Sexual Ethics and Seeing the Worst

[jkwilliams]

Rather than get hung up on the accusation that I had somehow not responded on another thread, I would prefer to discuss an intriguing question: Does pointing out someone’s moral or ethical failings inherently equal seeing only the worst in someone and reducing them to their mistakes rather than judging them on the totality of their lives?

As I said in my apparently invisible response on another thread, if someone points out that Amy Winehouse had a problem with substance abuse, are they unfairly focusing on her faults (and, heaven forbid, engaging in “cancel culture”) and ignoring everything else about her? Is it wrong to talk about Bill Cosby’s sexual problems, or Bernie Madoff’s honesty issues, or OJ Simpson’s history of stabbiness? Are we supposed to give them a break, or does ignoring moral and ethical problems only apply to prophets?

Believe it or not, for years (decades) many of us gave Joseph Smith a pass precisely because he was Joseph Smith—until doing so was hurting our consciences. 

Again, it’s a neat rhetorical strategy to suggest that noting someone’s moral and ethical failings (particularly one who is held up as a paragon of righteousness) reflects the poor character of the person doing the noting. 

[CA Steve]

Your OP consist of 4 clear and concise paragraphs. The response will be broken down into 15 to 20ish paragraphs of meaningless drivel. 

[Fether]

I’m obviously missing some context… but here are my thoughts.

The as to whether Joseph Smith was a Prophet or not is fundamentally a different question than whether certain celebrity criminals should be in prison and away from potential victims.
 

Focusing on the criminal’s bad attributes is essential when deciding whether they are a danger to society. 

But when trying to determine whether Joseph Smith is a Prophet or not, focusing on the bad is an intellectually dishonest way of doing so if you are also saying you are trying to find the truth. Someone who is doing this has probably already decided what they belief and are simply trying to (a) convince others to come to the same conclusion, or (b) still trying to convince themselves he is not.

 

 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

I’m obviously missing some context… but here are my thoughts.

The as to whether Joseph Smith was a Prophet or not is fundamentally a different question than whether certain celebrity criminals should be in prison and away from potential victims.
 

Focusing on the criminal’s bad attributes is essential when deciding whether they are a danger to society. 

But when trying to determine whether Joseph Smith is a Prophet or not, focusing on the bad is an intellectually dishonest way of doing so if you are also saying you are trying to find the truth. Someone who is doing this has probably already decided what they belief and are simply trying to (a) convince others to come to the same conclusion, or (b) still trying to convince themselves he is not.

 

 

Yeah, you're missing the context.

[bluebell]

Is this thread just going to be a continuation of the all the personal bickering and accusations from the last thread?  I'm not sure I want to take the time to think about the OP if it's ultimately going to be locked.

My first thoughts are the the OP assumes some things that I don't believe are a given, but I don't think it reflects on the poor character of the person doing the noting.  I think it just reflects our different biases. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by bluebell

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yeah, you're missing the context.

Then the OP should probably clarify so that all posters have enough context to reply.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Rather than get hung up on the accusation that I had somehow not responded on another thread, I would prefer to discuss an intriguing question: Does pointing out someone’s moral or ethical failings inherently equal seeing only the worst in someone and reducing them to their mistakes rather than judging them on the totality of their lives?

As I said in my apparently invisible response on another thread, if someone points out that Amy Winehouse had a problem with substance abuse, are they unfairly focusing on her faults (and, heaven forbid, engaging in “cancel culture”) and ignoring everything else about her? Is it wrong to talk about Bill Cosby’s sexual problems, or Bernie Madoff’s honesty issues, or OJ Simpson’s history of stabbiness? Are we supposed to give them a break, or does ignoring moral and ethical problems only apply to prophets?

Believe it or not, for years (decades) many of us gave Joseph Smith a pass precisely because he was Joseph Smith—until doing so was hurting our consciences. 

Again, it’s a neat rhetorical strategy to suggest that noting someone’s moral and ethical failings (particularly one who is held up as a paragon of righteousness) reflects the poor character of the person doing the noting. 

