Moral Relativism

[jkwilliams]

25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Is it always wrong to kill?

That's not really the issue. The only moral absolute, as far as I can see, is to obey God/the prophet when commanded. Everyone believes in some form of moral relativism or situational ethics, but it's rather odd to be decrying something that the church's founding prophet acknowledged. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't think you understand the definition (or what Joseph is saying)! You need to look at both pretty closely.

There is a fundamental difference between flexibility in the application of laws (which are absolute) vs. flexibility in the laws themselves.

 

For example: Murder is breaking the moral law for killing; honorable execution is keeping that same law.

 

Nephi’s kept the law in slaying Laban. Nehor broke it in slaying Gideon.

 

I have no disagreement with what you are saying here. The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between the logic behind the words and the words themselves. In speaking of absolutes it seems that we always have to find room for exceptions.

  In your case you can see that the moral principles are absolute yet you still make the distinction between the rule itself and the application 

Your point is a good one we need to find room for exceptions but to me that is the whole problem in the first place.

Why speak about absolutes in the first place if there are always exceptions?

So my question is more a question of semantics and logic then it is of any substance. We agree on everything that is important.

I think in religious discourse we have a tendency to want there to be absolutes. I think that comes from two thousand years of Greek logic.

Edited July 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's not really the issue. The only moral absolute, as far as I can see, is to obey God/the prophet when commanded. Everyone believes in some form of moral relativism or situational ethics, but it's rather odd to be decrying something that the church's founding prophet acknowledged. 

Except when he, the prophet, is wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That's not really the issue. The only moral absolute, as far as I can see, is to obey God/the prophet when commanded. Everyone believes in some form of moral relativism or situational ethics, but it's rather odd to be decrying something that the church's founding prophet acknowledged. 

I'm not decrying it. I think it is the basis of all religions and law.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'm not decrying it. I think it is the basis of all religions and law.

Didn't say you were decrying it.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I do, and I have. 

Good! Then read on.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't get what you're saying in almost all of your posts.  It feels like contradiction from sentence to sentence.  I mean no offense by this.  I'd agree with JkWilliams that Joseph's statement is pretty much a restatement of the dictionary definition of moral relativism. 

I understand and take no offense. It’s the placing of my words! Read on; maybe I can explain better.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no disagreement with what you are saying here. The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between the logic behind the words and the words themselves. In speaking of absolutes it seems that we always have to find room for exceptions.

  In your case you can see that the moral principles are absolute yet you still make the distinction between the rule itself and the application 

Your point is a good one we need to find room for exceptions but to me that is the whole problem in the first place.

Why speak about absolutes in the first place if there are always exceptions?

So my question is more a question of semantics and logic then it is of any substance. We agree on everything that is important.

I think in religious discourse we have a tendency to want there to be absolutes. I think that comes from two thousand years of Greek logic.

I don’t see making the distinction between the rule itself (which is absolute) and the application (whether obeying or maneuvering around it) as creating room for exceptions. I tried to pull it off (as follows), but I don’t think it works:

As you’ve pointed out, truth is independent (absolute) in that sphere where God has placed it. Acting for itself, by definition, it never deviates (makes an exception), otherwise it would no longer be "itself," we could say it stops existing. There are many spheres to choose from (D&C 88:37-39), which may on the surface appear to allow for exceptions, but ultimately we choose only one space/sphere/kingdom. As intelligent beings subject to God, we choose that sphere in which God inevitably places us by virtue of our choices and consequent capacity to choose.

“And there are many kingdoms …And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions*. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified [i.e. they have the choice to abide somewhere else or not exist at all!].” No two spheres are exactly alike (Abraham 3) and so its resident chooser can abide in no other sphere, or not exist in any other sphere. Even God abides nowhere else but His kingdom, and no unclean thing can enter it. His presence may be manifest in all other kingdoms via the truth(s) He has placed in them, but He is only perceived by those souls preparing, and to the extent they prepare, to abide with Him.

