a mental institution.Physician, heal thyself.
mfbukowski Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 Yeah I know. It was an imperative to duplicate.And I did, just as you commanded.LOL!!!! Who knew?? Ahab is FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!
sethpayne Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 I agree with you, but I think it's an assumption to say that something God asks us to do would never trouble our conscience. I can think of MANY times in history and scripture where God asked men to do things that troubled their conscience (at least at first). I think such occasions may represent an opportunity to reflect on if we really understand what God is trying to say. For God to violate the Light of Christ would be the exception to the rule.
Tacenda Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 I think such occasions may represent an opportunity to reflect on if we really understand what God is trying to say. For God to violate the Light of Christ would be the exception to the rule.Agree!
Recommended Posts