CV75 Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 Hey I just wanna give a shout-out to Amy's inspired music and Bill's ingenious comedy albums from the late 1960's -- changed the world forever. And I don't care what they say, Ghandi made a wondrous vada pav. 1
ttribe Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Here's the context. Thanks, -Smac Actually, this is -
jkwilliams Posted February 5, 2022 Author Posted February 5, 2022 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: Actually, this is - Calumny! 1
Vanguard Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 2 hours 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. Well, I guess the context matters, right? Of course a person should be able to point out failings in another up to and including our prophets. The devil is in the details though, is it not? I could show you a million +1 ways of doing this that would be highly objectionable though. And I believe you would too. The problem is there is so much oppositionality (is that a word?!) on this board that each side views the other as manipulating the context to suit their ends. How do you change that? If you think for a moment the side who "not[es] someone’s moral and ethical failings" is free of the responsibility to be just that - responsible in how they address it, then we're farther apart than we can even appreciate. Case in point - you say "for years (decades) many of us gave Joseph Smith a pass". That very comment I find mildly offensive as if to suggest I am giving him a pass? Who on earth wants to be accused of that? Now, those who would agree with you will almost inevitably come to your defense with something like "Oh come now, Vanguard, surely your skin is thicker than that?" or worse, "My, is Vanguard steeped in denial". And so it goes. Over and over again. Each side digging in and feeling a little righteously indignant... : ( 2
jkwilliams Posted February 5, 2022 Author Posted February 5, 2022 Just now, Vanguard said: Well, I guess the context matters, right? Of course a person should be able to point out failings in another up to and including our prophets. The devil is in the details though, is it not? I could show you a million +1 ways of doing this that would be highly objectionable though. And I believe you would too. The problem is there is so much oppositionality (is that a word?!) on this board that each side views the other as manipulating the context to suit their ends. How do you change that? If you think for a moment the side who "not[es] someone’s moral and ethical failings" is free of the responsibility to be just that - responsible in how they address it, then we're farther apart than we can even appreciate. Case in point - you say "for years (decades) many of us gave Joseph Smith a pass". That very comment I find mildly offensive as if to suggest I am giving him a pass? Who on earth wants to be accused of that? Now, those who would agree with you will almost inevitably come to your defense with something like "Oh come now, Vanguard, surely your skin is thicker than that?" or worse, "My, is Vanguard steeped in denial". And so it goes. Over and over again. Each side digging in and feeling a little righteously indignant... : ( I was speaking of myself, not you. I gave him a pass until I couldn’t.
Vanguard Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I was speaking of myself, not you. I gave him a pass until I couldn’t. I didn't mean to suggest you were speaking of me. I was speaking in general principles and hypotheticals though I am aware of the context you're referring to.
Calm Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 9 hours ago, jkwilliams said: 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? That would depend on intent, which might be indicated by how often someone refers to it and what percentage of their comments such references are (is it the only thing they mention about the person, 50%, uncommon as well as what percentage of their overall content the topic is). Edited February 5, 2022 by Calm 4
smac97 Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Calumny! Squirrel!
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 4 hours 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. So much I could say, but it is late on the East Coast right now just, just am too tired. So, I will try tomorrow, if I forget, just send me a PM reminder, my “old friend”, if you still consider me a friend, or if I can still call you friend, I hope I can. Sadly we stopped corresponding long ago.
CV75 Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) I would say that pointing out another person's ethical or moral lapse can indicate a negative character trait* (as opposed to "flaw," which is the literary concept**) when it is used in a way that does not protect that person, or others, from said person. Where Joseph Smith is dead, how does pointing out his flaws, in the ways they have been pointed out in the now-closed thread, help others? By "others" I mean the others in the thread, and our society in general. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_flaw Edited February 5, 2022 by CV75
sunstoned Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 3 hours ago, CV75 said: Hey I just wanna give a shout-out to Amy's inspired music and Bill's ingenious comedy albums from the late 1960's -- changed the world forever. And I don't care what they say, Ghandi made a wondrous vada pav. As a kid I had all of Bill's comedy albums. I loved them. I'm kind of sad to see how his later life turned out. 1
strappinglad Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 14 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I'm kind of sad to see how his later life turned out. Fame, money and power often shave away one's internal moral code. Despite numerous examples , some think they can not be touched.
sunstoned Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 9 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Fame, money and power often shave away one's internal moral code. Despite numerous examples , some think they can not be touched. This is true. Unfortunately, it is a common pattern.
2BizE Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 7 hours 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. No, I do not think it reflects poorly on someone noting this. Church members notoriously and blindly place trust in people. This needs to change. A few examples, allowing our children to have 1:1 interviews with church leaders is something many are just fine with, yet nearly every week, a church leader is arrested for sexual abuse. We should be pointing out moral failures. I think it is a moral failure that all church people working with youth should undergo background checks. I coach and referee soccer and have to have a background check. We should note moral failures in other and learn from mistakes as a society.
