Inherenty Unethical (Sinful? Abominable?) vs. Situationally Unethical (Sinful? Abominable?)

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, God is "bound" by something.  D&C 82:10 is pretty explicit ("I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.").

I would also think that God is "bound" per D&C 130:20 ("There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated...").

That God is "bound" makes sense to me.  2+2 equals 4.  I think God is "bound" by this because it is truth, and He is the God of Truth.

I think the EOM article is a pretty good summary of how I feel about this.

Well, God is not only perfectly merciful, he is also perfectly just.  Mercy cannot rob justice (Alma 42:25), so whatever manifestation of mercy God shows, is correct.

My thoughts:

1. Perfection, as an attribute of God, includes total mastery of will/agency.
2. Total mastery of will means total/perfect compliance with eternal laws.  
3. Total compliance with eternal laws puts the surety of God's unchanging/unending righteousness (and, hence, His status as "God") on par with those eternal laws.  So 2 + 2 (in an interval scale) will always equal 4.  Always.  No question.  No debate.  No hypothetical scenario where 2 + 2 ≠ 4 (again, on an interval scale).  God's righteousness is likewise definite.  Enduring.  Everlasting.  Quite a comforting thought, that.

Both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God."  However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God."  See, e.g., Mormons 9:15, 19 (emphases added):

See also the numerous scriptures regarding the attributes of God, including:

• the Lord changes not: 3 Ne. 24:6 . (Moro. 8:18.)
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9 .
• no variableness or shadow of changing in God: Morm. 9:9–10 .
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: D&C 20:12 .
• God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17 .

So, regarding the character of God and whether He is constrained by eternal laws, we have to look at the lexical limitations we face, such as what do we mean by "bound" and "eternal laws."  But at the end of it all, and based on the above scriptures, my answer is, essentially . . . yes, God is "bound" by some eternal laws.

I'm not sure about that.  Again, both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God." However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God."

Sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying here.

I agree with that.

The point, though, is that He is "bound."

I can appreciate that.  I think that there is room for disagreement on this point.  I think this is why the EOM hedges its bets a bit.

In the law, there are sources of legal information which are called "mandatory authorities," and some which are "persuasive authorities."  "Mandatory (or "Binding") authorities" are sources which an attorney or judge in a given circumstance must accept and follow.  The U.S. Constitution, for example, is a mandatory authority.  Chapter 1 of Title 57 of the Utah Code is a "mandatory authority" for real estate foreclosures in Utah.  In contrast, "persuasive authorities" are "sources of law, such as related cases or legal encyclopedias, that the court consults in deciding a case, but which, unlike binding authority, the court need not apply in reaching its conclusion."

So it is, I think, with many writings about the Gospel.  There are "mandatory authorities" and "persuasive authorities."  I think people like you and I are quite at liberty to disagree with "persuasive authorities" (such as Mormon Doctrine, Doctrines of Salvation, etc.). 

Well, apparently some laws are "eternal" (see here).

Okay.

I respect that.

Thank you,

-Smac

Thank you for that reply. Hey detailed and well presented.

Yes,  Alma was who I had in mind with his declaration of God would cease to be His. I simply do not view it as meanig that God must obey eternal laws or else...so much as His nature would be changed. But, as you cited, His nature changes not. In the end I do not see how one bases his or her beliefs on LDS doctrine declaring as a matter if fact that God must obey laws over Him. I fail to find that in any canonical doctrine. 

Regarding the point you said you were not sure about, I was simply pointing out that God is quite relevant to us now and for our final judgement. If God were to just save us or damn us no matter what, what difference does God make for us now and esecially for our final judgement? Serving God or cursing God would be rendered irrelevant so, who cares about God if He saves or done no matter what we do? In that aense, God would "cease to be God" in my mind.

Queztion: does not D&C 82:10  connect God bring bound to a "promise"? If God oro.ises He fulfills it, yes? To me that speaks to His nature,  not an obligation to obey eternal laws. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Thank you for that reply. Hey detailed and well presented.

Yes,  Alma was who I had in mind with his declaration of God would cease to be His. I simply do not view it as meanig that God must obey eternal laws or else...so much as His nature would be changed. But, as you cited, His nature changes not.

I think it may mean both, that God must obey eternal laws, and that if He doesn't, "His nature would be changed" (though I think this is purely hypothetical, I do not believe God's nature will ever change).

15 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

In the end I do not see how one bases his or her beliefs on LDS doctrine declaring as a matter if fact that God must obey laws over Him.