One of the great things about the Bible is that it talks about people warts and all.  Heroes all have flaws.  So too, when we discuss our own modern heroes, it is helpful to recognize their human failings.  I very much appreciated, for example, Bruce McConkie publicly admitting that Brigham spoke without light and knowledge on the capacity of African Americans to hold the priesthood.  Had anyone else said that, they would have been immediately condemned for speaking ill of the Lord's anointed.  The fallibility of human prophets needs to be emphasized.  I love the story of King David being openly condemned by the Prophet Nathan.  David thought he was untouchable.  After all, he was the Lord's anointed.

However, to frankly state that Brother Brigham was a racist does in no sense make him a fallen prophet.  Nor is it fair to condemn Joseph Smith and Jesus of being wine bibbers.  Of course they drank wine, something we cannot do and retain our temple recommends.  Why the difference?  Is it even fair to condemn non-LDS people who drink alcoholic beverages?  We had a Jewish rabbi at BYU once upon a time who received a waiver from BYU to be able to drink wine for kiddush.  He was a doctoral student and Hebrew teacher at BYU at the time.  He discussed his experiences at the Y with me in detail.  Latter-day Saints need to learn to be less rigid and less brittle.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Then the OP should probably clarify so that all posters have enough context to reply.  

I’m not sure context changes anything. The accusation made was that pointing out problematic sexual ethics was reducing someone to that behavior and amounted to cancel culture. I’m not making any accusations or bickering, but I am intrigued at this assertion. I won’t lose any sleep if the thread gets locked, but I am interested in how this is supposed to work. 

[Fether]

.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Fether

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One of the great things about the Bible is that it talks about people warts and all.  Heroes all have flaws.  So too, when we discuss our own modern heroes, it is helpful to recognize their human failings.  I very much appreciated, for example, Bruce McConkie publicly admitting that Brigham spoke without light and knowledge on the capacity of African Americans to hold the priesthood.  Had anyone else said that, they would have been immediately condemned for speaking ill of the Lord's anointed.  The fallibility of human prophets needs to be emphasized.  I love the story of King David being openly condemned by the Prophet Nathan.  David thought he was untouchable.  After all, he was the Lord's anointed.

However, to frankly state that Brother Brigham was a racist does in no sense make him a fallen prophet.  Nor is it fair to condemn Joseph Smith and Jesus of being wine bibbers.  Of course they drank wine, something we cannot do and retain our temple recommends.  Why the difference?  Is it even fair to condemn non-LDS people who drink alcoholic beverages?  We had a Jewish rabbi at BYU once upon a time who received a waiver from BYU to be able to drink wine for kiddush.  He was a doctoral student and Hebrew teacher at BYU at the time.  He discussed his experiences at the Y with me in detail.  Latter-day Saints need to learn to be less rigid and less brittle.

That’s the way I see it. I like the “warts and all” Joseph Smith better than the “practically perfect in every way” Joseph I grew up being taught. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s the way I see it. I like the “warts and all” Joseph Smith better than the “practically perfect in every way” Joseph I grew up being taught. 

Yep.  Brigham first met Joseph chopping wood in his yard.  Later he would recall how much he loved a prophet who chopped wood.  I like how down-to-earth those guys were.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Rather than get hung up on the accusation that I had somehow not responded on another thread, I would prefer to discuss an intriguing question: Does pointing out someone’s moral or ethical failings inherently equal seeing only the worst in someone and reducing them to their mistakes rather than judging them on the totality of their lives?

As I said in my apparently invisible response on another thread, if someone points out that Amy Winehouse had a problem with substance abuse, are they unfairly focusing on her faults (and, heaven forbid, engaging in “cancel culture”) and ignoring everything else about her? Is it wrong to talk about Bill Cosby’s sexual problems, or Bernie Madoff’s honesty issues, or OJ Simpson’s history of stabbiness? Are we supposed to give them a break, or does ignoring moral and ethical problems only apply to prophets?

Believe it or not, for years (decades) many of us gave Joseph Smith a pass precisely because he was Joseph Smith—until doing so was hurting our consciences. 

Again, it’s a neat rhetorical strategy to suggest that noting someone’s moral and ethical failings (particularly one who is held up as a paragon of righteousness) reflects the poor character of the person doing the noting. 

I didn’t respond to a question because the thread got shut down. I forget what the question was… Nice to see a new thread without any baggage!

From my observation, both Amy and Joseph are dead, but it is possible to have a kind but firm discussion with Bill about moral and ethical choices he made, given the due process he was given for proving his guilt in related criminal actions.