“All truth is independent in that [kingdom, space] in which God has placed it, to act for itself …otherwise there is no existence.” Existence and non-existence are absolutes, and perhaps a form of exception to each other, but I think rather more an option, each being an application of the same law: correct and incorrect, respectively.

* There is a seeming contradiction or allowance for exceptions here because “bounds and conditions” implies that there are options. But it doesn’t work because options do not negate the existence of the absolutes they act on; rather, options rely on the availability of absolutes (what to do with the apple—absolute life or absolute death?). For me, contradiction and opposition are not the same as relativism. The resolution for seemingly opposing and contradicting moral absolutes, such as justice and mercy, is found in the Atonement. The resolution for relativism is damnation, where there is always someone greater and lesser, and no one to become One with where the rubber hits the road.

And again, maybe it is all Greek to me! LOL

[CV75]

η πεποίθηση ότι δεν υπάρχει απόλυτη σωστό και το λάθος , ότι όλα αρχή και όλοι οι κανόνες συμπεριφοράς είναι τεχνητές επιλογές που μπορούν να υπερισχύουν των εντολών του Θεού

i pepoíthisi óti den ypárchei apólyti sostó kai to láthos , óti óla archí kai óloi oi kanónes symperiforás eínai technités epilogés pou boroún na yperischýoun ton entolón tou Theoú

Elder Oak's definition in two forms of Greek!

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Good! Then read on.

I understand and take no offense. It’s the placing of my words! Read on; maybe I can explain better.

I don’t see making the distinction between the rule itself (which is absolute) and the application (whether obeying or maneuvering around it) as creating room for exceptions. I tried to pull it off (as follows), but I don’t think it works:

 

As you’ve pointed out, truth is independent (absolute) in that sphere where God has placed it. Acting for itself, by definition, it never deviates (makes an exception), otherwise it would no longer be "itself," we could say it stops existing. There are many spheres to choose from (D&C 88:37-39), which may on the surface appear to allow for exceptions, but ultimately we choose only one space/sphere/kingdom. As intelligent beings subject to God, we choose that sphere in which God inevitably places us by virtue of our choices and consequent capacity to choose.

 

“And there are many kingdoms …And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions*. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified [i.e. they have the choice to abide somewhere else or not exist at all!].” No two spheres are exactly alike (Abraham 3) and so its resident chooser can abide in no other sphere, or not exist in any other sphere. Even God abides nowhere else but His kingdom, and no unclean thing can enter it. His presence may be manifest in all other kingdoms via the truth(s) He has placed in them, but He is only perceived by those souls preparing, and to the extent they prepare, to abide with Him.

 

“All truth is independent in that [kingdom, space] in which God has placed it, to act for itself …otherwise there is no existence.” Existence and non-existence are absolutes, and perhaps a form of exception to each other, but I think rather more an option, each being an application of the same law: correct and incorrect, respectively.

 

* There is a seeming contradiction or allowance for exceptions here because “bounds and conditions” implies that there are options. But it doesn’t work because options do not negate the existence of the absolutes they act on; rather, options rely on the availability of absolutes (what to do with the apple—absolute life or absolute death?). For me, contradiction and opposition are not the same as relativism. The resolution for seemingly opposing and contradicting moral absolutes, such as justice and mercy, is found in the Atonement. The resolution for relativism is damnation, where there is always someone greater and lesser, and no one to become One with where the rubber hits the road.

 

 

And again, maybe it is all Greek to me! LOL

 

 

Well yes, there is definitely Greek in there!    I honestly don't think I will be damned for being a relativist!

I think perhaps what we see here is a microcosm of the whole "problem", a clash between two different vocabularies and ways of speaking about the same "problems" insofar as they ARE "problems.

Great post, thanks.  IF we have any disagreements they are purely semantic and problems with language and vocabularies.  As Wittgenstein might say, we are using different "language games"!

I even have problems with the word "existence" and its value in discussion, since it tends to reify symbols into actual things.

So I am afflicted with the philosophy gene by nature and training.   I am looking forward to sitting on a cloud with you someday and getting into how it all looks from THAT perspective!     I really treasure your points of view and your posts!