I don't.  This is an interesting topic, but I don't think it's foundational.  So I don't base my beliefs on it.

15 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I fail to find that in any canonical doctrine. 

I think there is a reasonable extrapolation of this concept from the scriptures, so I don't think it's absent.  It's inferential.  And there is room for reasoned and principled disagreement about that.

15 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Queztion: does not D&C 82:10  connect God bring bound to a "promise"? If God oro.ises He fulfills it, yes? To me that speaks to His nature,  not an obligation to obey eternal laws. 

Unless "His nature" includes being subject to eternal laws.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Darren10]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it may mean both, that God must obey eternal laws, and that if He doesn't, "His nature would be changed" (though I think this is purely hypothetical, I do not believe God's nature will ever change).

I don't.  This is an interesting topic, but I don't think it's foundational.  So I don't base my beliefs on it.

I think there is a reasonable extrapolation of this concept from the scriptures, so I don't think it's absent.  It's inferential.  And there is room for reasoned and principled disagreement about that.

Unless "His nature" includes being subject to eternal laws.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmmm, interesting. I guess when a Mormon states point blank "God is bound by eternal law" does so cobfident that it's a canonical LDS  teaching. 

I otherwise agree with what you said in this post. 

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

...................................................................

We determine the will of God through the exercise of agency in conjunction with the inherent light of Christ which is in us and all things.

Not sure that our free agency and the light of Christ have anything to do with knowing the Will of God.  I should have thought that you would emphasize asking God and receiving an answer via the Holy Spirit.

Other religious groups look to the biblical text to determine whether a particular claim or action is in keeping with God's will.  Others look to their faith tradition.  There is no agreement among those groups on what is in fact the will of God, and that is also true of Muslims -- who are still murdering one another in large numbers based on their divergent views of the Will of God.  Mormons are sometimes  held in contempt by so-called Christians, such that Mormons may as well be defined as a Satanic cult.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure that our free agency and the light of Christ have anything to do with knowing the Will of God.  I should have thought that you would emphasize asking God and receiving an answer via the Holy Spirit.

Other religious groups look to the biblical text to determine whether a particular claim or action is in keeping with God's will.  Others look to their faith tradition.  There is no agreement among those groups on what is in fact the will of God, and that is also true of Muslims -- who are still murdering one another in large numbers based on their divergent views of the Will of God.  Mormons are sometimes  held in contempt by so-called Christians, such that Mormons may as well be defined as a Satanic cult.

I'm trying to get more fundamental than that. I think we need to choose to act to know, and choose what source to follow before getting to the point of asking God. At the most basic level, choosing to act to know is agency, and the chosen source to follow that leads to God is the light of Christ. Choosing to act to know and the Lord's dissemination of the light of Christ have to work in tandem.

Eve chose to act to know; she chose to partake of the forbidden fruit that she might have knowledge, acting according to the light of Christ which she had, which is often lauded as wisdom.

[Robert F. Smith]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm trying to get more fundamental than that. I think we need to choose to act to know, and choose what source to follow before getting to the point of asking God. At the most basic level, choosing to act to know is agency, and the chosen source to follow that leads to God is the light of Christ. Choosing to act to know and the Lord's dissemination of the light of Christ have to work in tandem.

Eve chose to act to know; she chose to partake of the forbidden fruit that she might have knowledge, acting according to the light of Christ which she had, which is often lauded as wisdom.

I would laud that as wise as well, primarily because she had conflicting orders to obey and chose the best one -- in my opinion.

However, saying that doesn't help me understand what you mean that "we need to choose to act to know."  Seems to put the cart before the horse at best (circular at worst), given the human condition to which we are heir.  At the most basic level, we are prisoners of inborn, genetic instinct and cultural norms.  How can we get outside that?  Are you saying that the unaided light of Christ is enough to slowly overcome the utter selfishness of mewling infancy?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Hmmm, interesting. I guess when a Mormon states point blank "God is bound by eternal law" does so cobfident that it's a canonical LDS  teaching. 

That's not quite what I said.  Take a look:

Quote

Quote

as something that can be reconciled with God's will and therefore unsinful, then it seems to me that ultimately any behavior can be rationalized,

Well, no.  I think God is bound by eternal laws.  See my previous quote of Joseph Smith, and also my previous quote of the EOM.

I prefaced my statement with a caveat ("I think...") to indicate that I was expressing an opinion (an informed and substantiated and documented opinion, but an opinion nonetheless), not reciting established, canonical doctrine.