I’m not sure if it is possible to give anyone living, no less a long-dead individual, a “pass” for things that are not proven, especially on the basis of lapses that might be surmised from historical records that are so much less reliable than Bill's court records and Amy's medical records. Or even less reliable, on the basis of contentious opinions over doctrines and practices, even worse when tainted with negative emotion. At some point, the more contentious and negative a person becomes, the more their character may be brought into question. They are typically given a pass when the dust settles. The same would go, I think, for not giving someone a pass, living or dead.

I think when it comes to discussions where Joseph Smith is known for good and evil, a sound conversation requires two concurrent processes: one, sharing a well-founded historical basis for his deeds, ethics and morals (his character); and two, civil communication. I also think it is important to be aware that the ethics and morals of others are more interpreted than documented, and that our interpretation is mostly very biased. And this assumes the people in the conversation reasonably share or respect each other’s ethical and moral code, which, if there is disagreement, may reveal an issue with one or both party’s character. And it assumes there is no emotionally-laden condemnation of one or the other's historical sources, public records, or religious, ethical or moral beliefs. 

I just realized this is about sexual ethics, specifically. How does relate to Amy? I also just looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ethics#:~:text=Sexual ethics or sex ethics,%2C cultural%2C and philosophical perspective.

Sorry, that wasn't about Amy.

Do you happen to have a code of sexual ethics on hand?

 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Rather than get hung up on the accusation that I had somehow not responded on another thread, I would prefer to discuss an intriguing question: Does pointing out someone’s moral or ethical failings inherently equal seeing only the worst in someone and reducing them to their mistakes rather than judging them on the totality of their lives?

Lots and lots of wiggle room in "pointing out."

Let's examine a hypothetical scenario: Let's say that we were on a message board populated by people from India who admire and venerate the work of Mahatma Gandhi pertaining to the campaign for India's independence from British rule, his advocacy of nonviolent protest, his work addressing the caste system in India, and so on.  Let's also say that there is a set of self-appointed individuals who participate on that board and make a calculated and deliberate point of participating in most discussions of Gandhi by raising one or more of the following talking conclusory points:

"Gandhi was a racist."

Quote

Last year, a Gandhi statue was removed from a university campus in Ghana. Activists there and in Malawi are using the hashtag #GandhiMustFall. They're angry about his early writings.

In 1903, when Gandhi was in South Africa, he wrote that white people there should be "the predominating race." He also said black people "are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."

There's no way around it: Gandhi was a racist early in his life, says his biographer Ramachandra Guha.

And here:

Quote

Gandhi’s racism

Gandhi moved to South Africa in 1893 to represent an Indian merchant in a lawsuit and went on to spend 21 years in the then-British colony. During the two decades he spent in South Africa, most of his actions and words demonstrated his anti-Black racism.

In fact, he rose to prominence in colonial South Africa, not because of his anti-racist activism, but his efforts to reconfigure existing racial hierarchies for the benefit of his own people.

One of the first battles Gandhi fought after coming to South Africa was over the separate entrances for white and Black people at the Durban post office. Gandhi objected that Indians were “classed with the natives of South Africa”, who he derogatively labelled as “kaffirs”, and demanded a separate entrance for Indians.

During his time in South Africa, Gandhi repeatedly underlined the shared Indo-Aryan roots of the Indian and European peoples and argued that, due to this historical connection, the British empire should treat Indians more respectfully than Black Africans.

In an open letter to the parliament of colonial South Africa, for example, he wrote: “I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan. … This belief serves as the basis of operations of those who are trying to unify the hearts of the two races, which are, legally and outwardly, bound together under a common flag.”

In the same letter, he went on to argue that “a general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.”

Throughout his stay in South Africa, Gandhi continued to voice his belief that Black Africans were inferior to Indians. He openly advocated for the continuation of race-based residential and social segregation in the colony and publicly allied himself with the British colonisers at every opportunity. During the Boer war, for example, Gandhi raised an Indian Ambulance Corps and served in it as a sergeant-major of the British army.

Gandhi’s unflinching loyalty to the British based on “shared racial ancestry” and disdain for native peoples of Africa ran so deep that leading scholars believe during his time in South Africa he stood out “not as one of apartheid’s first opponents but as one of its first proponents”.

