stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Our local area of church members seem to be on a kick of battling against moral relativism. And they've defined it like Elder Oaks has here: Quote The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong, is becoming the unofficial creed for many in America and other Western nations. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks_truth-and-tolerance/ I bring this here because i'm like, what's the big deal? I think each person choosing for him/herself what is right or wrong, is all we have. I'll also add that some things that members in my ward, for instance, view as moral may not be so moral to me. Comments welcome. if another Rorty video is needed, I'm all for it.
ksfisher Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Not my will, but thy will be done is what the gospel teaches us. While each of us may have a different degree of knowledge or a different perspective, as we grow and mature in the gospel we come closer to knowing the mind and will of God. We are also the Light of Christ, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, scriptures, prayer, as well as prophets to help us. We are given parents and priesthood leaders. We are never left to figure things out alone, God is more that willing to help us. We are taught in the Book of Mormon that all good things come from Christ (Moroni 7). Morality ultimately comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Any other kind or type of moral teaching is founded upon a sandy foundation and will fail in the end. 3
thesometimesaint Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) That hubris is breathtaking. SEE https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silver_rule Edited July 20, 2016 by thesometimesaint
RevTestament Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 51 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Our local area of church members seem to be on a kick of battling against moral relativism. And they've defined it like Elder Oaks has here: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks_truth-and-tolerance/ I bring this here because i'm like, what's the big deal? I think each person choosing for him/herself what is right or wrong, is all we have. I'll also add that some things that members in my ward, for instance, view as moral may not be so moral to me. Comments welcome. if another Rorty video is needed, I'm all for it. Wow. The law defines what is right and wrong. To break it is wrong to God. Those wrongs still apply even if Jesus lifted the temporal punishment. The eternal punishment still applies unless we repent. You don't seem to have even a rudimentary handle on the gospel - no offense intended. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 56 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Our local area of church members seem to be on a kick of battling against moral relativism. And they've defined it like Elder Oaks has here: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks_truth-and-tolerance/ I bring this here because i'm like, what's the big deal? I think each person choosing for him/herself what is right or wrong, is all we have. I'll also add that some things that members in my ward, for instance, view as moral may not be so moral to me. Comments welcome. if another Rorty video is needed, I'm all for it. LOL! Well I think the problem here is that even the view that morality is eternal and never changes is one position among many- it is a paradigm we choose to live. Were that not so, we would be following Satan's plan and have no agency So yes an absolute morality is relatively true, just as everything else is Absolutists seldom consider their point of view as relative to themselves. For the record, I consider myself an "absolutist" who thinks that the principles of morality as they have evolved for mankind ARE the best principles- the commandments are tried and true and the best rules for all societies. Why? There are two ways to look at this. 1- God says so 2- These principles have themselves evolved because all humans have the same needs. We all want peace and a nice life. People who steal disrupt a peaceful society. People who commit adultery disrupt a peaceful society. People who covet disrupt a peaceful society. For what it's worth, I think both these principles are TRUE in an Alma 32 way of seeing it. The first principle is valuable in teaching obedience which is itself a useful principle for society and its members to learn. People who treat others as they want to be treated CREATE peace and harmony, a major human need So quite honestly, I have no problem with the title "moral relativist" because to me the phrase has no meaning. I am in favor of moral principles which are tried and true and work for everyone to give us agency AND peace in society in a perfect balance. If that is called "relativism" I give a little chuckle and really don't give a fig. Again my view, I think combines humanism (principle 2) with theism (principle 1) They are not incompatible. 2
strappinglad Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 I can see stemelbow's point. We all get to choose whom we will obey and in a way we can also choose to obey ourselves. " Choose ye this day.. " implies agency. Moral relativism says one set of morals is just as good as another at any given point in time. Personally, I think the Deceiver is quite happy with that idea. He has promoted it since the beginning. " Ye shall not surely die, for ye shall be as the gods knowing good from evil..." Anybody see the contradiction in that statement ? 1
rockpond Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Our local area of church members seem to be on a kick of battling against moral relativism. And they've defined it like Elder Oaks has here: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks_truth-and-tolerance/ I bring this here because i'm like, what's the big deal? I think each person choosing for him/herself what is right or wrong, is all we have. I'll also add that some things that members in my ward, for instance, view as moral may not be so moral to me. Comments welcome. if another Rorty video is needed, I'm all for it. So wait... is Oaks saying that people should not be free to choose what they believe about right and wrong?