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

η πεποίθηση ότι δεν υπάρχει απόλυτη σωστό και το λάθος , ότι όλα αρχή και όλοι οι κανόνες συμπεριφοράς είναι τεχνητές επιλογές που μπορούν να υπερισχύουν των εντολών του Θεού

 

i pepoíthisi óti den ypárchei apólyti sostó kai to láthos , óti óla archí kai óloi oi kanónes symperiforás eínai technités epilogés pou boroún na yperischýoun ton entolón tou Theoú

 

Elder Oak's definition in two forms of Greek!

Easy for YOU to say!! 

[mfbukowski]

In my book rules are not out there floating around as "abstract things" which "exist" independent of the human mind.

That IS a legitimate philosophical position known as "moral realism"

Quote

 

Moral Realism

First published Mon Oct 3, 2005; substantive revision Tue Feb 3, 2015

Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. That much is the common and more or less defining ground of moral realism (although some accounts of moral realism see it as involving additional commitments, say to the independence of the moral facts from human thought and practice, or to those facts being objective in some specified way).

As a result, those who reject moral realism are usefully divided into (i) those who think moral claims do not purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false (noncognitivists) and (ii) those who think that moral claims do carry this purport but deny that any moral claims are actually true (error theorists).

 

 

Quote

It is worth noting that, while moral realists are united in their cognitivism and in their rejection of error theories, they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true. Moral realism is not a particular substantive moral view nor does it carry a distinctive metaphysical commitment over and above the commitment that comes with thinking moral claims can be true or false and some are true. Still, much of the debate about moral realism revolves around either what it takes for claims to be true or false at all (with some arguing that moral claims do not have what it takes) or what it would take specifically for moral claims to be true (with some arguing that moral claims would require something the world does not provide).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

I had formatting problems getting this in one quote, but I think what appears here as the second quote is the problem with moral realism- no one agrees on how it could be justified.

Every statement of it has exceptions and adjustments and conditions that become more complicated than the tax code

I tend to want to cut to the chase and just take on some form of situational ethics, accept that even those statements will have exceptions, and get on with life and quit arguing about what cannot be proven anyway.

I don't see the advantage to having absolute statements about morality when there are always exceptions.  I just go with Occam's Razor and let it be a matter of discusions of pros and cons in individual cases and not worry about general statements with exceptions

After all, there is a reason for courts of law.  We all know what is right and wrong by the Light of Christ within us- putting it into words is, as this thread shows, ridiculously complicated.

I just choose to keep it simple and discuss or think about individual cases as needed, as the courts do.

Our legal system admits that moral "facts" are socially constructed according to individual the circumstances of each case and each individual.  THAT is why we have judges and juries, because each case is different.

Moral "facts" are not abstract entities floating around out there somewhere, they are socially constructed according to the situation.  http://legalflip.com/LegalWordOfTheDay.aspx?id=24

It is just plain the simplest way to think about moral "facts"

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Well yes, there is definitely Greek in there!    I honestly don't think I will be damned for being a relativist!

I think perhaps what we see here is a microcosm of the whole "problem", a clash between two different vocabularies and ways of speaking about the same "problems" insofar as they ARE "problems.

Great post, thanks.  IF we have any disagreements they are purely semantic and problems with language and vocabularies.  As Wittgenstein might say, we are using different "language games"!

I even have problems with the word "existence" and its value in discussion, since it tends to reify symbols into actual things.

So I am afflicted with the philosophy gene by nature and training.   I am looking forward to sitting on a cloud with you someday and getting into how it all looks from THAT perspective!     I really treasure your points of view and your posts!

Ooops—wasn’t referring to anyone in particular (and not thinking in terms of disagreeing anyway--it depends on what one means by "relativist" anyway!); I only meant “damnation” in the context of describing general principles. I likewise learn a great deal from your posts.