"Gandhi was a sexual deviant."

Quote

In all this we ignore the fact that many people quarrelled with Gandhi. Many were troubled by his idiosyncratic ways, which we now know included sexually aberrant behaviour. It was not just the Hindu brigade that quarrelled with him but so did Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Annie Besant, Aurobindo, Ambedkar and others. Besant told Durga Das, a well-known and influential journalist, that she thought Gandhi was leading the country to anarchy.

Gandhi's peccadilloes and idiosyncrasies drove quite a few people up the wall. He was considered by many to be a "difficult person," as he insisted that those around him and the people of India follow him in his peculiar "ascetic" ways. Alas, very few people knew about his dangerous experiments to test his willpower and ability to withstand sexual temptation. One of those "experiments" included sleeping naked with his teenage grand-nieces, Manu and Abha.

These self-appointed individuals are really quite consistent in pointing these things out.  Whenever Gandhi the individual is discussed on the message board, these individuals point to his racism and weird sexual proclivities.  They have little to nothing to say about his achievements, his virtues, his acommplishments.  Instead, their comments always position his flaws as his defining attributes, as their measure of the man.  These flaws predominate.  In the eyes of these individuals, these flaws are the sine qua non of of his overall character, of his reputation, of his life.

Not only do these individuals consistently point out Gandhi's apparent flaws and defects, they do so

• A) deliberately in a forum that they know if heavily populated by admirers of Gandhi, and
• B) they go out of their way to disparage and denigrate Gandhi, to cast him in the worst possible light,
• C) they say these things with the apparent deliberate intention of provoking anger and causing offense, and 
• D) they do these things while also being aware that most or all of the board's admirers of Gandhi already know about these things, or else have previously particpated in discussions in which these things have been raised (many, many times, actually).

Now, let's say that one of these individuals comes along and - doing his best Captain Renault impression - is shocked - shocked! - that the admirers of Gandhi express some mild irritation with the endless provocateur schtick, with the nonstop insults and denigrations of a person they admire.  It's not that these folks are unaware of Gandhi's flaws.  Rather, it is that they fundamentally disagree with this relentlessly demeaning and ugly insistence that those flaws are the best measure of Gandhi's life work.  This is all the more so given how endlessly these libels are repeated.  It is evident that the purpose of these calumnies is not to inform or educate, but to defame, to calumnate, to offend, to insult.  The purpose is to make these flaws the defining attributes of Mahatma Gandhi.  Not his commitment to nonviolence.  Not his efforts for his people.  Not his contributions to society.  He was a racist and a sexual deviant.  Q.E.D.

So could these efforts be reasonably characterized as "seeing only the worst in someone and reducing them to their mistakes rather than judging them on the totality of their lives?"  I think so.  Yes.  

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Believe it or not, for years (decades) many of us gave Joseph Smith a pass precisely because he was Joseph Smith—until doing so was hurting our consciences. 

Again, it’s a neat rhetorical strategy to suggest that noting someone’s moral and ethical failings (particularly one who is held up as a paragon of righteousness) reflects the poor character of the person doing the noting. 

"Noting."  

Right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Yeah, you're missing the context.

Here's the context.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

I think the answer is no. Failings do not make or break the totality of a person. Neither do successes.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Lots and lots of wiggle room in "pointing out."

Let's examine a hypothetical scenario: Let's say that we were on a message board populated by people from India who admire and venerate the work of Mahatma Gandhi pertaining to the campaign for India's independence from British rule, his advocacy of nonviolent protest, his work addressing the caste system in India, and so on.  Let's also say that there is a set of self-appointed individuals who participate on that board and make a calculated and deliberate point of participating in most discussions of Gandhi by raising one or more of the following talking conclusory points:

"Gandhi was a racist."

And here:

"Gandhi was a sexual deviant."

These self-appointed individuals are really quite consistent in pointing these things out.  Whenever Gandhi the individual is discussed on the message board, these individuals point to his racism and weird sexual proclivities.  They have little to nothing to say about his achievements, his virtues, his acommplishments.  Instead, their comments always position his flaws as his defining attributes, as their measure of the man.  These flaws predominate.  In the eyes of these individuals, these flaws are the sine qua non of of his overall character, of his reputation, of his life.