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

I otherwise agree with what you said in this post. 

I'm glad of that.  And where you disagree, I am glad that we are situated so as to be able to have differences of opinions on conjectural or speculative doctrines, while remaining cordial as fellow Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Guest]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe that it is ever wrong for God to end a life because I know that death to God is different than how we understand death.  I do struggle though with God commanding other 'righteous' people to kill children.  

What would happen to you mentally and emotionally if you were commanded to kill unarmed women and children, infants and toddlers clinging to their mothers' bodies?  How many could you kill before you were scarred and damaged yourself?  And what would happen to those men who weren't all that righteous and were asked to do such things?  How would such acts impact a heart and soul that wasn't that interested in staying close to God? 

Broken people and monsters are made through such acts.

On that we both agree. If we are to believe such things, it would seem that we are called to better people that some Prophets of old, or even God himself. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

If that were the case, then murder would be no big deal to God.  He could literally say "Don't worry about killing each other.  While it may seem like a big deal to you at the time, it's really quite meaningless, and it doesn't bother Me at all."

 

True. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I would laud that as wise as well, primarily because she had conflicting orders to obey and chose the best one -- in my opinion.

However, saying that doesn't help me understand what you mean that "we need to choose to act to know."  Seems to put the cart before the horse at best (circular at worst), given the human condition to which we are heir.  At the most basic level, we are prisoners of inborn, genetic instinct and cultural norms.  How can we get outside that?  Are you saying that the unaided light of Christ is enough to slowly overcome the utter selfishness of mewling infancy?

The light of Christ provides the kind of wisdom Eve acted with (I was saying the light of Christ is lauded as wisdom).

I think at the most basic level, we are truly fallen but the light of Christ is also an integral component of our instinct, and as a form of information, the spiritual template for the information encoded in our genes, and even the influence underlying various cultural norms. The telestial glory is not absolutely craven: in an immortal state, the inhabitants tolerate a portion of the Holy Spirit, and the same goes for this mortal telestial world (even the least of kingdoms sees God moving in his majesty and power: D&C 88:6, 38, 42, 47).

I think that our fallen nature and the light of Christ (which shines in that darkness) together provide the choices that are necessary for us to use our agency. Having progressed to the second estate, we have some quantum of agency no matter how fallen we think we are. I think the pairing of fallen nature and the light of Christ (the divine nature) is consistent with the law of opposition. As we choose the light of Christ and are led to God, the pairing of opposites is more like a "then" and "now" or a "good-better-best" -- we "become" godlike yet cannot stand still but continue to progress. Progress in each advancing sphere of immortal godliness takes on a more divine character, of course.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is not what denial of the Holy Ghost means, but thanks for playing along.

 

What do you mean by "playing along"? I get the vibe that you think I wasn't serious.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The light of Christ provides the kind of wisdom Eve acted with (I was saying the light of Christ is lauded as wisdom).

I think at the most basic level, we are truly fallen but the light of Christ is also an integral component of our instinct, and as a form of information, the spiritual template for the information encoded in our genes, and even the influence underlying various cultural norms. The telestial glory is not absolutely craven: in an immortal state, the inhabitants tolerate a portion of the Holy Spirit, and the same goes for this mortal telestial world (even the least of kingdoms sees God moving in his majesty and power: D&C 88:6, 38, 42, 47).

I think that our fallen nature and the light of Christ (which shines in that darkness) together provide the choices that are necessary for us to use our agency. Having progressed to the second estate, we have some quantum of agency no matter how fallen we think we are. I think the pairing of fallen nature and the light of Christ (the divine nature) is consistent with the law of opposition. As we choose the light of Christ and are led to God, the pairing of opposites is more like a "then" and "now" or a "good-better-best" -- we "become" godlike yet cannot stand still but continue to progress. Progress in each advancing sphere of immortal godliness takes on a more divine character, of course.

Sounds very nice and positive (progress and all), but I am not so sure that progression is either natural or assured under the Law of Opposites.  Let's hope so.  Then maybe a quantum of free agency will lead to a quantum of solace.

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's not quite what I said.  Take a look:

I prefaced my statement with a caveat ("I think...") to indicate that I was expressing an opinion (an informed and substantiated and documented opinion, but an opinion nonetheless), not reciting established, canonical doctrine.