Yes, there is definitely a problem with language. I try to adopt whatever the prevalent language I detect in the thread and go from there, interjecting more of my own as folks get more confused with theirs! LOL

For example, if Elder Oaks is using such-and-such a term and definition to make a particular point, I’m all for using it to understand his point (in this case, balancing truth and tolerance in seeking government action without falling prey to those who view and define truth and tolerance differently), rather than undermine the “placing” of his words by endowing them with opposing meaning in order to alter his point. Any worthy opposition would be able to stand on its own merits.

Edited July 21, 2016 by CV75

[jkwilliams]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Ooops—wasn’t referring to anyone in particular (and not thinking in terms of disagreeing anyway--it depends on what one means by "relativist" anyway!); I only meant “damnation” in the context of describing general principles. I likewise learn a great deal from your posts.

Yes, there is definitely a problem with language. I try to adopt whatever the prevalent language I detect in the thread and go from there, interjecting more of my own as folks get more confused with theirs! LOL

For example, if Elder Oaks is using such-and-such a term and definition to make a particular point, I’m all for using it to understand his point (in this case, balancing truth and tolerance in seeking government action without falling prey to those who define truth and tolerance differently), rather than undermine the “placing” of his words by endowing them with opposing meaning in order to alter his point. Any worthy opposition would be able to stand on its own merits.

 

I understand what you're getting at, and I think I agree. My point is that it seems a strange appropriation of the term "moral relativism" when it appears to mean disagreement with the teachings of the church. I think you have shown pretty conclusively that moral decisions depend on circumstances, which is what people usually mean when they say "moral relativism." There are some people in the world who believe that there are clear moral absolutes that can never be violated, regardless of circumstance, but in the real world, we recognize that, in the classic example, it is more moral to lie and save the Jews hiding in the attic than it is to obey the commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness" in all cases. 

If what Elder Oaks meant is that the church seeks a balance in laws and government action with those who disagree with its teachings, that's a good thing. I'm just not sure how moral relativism applies.

[Glenn101]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

On the contrary, the letter is a great example of LDS moral relativism:. Our definition of what is right and wrong is often dictated by what we believe God wants us to do at that time. 

I'm not sure how to reconcile polygamy, for example, with the Oaks quote in the OP. 

Moral relativism, as was defined by the Oaks quote, is a person deciding for himself what is right or wrong, based upon his or her personal desires. A person basinf his belief on what God wants is quite different.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I tend to disagree.  Moral relativism is also referred to as "situational ethics."

The idea is that it is the situation that determines what is ethical, as opposed to an absolute code of ethics that must be followed regardless of the situation.

Joseph Smith's statement seems to fit the idea of situational ethics pretty squarely.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.

You are still ignoring the rest of the quote and the rest of the letter, which you need to read for context if you have not already done so.

Glenn

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I understand what you're getting at, and I think I agree. My point is that it seems a strange appropriation of the term "moral relativism" when it appears to mean disagreement with the teachings of the church. I think you have shown pretty conclusively that moral decisions depend on circumstances, which is what people usually mean when they say "moral relativism." There are some people in the world who believe that there are clear moral absolutes that can never be violated, regardless of circumstance, but in the real world, we recognize that, in the classic example, it is more moral to lie and save the Jews hiding in the attic than it is to obey the commandment "thou shalt not bear false witness" in all cases. 

If what Elder Oaks meant is that the church seeks a balance in laws and government action with those who disagree with its teachings, that's a good thing. I'm just not sure how moral relativism applies.

I would say the situation you describe it is not moral relativism since one form of false witness is to use facts (as an imitation or substitute and a misnomer for “truth”) to betray those who face ethnoreligious persecution. I am not saying that moral decisions depend on the circumstances. I am saying that moral decisions apply absolute truths appropriate for the circumstance, as in the case you presented.

Elder Oaks is using a reasonable definition of moral relativism, and even if one disagrees with it, he can still understand the point he is making. The definition you provided seems to work just as well. A relativistic view disagrees with an absolute view, as he describes them for the purposes of his talk.

The philosophy 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” and in this context “each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong” applies to his point to balance truth and tolerance in seeking government action because those who define truth and tolerance in opposing terms are bound to undermine his intended audience’s participation in and perspective on the subject action. I also see him acknowledging the seductive nature of this philosophy, as evidenced by its increasing acceptance over the past few decades, and warning against it.