Not only do these individuals consistently point out Gandhi's apparent flaws and defects, they do so

• A) deliberately in a forum that they know if heavily populated by admirers of Gandhi, and
• B) they go out of their way to disparage and denigrate Gandhi, to cast him in the worst possible light,
• C) they say these things with the apparent deliberate intention of provoking anger and causing offense, and 
• D) they do these things while also being aware that most or all of the board's admirers of Gandhi already know about these things, or else have previously particpated in discussions in which these things have been raised (many, many times, actually).

Now, let's say that one of these individuals comes along and - doing his best Captain Renault impression - is shocked - shocked! - that the admirers of Gandhi express some mild irritation with the endless provocateur schtick, with the nonstop insults and denigrations of a person they admire.  It's not that these folks are unaware of Gandhi's flaws.  Rather, it is that they fundamentally disagree with this relentlessly demeaning and ugly insistence that those flaws are the best measure of Gandhi's life work.  This is all the more so given how endlessly these libels are repeated.  It is evident that the purpose of these calumnies is not to inform or educate, but to defame, to calumnate, to offend, to insult.  The purpose is to make these flaws the defining attributes of Mahatma Gandhi.  Not his commitment to nonviolence.  Not his efforts for his people.  Not his contributions to society.  He was a racist and a sexual deviant.  Q.E.D.

So could these efforts be reasonably characterized as "seeing only the worst in someone and reducing them to their mistakes rather than judging them on the totality of their lives?"  I think so.  Yes.  

"Noting."  

Right.

Thanks,

-Smac

You might have a point if I had any history of saying Joseph Smith was nothing more than a man with poor sexual ethics. That’s simply not the case. 

A sarcastic response to a rather overwrought lament on modern sexual ethics is not calumny. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by jkwilliams

[JLHPROF]

God says he will remember old sins no more if we have moved past them.

Are we even capable of being that forgiving?  Especially for people we've never even met.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

God says he will remember old sins no more if we have moved past them.

Are we even capable of being that forgiving?  Especially for people we've never even met.

That's not really the question though. 

[James 1 5]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Rather than get hung up on the accusation that I had somehow not responded on another thread, I would prefer to discuss an intriguing question: Does pointing out someone’s moral or ethical failings inherently equal seeing only the worst in someone and reducing them to their mistakes rather than judging them on the totality of their lives?

No, pointing out something doesn't mean that what is pointed out is all that is seen.  It does mean that is all that is being pointed out though.  If you see more than you point out then maybe you should point out all that you see instead of pointing out only 1 or 2 things as if that is the sum total of all that person is.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, James 1 5 said:

No, pointing out something doesn't mean that what is pointed out is all that is seen.  It does mean that is all that is being pointed out though.  If you see more than you point out then maybe you should point out all that you see instead of pointing out only 1 or 2 things as if that is the sum total of all that person is.

The topic was sexual ethics, so it would have been odd to write an essay on all of the man’s qualities. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's not really the question though. 

No, it isn’t. Certainly I have nothing to forgive of Joseph Smith or any other church president. That would be kind of weird to demand an apology from a dead person who never did anything to me. 

[James 1 5]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The topic was sexual ethics, so it would have been odd to write an essay on all of the man’s qualities. 

Are you sure?  I thought the topic was a person, that you were talking about a person, rather than only the sexual ethics of a person.  

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You might have a point if I had any history of saying Joseph Smith was nothing more than a man with poor sexual ethics. That’s simply not the case. 

A sarcastic response to a rather overwrought lament on modern sexual ethics is not calumny. 

Smac wants to divorce your comment from the fact that it was he who invoked the name of Joseph Smith and his role as a restorer of lost truths when he was lamenting the alleged departure from 'sexual ethics.' That way, he can act like you and I are bad people who defame his prophet, when in reality we were pointing out the irony of his own post.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, James 1 5 said:

Are you sure?  I thought the topic was a person, that you were talking about a person, rather than only the sexual ethics of a person.  

Note the thread title. 

[James 1 5]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Note the thread title. 

Okay.  My answer is still No.  If you are talking only about the sexual ethics of a person and you point out what you see as indicative of that person's sexual ethics, that does not mean you do not see anything else regarding that person.  You are only talking about one facet of that persons ethics based on what you see and what you think that indicates about that person's sexual ethics.