strappinglad Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 To say that we have the agency to believe whatever we want does not mean that all choices are equally good or correct. 1
ksfisher Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: So wait... is Oaks saying that people should not be free to choose what they believe about right and wrong? Where do you see that? I don't see that anywhere in Elder Oaks talk. People are always free to choose what they believe, but truth does not change. "We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments." 1
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: Not my will, but thy will be done is what the gospel teaches us. While each of us may have a different degree of knowledge or a different perspective, as we grow and mature in the gospel we come closer to knowing the mind and will of God. We are also the Light of Christ, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, scriptures, prayer, as well as prophets to help us. We are given parents and priesthood leaders. We are never left to figure things out alone, God is more that willing to help us. We are taught in the Book of Mormon that all good things come from Christ (Moroni 7). Morality ultimately comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Any other kind or type of moral teaching is founded upon a sandy foundation and will fail in the end. I'm not sure what you're saying but it sounds good. How would moral teaching not found amongst Christians, for instance, fail? Or are you saying non Christians value Christian morals (at least in some cases) and therefore ultimately do come from the teachings of Jesus Christ?
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: That hubris is breathtaking. SEE https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/silver_rule Hopefully you're not alluding to my hubris.
mfbukowski Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 President Kimball on Absolute Truth Quote This true way of life is not a matter of opinion. There are absolute truths and relative truths. The rules of dietetics have changed many times in my lifetime. Many scientific findings have changed from year to year. The scientists taught for decades that the world was once a nebulous, molten mass cast off from the sun, and later many scientists said it once was a whirl of dust which solidified. There are many ideas advanced to the world that have been changed to meet the needs of the truth as it has been discovered. There are relative truths, and there are also absolute truths which are the same yesterday, today, and forever—never changing. These absolute truths are not altered by the opinions of men. As science has expanded our understanding of the physical world, certain accepted ideas of science have had to be abandoned in the interest of truth. Some of these seeming truths were stoutly maintained for centuries. The sincere searching of science often rests only on the threshold of truth, whereas revealed facts give us certain absolute truths as a beginning point so we may come to understand the nature of man and the purpose of his life. The earth is spherical. If all the four billion people in the world think it flat, they are in error. That is an absolute truth, and all the arguing in the world will not change it. Weights will not suspend themselves in the air, but when released will fall earthward. The law of gravity is an absolute truth. It never varies. Greater laws can overcome lesser ones, but that does not change their undeniable truth. We learn about these absolute truths by being taught by the Spirit. These truths are “independent” in their spiritual sphere and are to be discovered spiritually, though they may be confirmed by experience and intellect. (See D&C 93:30.) The great prophet Jacob said that “the Spirit speaketh the truth. … Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be.” (Jacob 4:13.) We need to be taught in order to understand life and who we really are....... .... Experience in one field does not automatically create expertise in another field. Expertise in religion comes from personal righteousness and from revelation. The Lord told the ProphetJoseph Smith: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it.” (D&C 93:30.) A geologist who has discovered truths about the structure of the earth may be oblivious to the truths God has given us about the eternal nature of the family. If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. To become a plumber, one must study the laws which govern plumbing. He must know stresses and strains, temperatures at which pipes will freeze, laws which govern steam, hot water, expansion, contraction, and so forth. One might know much about plumbing and be a complete failure in training children