 

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

This gets more interesting.  Is it always best to do what God wants us to do?  

I would think so. 

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 So what we do depends on what another wants us to do, no matter the moral law we may keep?  it was good for Eve to partake of the fruit, as she explained. 

Not on just any other person wants us to do. On what God wants us to do.

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would say the situation you describe it is not moral relativism since one form of false witness is to use facts (as an imitation or substitute and a misnomer for “truth”) to betray those who face ethnoreligious persecution. I am not saying that moral decisions depend on the circumstances. I am saying that moral decisions apply absolute truths appropriate for the circumstance, as in the case you presented.

Elder Oaks is using a reasonable definition of moral relativism, and even if one disagrees with it, he can still understand the point he is making. The definition you provided seems to work just as well. A relativistic view disagrees with an absolute view, as he describes them for the purposes of his talk.

The philosophy 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” and in this context “each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong” applies to his point to balance truth and tolerance in seeking government action because those who define truth and tolerance in opposing terms are bound to undermine his intended audience’s participation in and perspective on the subject action. I also see him acknowledging the seductive nature of this philosophy, as evidenced by its increasing acceptance over the past few decades, and warning against it.

You're not really describing moral relativism with the statement 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” and in this context “each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong.” That's a simple distinction of religious-based morals and social-based morals, and it's balancing the two that I believe Elder Oaks is speaking to. It just seems a misnomer to call societal morals as "moral relativism." Again, I understand where you're coming from, and I do think it's appropriate for the church to seek a balance between standing up for its beliefs and accommodating those who do not subscribe to those beliefs.

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Good point.

In LDS theology, Adam and Eve disobey God for good.

Eve made the moral choice forbidden by God.

Yes, it does get more interesting!

 

Again, there is the rest of the story. In LDS theology, Adam and Eve were given two opposing commandments. If Eve had not partaken of that fruit, we would not be having this conversation. We would be somewhere in the pre-existent world waiting for that first bite.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Ooops—wasn’t referring to anyone in particular (and not thinking in terms of disagreeing anyway--it depends on what one means by "relativist" anyway!); I only meant “damnation” in the context of describing general principles. I likewise learn a great deal from your posts.

Yes, there is definitely a problem with language. I try to adopt whatever the prevalent language I detect in the thread and go from there, interjecting more of my own as folks get more confused with theirs! LOL

For example, if Elder Oaks is using such-and-such a term and definition to make a particular point, I’m all for using it to understand his point (in this case, balancing truth and tolerance in seeking government action without falling prey to those who view and define truth and tolerance differently), rather than undermine the “placing” of his words by endowing them with opposing meaning in order to alter his point. Any worthy opposition would be able to stand on its own merits.

Yep, I think we are on the same page here in the final analysis.

Since we are talking about words, I have always found it fascinating that for some reason Mormons use the word "damnation" in some confused way to describe the cessation of progress toward a goal as "damnation", apparently because "Damn" sounds like "dam" in the sense of putting up an obstacle to water in a river thereby "damming" it.

NO ONE else ever uses it in this context except Mormons.  The first time I heard it used that way, I could not for the life of me figure out what was being said- that someone's progress would be "damned"!

Here is one of a zillion quotes- this one from Elder Bednar:  https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/05/we-believe-in-being-chaste.p1?lang=eng

Quote

Satan relentlessly works to distort the most important elements of the Father’s plan. He does not have a body, and his eternal progress has been halted. Just as water flowing in a riverbed is stopped by a dam, so the adversary’s eternal progress is thwarted because he does not have a physical body. Because of his rebellion, Lucifer has denied himself all of the mortal blessings and experiences made possible through a body of flesh and bones. He cannot learn the lessons that only an embodied spirit can learn. He resents the reality of a literal and universal resurrection of all mankind. One of the potent scriptural meanings of the word damned is illustrated in his inability to continue developing and becoming like our Heavenly Father.

