stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 12 minutes 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. But we each get to choose what we consider right and wrong and we each decide what we think is from God or not. This is not black and white stuff, this is not a mathematical equation that we need to solve. Figuring out how to approach each situation in life can get pretty complex with tons of options in front of us. If you're not choosing the most virtuous of options laid out before you at a given crossroad, are you being moral if you decide to do something that's ok and doesn't harm someone? If you choose one good option and not the best, or whatever, are you being immoral when you know you could have done better? or can you reasonably choose a good option still be moral while ignoring the best option? Beats me. But we're all just a huge combination of varying morals prioritized to our own personal likings, it seems like.
CV75 Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 2 hours 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. Let’s look at how he actually defines moral relativism: “a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God.” Then he says, based on sch a belief, the “philosophy of moral relativism …holds [reasons and asserts] that each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong,” which is moral impunity. Since when is that a good thing? 1
RevTestament Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 35 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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. 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. Laban was not an innocent man. He had broken the law for which the penalty was death. Not only had he stolen all their wealth, but he had tried to murder them. God didn't need witnesses to pass sentence on him. God's sentence of death was just under the law. Without the law there is no sin. Without sin there is no right and wrong, and no need for a Savior, and no need for the gospel. Hence, you don't understand the gospel stemelbow - again no offense intended.
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, CV75 said: Let’s look at how he actually defines moral relativism: “a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God.” Then he says, based on sch a belief, the “philosophy of moral relativism …holds [reasons and asserts] that each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong,” which is moral impunity. Since when is that a good thing? So we cant' each decide what is right and wrong? We can't just appeal to commandments of God and say they represent the absolute right and wrong on all things because God hasn't spoken on all things. he leaves it to us to decide on the details.
stemelbow Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Laban was not an innocent man. He had broken the law for which the penalty was death. Not only had he stolen all their wealth, but he had tried to murder them. God didn't need witnesses to pass sentence on him. God's sentence of death was just under the law. Without the law there is no sin. Without sin there is no right and wrong, and no need for a Savior, and no need for the gospel. Hence, you don't understand the gospel stemelbow - again no offense intended. So under the law of God the penalty was death for Laban, or under the law of the land? What are we talking about here?
consiglieri Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 2 hours ago, stemelbow said: Our local area of church members seem to be on a kick of battling against moral relativism. Are your local leaders aware of Joseph Smith's position on the subject? That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. Dean C. Jessee (editor), The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 507-509
rockpond Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Are your local leaders aware of Joseph Smith's position on the subject? That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. Dean C. Jessee (editor), The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 507-509 Good point. Moral relativism is kind of a hallmark of LDS doctrine... it's just that we believe God has to be behind the relativism.
jkwilliams Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: Good point. Moral relativism is kind of a hallmark of LDS doctrine... it's just that we believe God has to be behind the relativism. Indeed. A few years ago, I asked an LDS acquaintance if he could think of any actions that are always morally wrong, with no exceptions. The only thing he came up with was that same-sex intercourse is always wrong.
rockpond Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Indeed. A few years ago, I asked an LDS acquaintance if he could think of any actions that are always morally wrong, with no exceptions. The only thing he came up with was that same-sex intercourse is always wrong. Ha. Until it's not.
jkwilliams Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Just now, rockpond said: Ha. Until it's not. The bottom line is that the only moral absolute is obedience.
consiglieri Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: Good point. Moral relativism is kind of a hallmark of LDS doctrine... it's just that we believe God has to be behind the relativism. Or at least someone who claims to speak for God.
CV75 Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Is this an absolute or relative truth? It is a truth, that's all I know. That is why the wise person chooses the standards the Judge sets!
Atheist Mormon Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 2 hours 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: This is not surprising " 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. " Surely Elder Oaks wants Sheep to follow the instructions. There's nothing wrong for each person to choose his/her own pursuit of happiness.
CV75 Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 33 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Are your local leaders aware of Joseph Smith's position on the subject? That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. Dean C. Jessee (editor), The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 507-509 That is not moral relativism. Joseph Smith is talking about the significance of circumstances and context. “That which is wrong… and right” still refers to the Judge as the final arbiter, not that “every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.” Why are so many duped? 1
ksfisher Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: This is not surprising " 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. " Surely Elder Oaks wants Sheep to follow the instructions. There's nothing wrong for each person to choose his/her own pursuit of happiness. What if that "pursuit of happiness" involves hurting other people? What if in the pursit of my happiness I steal from others? Should this be allowed? What of child molestors or seriel killers? Should they be allowed to pursue the activities that make them happy?