or getting along with men. One might be the best of bookkeepers and yet not know anything of electricity. One might know much about buying and selling groceries and be absolutely ignorant of bridge building. One might be a great authority on the hydrogen bomb and yet know nothing of banking. One might be a noted theologian and yet be wholly untrained in watchmaking. One might be the author of the law of relativity and yet know nothing of the Creator who originated every law. I repeat, these are not matters of opinion. They are absolute truths. These truths are available to every soul. Any intelligent man may learn what he wants to learn. He may acquire knowledge in any field, though it requires much thought and effort. It takes more than a decade to get a high school diploma; it takes an additional four years for most people to get a college degree; it takes nearly a quarter-century to become a great physician. Why, oh, why do people think they can fathom the most complex spiritual depths without the necessary experimental and laboratory work accompanied by compliance with the laws that govern it? Absurd it is, but you will frequently find popular personalities, who seem never to have lived a single law of God, discoursing in interviews on religion. How ridiculous for such persons to attempt to outline for the world a way of life! https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng Truth is always contexual as judged by what works. I don't know if that is absolute or relative- the categories to me do not make sense That is what D&C teaches- all truth is true within its sphere Morality is true because it works. Family values simply work I think this is an empirical truth readily observable. Look at our society. Is it a kinder, more gentle place than it was? Is it working better now that the family is deteriorating? Is this an absolute or relative truth? It is a truth, that's all I know. 2
rockpond Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Where do you see that? I don't see that anywhere in Elder Oaks talk. People are always free to choose what they believe, but truth does not change. "We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments." The OP quote of Oaks is: "The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong, is becoming the unofficial creed for many in America and other Western nations." We do believe in absolute truth. There are other faiths that believe in an absolute truth which differs from ours. What we believe is wrong, others may believe is right. Is that moral relativism?
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 37 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Wow. The law defines what is right and wrong. To break it is wrong to God. Sounds like a rather pharisaical way of putting it. That defines the issue to me though. What is wrong to God may be different than what we think. 37 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Those wrongs still apply even if Jesus lifted the temporal punishment. The eternal punishment still applies unless we repent. You don't seem to have even a rudimentary handle on the gospel - no offense intended. You present an interesting thought. Nephi killed a helpless man. The law condemned such action but God said it was ok. But he still had to repent. Or something. Not sure I agree.
ksfisher Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: I'm not sure what you're saying but it sounds good. How would moral teaching not found amongst Christians, for instance, fail? Or are you saying non Christians value Christian morals (at least in some cases) and therefore ultimately do come from the teachings of Jesus Christ? I always aim to sound good. Making sense is secondary. Moroni teaches that all good things come from Christ. Anything that influences us to do good emanates from Christ. This is true of things that we would consider "Christian," but Christ like behavior can be found among all people regardless of their religion. 1
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 22 minutes ago, strappinglad said: I can see stemelbow's point. We all get to choose whom we will obey and in a way we can also choose to obey ourselves. " Choose ye this day.. " implies agency. Moral relativism says one set of morals is just as good as another at any given point in time. Personally, I think the Deceiver is quite happy with that idea. He has promoted it since the beginning. " Ye shall not surely die, for ye shall be as the gods knowing good from evil..." Anybody see the contradiction in that statement ? I think an interesting way many LDS have tried to argue for moral relativism without realizing it is by appealing to presentism. What we find objectionable to us in our day might not have been so objectionable in 1830.