I'm glad of that.  And where you disagree, I am glad that we are situated so as to be able to have differences of opinions on conjectural or speculative doctrines, while remaining cordial as fellow Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

ADD, I didn’t catch the “I think”. Good point. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by Darren10

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What do you mean by "playing along"? I get the vibe that you think I wasn't serious.

OH I think you are serious. Just seriously wrong. I have no way of knowing what you know, or how God will judge you. I hope he will be kind, and teach both of us what we need to know and do whatever it takes to be with him. Denying the Holy Ghost is not just some faith crises. It is actively willingly refusing to repent when we fully know.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds very nice and positive (progress and all), but I am not so sure that progression is either natural or assured under the Law of Opposites.  Let's hope so.  Then maybe a quantum of free agency will lead to a quantum of solace.

Progression is the aim of the plan of happiness; in that sense it is “natural.” Its realization is a function of our agency; in that sense it is not assured even though the Lord has ensured that it is perfectly possible as far as He knows and His works are concerned.

It is also natural in that we do have a divine nature, no matter how depraved the trappings of the flesh may be. The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not. (“Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.”). The law of opposiotion allows that, “Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the [exaltation] of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth the light progresses, even unto exaltation.”

In order to know, or to comprehend the light, we need to act, and in order to act we need to exercise faith, even if as simple a faith and a labor as to look to the light (“And as many as should look upon that serpent should live, even so as many as should look upon the Son of God…”). Eve drew upon her wisdom (an aspect of her divine nature that was illuminated by the light of Christ) to act in partaking of the forbidden fruit and gaining knowledge. The knowledge came about by falling, and being given a Redeemer in opposition to that, wherein she continued to exercise her agency. In her case, she chose to progress.

In explaining to non-believers how Mormonism isn't founded on Moral Relativism, we can explain that it is founded instead on the more fundamental concept of agency: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man…” and so forth. The moral code of Mormonism cannot exist without agency. We think 'big,"  by exercising faith in Christ, and we think "small" by discerning the still, small voice. Thus "by small and simple things are great things brought to pass..." and "by small means the Lord can bring about great things."

Once one’s agency is used to identify and align with an absolute moral authority – whatever that is, and with LDS it is God – there is no moral relativism at work. If one follows no moral authority, then he is operating under moral relativism.

Calling his attention to this for @Daniel2's benefit.

Edited November 30, 2017 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Progression is the aim of the plan of happiness; in that sense it is “natural.” Its realization is a function of our agency; in that sense it is not assured even though the Lord has ensured that it is perfectly possible as far as He knows and His works are concerned.

It is also natural in that we do have a divine nature, no matter how depraved the trappings of the flesh may be. The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not. (“Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.”). The law of opposiotion allows that, “Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the [exaltation] of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth the light progresses, even unto exaltation.”

In order to know, or to comprehend the light, we need to act, and in order to act we need to exercise faith, even if as simple a faith and a labor as to look to the light (“And as many as should look upon that serpent should live, even so as many as should look upon the Son of God…”). Eve drew upon her wisdom (an aspect of her divine nature that was illuminated by the light of Christ) to act in partaking of the forbidden fruit and gaining knowledge. The knowledge came about by falling, and being given a Redeemer in opposition to that, wherein she continued to exercise her agency. In her case, she chose to progress.

In explaining to non-believers how Mormonism isn't founded on Moral Relativism, we can explain that it is founded instead on the more fundamental concept of agency: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man…” and so forth. The moral code of Mormonism cannot exist without agency. We think 'big,"  by exercising faith in Christ, and we think "small" by discerning the still, small voice. Thus "by small and simple things are great things brought to pass..." and "by small means the Lord can bring about great things."

Once one’s agency is used to identify and align with an absolute moral authority – whatever that is, and with LDS it is God – there is no moral relativism at work. If one follows no moral authority, then he is operating under moral relativism.

Calling his attention to this for @Daniel2's benefit.

Sounds very positive and hopeful.  Very progressive.  However, there is this problem that humans have with choosing evil and choosing it often.  A full third of the Host of Heaven chose to oppose these very concepts you are discussing here.  They obviously didn't want the terrible risk associated with free agency.  They preferred to have salvation assured and even guaranteed, so that none would be lost.  Then there is the nature of man since being expelled from the Garden -- a horrific litany of evil can be told throughout all of human history.  People seem to have a proclivity to lie, cheat, steal, and kill.  And that is putting it mildly.