CV75 Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 38 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So we cant' each decide what is right and wrong? We can't just appeal to commandments of God and say they represent the absolute right and wrong on all things because God hasn't spoken on all things. he leaves it to us to decide on the details. We can and we can't. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic_et_Non Settling contradiction is not the same as moral relativism; by eradicating contradiction moral relativism impinges on freedom and liberty. We always decide on the details, but we do have God's word on getting "caught up in self-serving pleasures, pagan painting and piercing of body parts, foul language, revealing attire, pornography, dishonesty, and degrading sexual indulgence," which Elder Oaks was defining as some of the problems with believing and practicing moral relativism as he defined it. 1
Gray Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 All morality is subjective and relative. That doesn't mean that a good case can't be made for one moral system over another. And that does not mean that morality doesn't exist. 1
CV75 Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 35 minutes ago, rockpond said: Good point. Moral relativism is kind of a hallmark of LDS doctrine... it's just that we believe God has to be behind the relativism. No, God considers mortal circumstances and contexts in giving moral instructions, not tailoring them to fir the whim and will of the mortals in those circumstances and who misread the contexts. 1
Glenn101 Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Are your local leaders aware of Joseph Smith's position on the subject? That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. Dean C. Jessee (editor), The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 507-509 Great Lawyering here Consiglieri. Just the bit you wish the jury to hear and hope the lawyer on the other side of the aisle does not cross examine on that point. But, if the opposition were to ask for the original source, what would it be? Has there been an original letter supposedly dictated to Willard Richards been found? I don't think so. This was a letter supposedly written to Nancy Rigdon after she had refused his offer of plural marriage. It was part of one of John C. Bennett's communications to the Sangamo Journal attacking Joseph Smith after Bennett had been cut off from the church after details of his "spiritual wifery" affairs had been unearthed. The provenance of that letter is uncertain, but parts of it have been included in the Manuscript History of the Church, so there are some who feel it is legitimate. So, let's just take it at face value, but let's add a bit more of that quote for context. "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,—at another time he said, thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." Does not that change or rather clarify what the author actually meant. It is not moral relativism after all, but based upon what God requires us to do. Examples are given, to be sure. Although a specific example, Laban fits the mold, n'est ce pas? Another example would be an abortion which is wrong under some circumstances and not wrong under others. Edited to add: Moral relativism is used by "society." What is moral changes as society changes. Glenn Edited July 20, 2016 by Glenn101 Added a bit more. 1
consiglieri Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: What if that "pursuit of happiness" involves hurting other people? Are you aware that the practice of plural marriage involved "hurting other people"? And that the pain of that practice continues even today, according to Carol Lynn Pearson's new book?
consiglieri Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 16 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: Great Lawyering here Consiglieri. Just the bit you wish the jury to hear and hope the lawyer on the other side of the aisle does not cross examine on that point. But, if the opposition were to ask for the original source, what would it be? Has there been an original letter supposedly dictated to Willard Richards been found? I don't think so. This was a letter supposedly written to Nancy Rigdon after she had refused his offer of plural marriage. It was part of one of John C. Bennett's communications to the Sangamo Journal attacking Joseph Smith after Bennett had been cut off from the church after details of his "spiritual wifery" affairs had been unearthed. The provenance of that letter is uncertain, but parts of it have been included in the Manuscript History of the Church, so there are some who feel it is legitimate. So, let's just take it at face value, but let's add a bit more of that quote for context. "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another. God said thou shalt not kill,—at another time he said, thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." Does not that change or rather clarify what the author actually meant. It is not moral relativism after all, but based upon what God requires us to do. Examples are given, to be sure. Although a specific example, Laban fits the mold, n'est ce pas? Another example would be an abortion which is wrong under some circumstances and not wrong under others. Edited to add: Moral relativism is used by "society." What is moral changes as society changes. Glenn I think it is also helpful to understand the context of the quote being a letter written by Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon asking her to be his plural wife. I think he also added that she was to destroy the letter after reading it. Nancy chose to not destroy the letter, though commanded to by the prophet. I guess she used a little moral relativism of her own.
consiglieri Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, CV75 said: Why are so many duped? Because God keeps changing his mind?
mfbukowski Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, CV75 said: Let’s look at how he actually defines moral relativism: “a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God.” Then he says, based on sch a belief, the “philosophy of moral relativism …holds [reasons and asserts] that each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong,” which is moral impunity. Since when is that a good thing? The problem here is the ambiguity. Of course each of us has to choose if Elder Oaks view of morality is right or wrong, so we are therefore all free to choose right and wrong for ourselves, or we could not follow Elder Oaks advice. So that is a poor definition of "moral relativism", and is the cause of the confusion. Choosing the "right" morality is STILL a decision on our part to choose right or wrong for ourselves. On the other hand, we are not free to choose if murder is right or wrong. So the phrasing, pardon me Elder O, is ambiguous and causes confusion, and applies to anyone who condemns "moral relativism" without thinking things through. Then we have situational ethics. Killing is wrong, but yet is shooting terrorists who are about to chop off someone's head wrong? It's the old Nephi and Laban story. So is THAT "moral relativism"? Honestly the problem here appears to be sloppy use of language leading to muddled thinking. I agree with what E.O is bemoaning, I just think it is not phrased well. It is never right to choose abortion, supposedly, yet the church itself has guidelines that justify it in certain circumstances. I cannot imagine that Elder O. meant to condemn that.
Atheist Mormon Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: What if that "pursuit of happiness" involves hurting other people? What if in the pursit of my happiness I steal from others? Should this be allowed? What of child molestors or seriel killers? Should they be allowed to pursue the activities that make them happy? No, not at all...Now that I know my moral compass, why do I need a Church's guidance? I follow my conscience and if that's not enough US laws....(whatever the country one inhabits) certainly do not need a church to guide me when I can make better decisions.....( I know this sounds a little arrogant).
Glenn101 Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 46 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think it is also helpful to understand the context of the quote being a letter written by Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon asking her to be his plural wife. I think he also added that she was to destroy the letter after reading it. Nancy chose to not destroy the letter, though commanded to by the prophet. I guess she used a little moral relativism of her own. There was nothing in the letter as quoted by John C. Bennett telling her to destroy it. I would imagine that Joseph did ask her to keep his proposal secret, which she evidently did not do. However, she probably shared the letter with her boyfriend, Chauncey Higbee, who forwarded it to Bennett. There was nothing earth shattering in that letter, i.e. about polygamy, plural wives, or whatever. However, the letter is not about "moral relativism" as such, as I noted, but you are still doing some good lawyering. Glenn 1
Recommended Posts