I appeal to the OED to prove that- such a meaning is not shown. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/damn

I think it comes from the usage in the BOM where someone is said to be "damned" and we Mormons find it doctrinally offensive to think that the BOM would mean that that individual was "damned to hell" in the sense of burning hellfire for eternity.  But no other group I know of has EVER used the word that way.

Another weird Moromonism is "even" used in this context:  "We should follow the prophet, even Thomas S. Monson"

Usually to most Americans that is like saying "We should even listen to Thomas S Monson!" as if one would think that to be something one might NOT do!  I was totally shocked to hear someone say "We say these things in the Name of our Savior, even Jesus Christ" and could not believe my ears!

"What?  There were two saviors and Jesus was an inferior one??  Even HE was a savior also?"   IF I were joking to my friends I might say "Yeah, I guess we will let you guys into the party, even Joe!"   THAT was always the context I knew for this phraseology.

Again I appeal to the OED: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/even

So if you are a Utah Mormon just know you speak a different language than the rest of us. 

Edited July 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

California rates its own subset of English :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_English

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

California rates its own subset of English :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_English

Indeed. Not long ago, I found a tape I had recorded on my mission, and my kids and I listened to some of it. They said, "You sound like Uncle David." I asked them what they meant, and they said, "You know, like a surfer dude." I guess I've lost my accent in the intervening years.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

You're not really describing moral relativism with the statement 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” and in this context “each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong.” That's a simple distinction of religious-based morals and social-based morals, and it's balancing the two that I believe Elder Oaks is speaking to. It just seems a misnomer to call societal morals as "moral relativism." Again, I understand where you're coming from, and I do think it's appropriate for the church to seek a balance between standing up for its beliefs and accommodating those who do not subscribe to those beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

One of these variation of moral relativism is the one Elder Oaks is describing. (in addition, take note of the Roman Catholic view further down in the page). After reading such an article, do you think your dictionary definition is the only one, or even offers a full picture of what the term can refer to and means?

I don’t think Elder Oaks, as a "watchman," is speaking of a balance between religious-based morals and social-based morals. The Church does seek and has been very successful with compromise in legislation, but that is more a balance of constitutional interests than of morals (though morals and the lack thereof are often said to be the motivational drivers for the respective interests). He is instead saying that our LDS religion calls for a balance of truth and tolerance according to “our” definition of truth and tolerance, and not a moral relativist’s, who in his view and variation, holds to opposing definitions.

[jkwilliams]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

One of these variation of moral relativism is the one Elder Oaks is describing. (in addition, take note of the Roman Catholic view further down in the page). After reading such an article, do you think your dictionary definition is the only one, or even offers a full picture of what the term can refer to and means?

I don’t think Elder Oaks, as a "watchman," is speaking of a balance between religious-based morals and social-based morals. The Church does seek and has been very successful with compromise in legislation, but that is more a balance of constitutional interests than of morals (though morals and the lack thereof are often said to be the motivational drivers for the respective interests). He is instead saying that our LDS religion calls for a balance of truth and tolerance according to “our” definition of truth and tolerance, and not a moral relativist’s, who in his view and variation, holds to opposing definitions.

Well, I was trying to understand what Elder Oaks was talking about when he said there is absolute right and wrong and contrasted it with moral relativism and when he said these moral absolutes must be coupled with tolerance for those of other beliefs. Never mind. Best to bow out. Cheers.

[Atheist Mormon]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That's not really the issue. The only moral absolute, as far as I can see, is to obey God/the prophet when commanded. Everyone believes in some form of moral relativism or situational ethics, but it's rather odd to be decrying something that the church's founding prophet acknowledged. 

You speak in riddles, but somebody has to understand you...

"The only moral absolute, as far as I can see, is to obey God/the prophet when commanded." "That's not really the issue." It is fantasy 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

California rates its own subset of English :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_English

No woy man, that's like totally a gnorly insult, dude.  I never thot an awesome babe like you woud evor soy such a thoing 

Edited July 22, 2016 by mfbukowski