Moral relativism sounds pretty good to people like Mark Hofmann.  After all, he doesn't believe in God, and thinks that he should do whatever he can get away with in order to make himself happy here and now (hard to do within the walls of Utah State Prison), and since there is no punishment hereafter.  Why should anyone even believe in God, or in the principles you enunciate?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds very positive and hopeful.  Very progressive.  However, there is this problem that humans have with choosing evil and choosing it often.  A full third of the Host of Heaven chose to oppose these very concepts you are discussing here.  They obviously didn't want the terrible risk associated with free agency.  They preferred to have salvation assured and even guaranteed, so that none would be lost.  Then there is the nature of man since being expelled from the Garden -- a horrific litany of evil can be told throughout all of human history.  People seem to have a proclivity to lie, cheat, steal, and kill.  And that is putting it mildly.

Moral relativism sounds pretty good to people like Mark Hofmann.  After all, he doesn't believe in God, and thinks that he should do whatever he can get away with in order to make himself happy here and now (hard to do within the walls of Utah State Prison), and since there is no punishment hereafter.  Why should anyone even believe in God, or in the principles you enunciate?

Oh no, am I progressive?

Yes, we each inevitably choose evil to one degree or another, but through grace we can come to choose righteousness and be brought back into the Father’s presence. The third part who opposed God in the first estate just chose it early enough to disqualify themselves for the second estate (where there is a space for repentance); and sons of perdition may yet do the same in this estate and opt out of that space for repentance. Their reasons for rejecting God are probably numerous, but in the end, it results in their loss of agency.

The more we choose correctly, the more we realize we have yet a longer way to go before we can always choose correctly. But we have faith in the promise that perfect day will dawn upon us if we remain as true and faithful as we can be given our appointed space to repent. The Gospel brings a very positive and hopeful message.

As to why anyone should believe in God: I don’t think exaltation is a matter of should, but a matter of invitation: “Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you. Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely…  Behold, I say unto you, that the good shepherd doth call you…” (Alma 5, and elsewhere in the chapter he describes how he knows, and how we can know, who to follow).

I can tell you why I think you should believe and do such-and-such, but the correct way is to invite you, and honor your choice in deciding whether you should believe such-and-such. In the right atmosphere I can also explain why I think I should believe and do such-and-such, and continue to strive accordingly when I fall short.

Edited November 30, 2017 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

............................Yes, we each inevitably choose evil to one degree or another, but through grace we can come to choose righteousness and be brought back into the Father’s presence. The third part who opposed God in the first estate just chose it early enough to disqualify themselves for the second estate (where there is a space for repentance); ...............Their reasons for rejecting God are probably numerous, but in the end, it results in their loss of agency.

Yes, they lose their power to make free choices, especially when they make evil their special cause and preference.  But why should they choose righteousness, when they are angry and out to get even?  Don't they become suicidal at that point?  Like the followers of Hitler?

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The more we choose correctly, the more we realize we have yet a longer way to go before we can always choose correctly. But we have faith in the promise that perfect day will dawn upon us if we remain as true and faithful as we can be given our appointed space to repent. The Gospel brings a very positive and hopeful message.

Yes, goodness can become a habit, but what of those who have been repeatedly brutalized and who seek vengeance for those wrongs?

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As to why anyone should believe in God: I don’t think exaltation is a matter of should, but a matter of invitation: “Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you. Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely…  Behold, I say unto you, that the good shepherd doth call you…” (Alma 5, and elsewhere in the chapter he describes how he knows, and how we can know, who to follow)....................................................

Thank you for that.  When we finish taking James 1:5-7, Moroni 10:4-5, and Alma 32 to heart, Alma 5:45-47 does indeed add mightily to our epistemological repertoire:

Quote

45 ...how do ye suppose that I know of their surety?  46 Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me.  47 And moreover, I say unto you that it has thus been revealed unto me, that the words which have been spoken by our fathers are true, even so according to the spirit of prophecy which is in me, which is also by the manifestation of the Spirit of God.

 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, they lose their power to make free choices, especially when they make evil their special cause and preference.  But why should they choose righteousness, when they are angry and out to get even?  Don't they become suicidal at that point?  Like the followers of Hitler?

Yes, goodness can become a habit, but what of those who have been repeatedly brutalized and who seek vengeance for those wrongs?

Thank you for that.  When we finish taking James 1:5-7, Moroni 10:4-5, and Alma 32 to heart, Alma 5:45-47 does indeed add mightily to our epistemological repertoire:

I can answer for them (that is, answer why they should choose righteousness), and these answers are in the scriptures and in the light of Christ that still shines in their darkness. But alas, my thoughts are not their thoughts, so to speak. And are they really asking, and asking in a way that they can comprehend the light that is so plainly manifest?