The Nehor Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 5 hours ago, strappinglad said: Fame, money and power often shave away one's internal moral code. Despite numerous examples , some think they can not be touched. I think the reality is that most of the wealthy and powerful who behave badly do get away with it.
CV75 Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 11 hours ago, sunstoned said: As a kid I had all of Bill's comedy albums. I loved them. I'm kind of sad to see how his later life turned out. Hey, hey, hey! eta: how can you misspell "Hey, hey, hey!"? Edited February 5, 2022 by CV75
Teancum Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 18 hours ago, Fether said: 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. I think if someone says "I Speak for God and thus you should follow what I say" you have to evaluate whether or not you can trust that person. Joseph said he sw God and Jesus and they told him to start a church. The Only True and Living Church. He was alone when he had said vision. So I have to look at the good and bad behavior that Joseph portrayed. No he or any other prophet does not need to be perfect. But if I am going to follow someone I have to evaluate their claims of supernatural intervention at least a large part on trust. For me at least, eventually I felt I could not trust Joseph Smith for a variety of reasons. 4
strappinglad Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 Albert Einstein once wrote on a chalkboard: 9 x 1 = 9 9 x 2 = 18 9 x 3 = 27 9 x 4 = 36 9 x 5 = 45 9 x 6 = 54 9 x 7 = 63 9 x 8 = 72 9 x 9 = 81 9 x 10 = 91 Suddenly chaos erupted in the classroom because Einstein made a mistake. Obviously, the correct answer to 9 × 10 isn’t 91. And all his students ridiculed him. Einstein waited for everyone to be silent and said: “Despite the fact that I analyzed nine problems correctly, no one congratulated me. But when I made one mistake, everyone started laughing. This means that even if a person is successful, society will notice his slightest mistake. And they'll like that. So don't let criticism destroy your dreams. The only person who never makes a mistake is someone who does nothing." 4
strappinglad Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 1 hour ago, Teancum said: felt I could not trust Joseph Smith for a variety of reasons. You are not the first ,nor will you be the last . Even Christ lost followers because of difficult issues, John 6:66 From that time on many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him. (biblehub.com)
jkwilliams Posted February 5, 2022 Author Posted February 5, 2022 2 hours ago, strappinglad said: You are not the first ,nor will you be the last . Even Christ lost followers because of difficult issues, John 6:66 From that time on many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him. (biblehub.com) Am I the only person who finds this comparison incredibly offensive? 3
ttribe Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Am I the only person who finds this comparison incredibly offensive? Yep, it's self-righteous and arrogant. Somewhat related, it's always a little surprising to me that defenders seem to think those of us who've left never actually read and studied the standard works. 2
strappinglad Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 Sorry, no offence meant. Many of us lose faith and trust in organizations and leaders over time. 1
CV75 Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 16 hours ago, 2BizE said: No, I do not think it reflects poorly on someone noting this. Church members notoriously and blindly place trust in people. This needs to change. A few examples, allowing our children to have 1:1 interviews with church leaders is something many are just fine with, yet nearly every week, a church leader is arrested for sexual abuse. We should be pointing out moral failures. I think it is a moral failure that all church people working with youth should undergo background checks. I coach and referee soccer and have to have a background check. We should note moral failures in other and learn from mistakes as a society. I think background checks are a fine idea / suggestion, but is the result of evaluating the system, not confronting individuals demonstrably acting badly within the system. A discussion about the Church's institutional ethics and the policies enforcing it are different than one about the sexual ethics of individuals and the reputational risks one may take in calling them out. I would say that pointing out another person's ethical or moral lapse can indicate a negative character trait* (as opposed to "flaw," which is the literary concept**) when it is used in a way that does not protect that person, or others, from said person. Where Joseph Smith is dead, how does pointing out his flaws, in the ways they have been pointed out in the now-closed thread, help others? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_flaw Edited February 5, 2022 by CV75
CV75 Posted February 5, 2022 Posted February 5, 2022 4 hours ago, strappinglad said: You are not the first ,nor will you be the last . Even Christ lost followers because of difficult issues, John 6:66 From that time on many of His disciples turned back and no longer walked with Him. (biblehub.com) Yes, and some did accuse Him of moral lapses, or believed the accusations made by others. I think the Lord is forgiving, on His terms consistent with the Plan of Salvation, of any former followers that had negative character traits that got in the way of their faith and discipleship. The same happens with Joseph Smith (or anyone else), but I think the focus needs to be on Jesus Christ. This way, we can help others in their ethical and moral lapses and overcoming their negative character traits, but most importantly, giving them a reason to focus on the Lord first and foremost. The rest tends to take care of itself through repentance. 1
Recommended Posts