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: LOL! Well I think the problem here is that even the view that morality is eternal and never changes is one position among many- it is a paradigm we choose to live. Were that not so, we would be following Satan's plan and have no agency So yes an absolute morality is relatively true, just as everything else is Absolutists seldom consider their point of view as relative to themselves. For the record, I consider myself an "absolutist" who thinks that the principles of morality as they have evolved for mankind ARE the best principles- the commandments are tried and true and the best rules for all societies. Why? There are two ways to look at this. 1- God says so 2- These principles have themselves evolved because all humans have the same needs. We all want peace and a nice life. People who steal disrupt a peaceful society. People who commit adultery disrupt a peaceful society. People who covet disrupt a peaceful society. For what it's worth, I think both these principles are TRUE in an Alma 32 way of seeing it. The first principle is valuable in teaching obedience which is itself a useful principle for society and its members to learn. People who treat others as they want to be treated CREATE peace and harmony, a major human need So quite honestly, I have no problem with the title "moral relativist" because to me the phrase has no meaning. I am in favor of moral principles which are tried and true and work for everyone to give us agency AND peace in society in a perfect balance. If that is called "relativism" I give a little chuckle and really don't give a fig. Again my view, I think combines humanism (principle 2) with theism (principle 1) They are not incompatible. We're all in favor of that. But it feels like, in some cases, give it time and we'll soon lear that moral principles we once held onto need some serious adjustment as we learn a new way that works for everyone. 1
ksfisher Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: We do believe in absolute truth. There are other faiths that believe in an absolute truth which differs from ours. What we believe is wrong, others may believe is right. Is that moral relativism? Elder Oaks is teaching that I cannot choose what is right and what is wrong. Those are things that are laid out in the commandments of God.
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 20 minutes ago, rockpond said: So wait... is Oaks saying that people should not be free to choose what they believe about right and wrong? Yeah...I think i'm drawing the type of conclusion MfBukowski says here, "Truth is always contexual as judged by what works. I don't know if that is absolute or relative- the categories to me do not make sense " I'm not sure what Oaks is critiquing is really philosophically moral relativism to begin with. But that we choose to believe on an individual basis, what morals we decide on individually, seems to be a given. I'm still not sure what my local stake has been getting all up in arms about in recent months--starting with an address from our SP about Moral Relativism. 1
rockpond Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: Elder Oaks is teaching that I cannot choose what is right and what is wrong. Those are things that are laid out in the commandments of God. I agree with that statement but, who gets to choose which set of commandments and which God?
rockpond Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Yeah...I think i'm drawing the type of conclusion MfBukowski says here, "Truth is always contexual as judged by what works. I don't know if that is absolute or relative- the categories to me do not make sense " I'm not sure what Oaks is critiquing is really philosophically moral relativism to begin with. But that we choose to believe on an individual basis, what morals we decide on individually, seems to be a given. I'm still not sure what my local stake has been getting all up in arms about in recent months--starting with an address from our SP about Moral Relativism. I'm just confused at how the statement quoted in the OP fits in with Oaks' calls for respecting freedom of religion. It almost sounds like he is saying: believe what WE believe about right and wrong or you are a moral relativist. 2
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, rockpond said: The OP quote of Oaks is: "The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong, is becoming the unofficial creed for many in America and other Western nations." We do believe in absolute truth. There are other faiths that believe in an absolute truth which differs from ours. What we believe is wrong, others may believe is right. Is that moral relativism? I read recently wherein moral relativism is really just accepting the notion that people view and prioritize morals differently, and it should be accepted that we can tolerate these different views and approaches. The feeling I've gotten in my local ward and stake is tolerating other views is not acceptable to do so would be accepting moral relativism. I hate to say it but it feels like they're trying to put up a fight against the windmill. Edited July 20, 2016 by stemelbow 1
ksfisher Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Nephi killed a helpless man. The law condemned such action but God said it was ok. But he still had to repent. Or something. Nephi did not need to repent after following a commandment of God. I don't see anything in the scriptures that teach this.
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm just confused at how the statement quoted in the OP fits in with Oaks' calls for respecting freedom of religion. It almost sounds like he is saying: believe what WE believe about right and wrong or you are a moral relativist. yep. That's my concern, right there. 1
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Nephi did not need to repent after following a commandment of God. I don't see anything in the scriptures that teach this. Same here.
Recommended Posts