I’m not suggesting that goodness-as-habit is the aim, but rather becoming good. Kind of the opposite of having a disease is better than being a disease… If brutalization robbed someone of his agency, whether that entails his ability to think, act, feel or forgive, he would not be accountable for his reactions toward his tormentor. Otherwise he would be accountable, but I'd like to note that not all reactions, even vengeance, would necessarily be wrong. The root principle remains agency, not moral relativism.

Perhaps more to the point of Alma 5, if brutalization robbed someone of the agency to fast and pray in faith, or to otherwise apply and receive a threshold portion of the spirit of revelation or prophecy which is in them, the Lord will heal them in due time and they will have that opportunity. To me it is the same circumstance as those whose agency was effectively nullified by the great and abominable church creating an apostasy, wherein they were denied access to a fulness of the Gospel in their lifetimes. They were unable to consider and choose that which was plain and precious, let alone a fulness, because that particular option had been taken away from them.

If the focus is how does one get knowledge, I think it is by acting in a way that obtains it, which is powered by faith (as Alma 5 describes).

[smac97]

On 11/30/2017 at 7:13 AM, CV75 said:

Quote

Sounds very nice and positive (progress and all), but I am not so sure that progression is either natural or assured under the Law of Opposites.  Let's hope so.  Then maybe a quantum of free agency will lead to a quantum of solace.

Progression is the aim of the plan of happiness; in that sense it is “natural.” Its realization is a function of our agency; in that sense it is not assured even though the Lord has ensured that it is perfectly possible as far as He knows and His works are concerned.

I wonder if Robert's use of "natural" is intended to mean something like "inevitable."

For example, it is "natural" that a child is born and then grows and changes.  The parent need only feed, clothe, protect, and nurture the child, and then "growth" comes along in and of itself.  Inevitably.  "Naturally." 

However, eternal progression is not "natural" in that sense.  That sort of progression comes not through biological processes, but through obedience to laws and commandments, for which blessings and "progression" are bestowed.

So eternal progression only takes place consequent to volitional act (not inevitably).

Robert, is that what you had in mind?

I think you are both making good points.

Quote

In explaining to non-believers how Mormonism isn't founded on Moral Relativism, we can explain that it is founded instead on the more fundamental concept of agency: “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man…” and so forth. The moral code of Mormonism cannot exist without agency. We think 'big,"  by exercising faith in Christ, and we think "small" by discerning the still, small voice. Thus "by small and simple things are great things brought to pass..." and "by small means the Lord can bring about great things."

Once one’s agency is used to identify and align with an absolute moral authority – whatever that is, and with LDS it is God – there is no moral relativism at work. If one follows no moral authority, then he is operating under moral relativism.

Calling his attention to this for @Daniel2's benefit.

"Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.  It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own."

-http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

The LDS worldview is not based on morality as arising from cultural/historical "relativism," or from a particular culture or historical period as being "privileged" over another in that regard.  Rather, we posit that God, the all-knowing and all-powerful Creator of the Universe, has a perfect understanding of right and wrong, and that He is the source of such differentiations.

So no, "moral relativism" doesn't fit the LDS paradigm.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 3, 2017 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if Robert's use of "natural" is intended to mean something like "inevitable."

For example, it is "natural" that a child is born and then grows and changes.  The parent need only feed, clothe, protect, and nurture the child, and then "growth" comes along in and of itself.  Inevitably.  "Naturally." 

However, eternal progression is not "natural" in that sense.  That sort of progression comes not through biological processes, but through obedience to laws and commandments, for which blessings and "progression" are bestowed.

So eternal progression only takes place consequent to volitional act (not inevitably).

Robert, is that what you had in mind?

I think you are both making good points.

"Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.  It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own."

-http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

The LDS worldview is not based on morality as arising from cultural/historical "relativism," or from a particular culture or historical period as being "privileged" over another in that regard.  Rather, we posit that God, the all-knowing and all-powerful Creator of the Universe, has a perfect understanding of right and wrong, and that He is the source of such differentiations.

So no, "moral relativism" doesn't fit the LDS paradigm.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

I got a kick out of the bolded words: comes across a fairly emphatic and absolute morality to me!

And I agree that spiritual progress is not inevitable, but a conscious choice.