Elder Jörg Klebingat's Comments on Moral Relativism

[pogi]

In conference, Elder Jörg Klebingat made the following comments:

Quote

Moral relativists advocate that truth is merely a social construct, that there are no moral absolutes. What they are really saying is that there is no sin,36 

The reference is 2 Nephi 2:13, which states:

Quote

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin.

That is not at all what relativism states.  We can believe in law and sin.

Church leaders are increasingly attacking relativism, but I wonder if they really understand it or consider how moral relativism does not necessarily exclude the idea that God has absolutes. 

He continues to define relativism:

Quote

 that “whatsoever a man [does is] no crime,”37 a philosophy for which the adversary is claiming proud authorship! Let us therefore beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing, who are always recruiting and “[often use] their intellectual reservations to cover their [own] behavioral lapses.”38

Again, this is a clear misunderstanding.  Perhaps there are some who misuse relativism to justify "behavioral lapses", but that should not be used against relativism in general.

He continues:

Quote

One such truth is the reality of evil. As Isaiah pointed out, at the heart of moral relativism is an inability or unwillingness to recognize evil.

Again, that simply is untrue.

He goes on:

Quote

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has noted: “One of the consequences of shifting from moral absolutes to moral relativism … is that this produces a corresponding shift of emphasis from responsibilities to rights. Responsibilities originate in moral absolutes. In contrast, rights find their origin in legal principles, which are easily manipulated by moral relativism.”3

This also is a mischaracterization of what relativism is.  To suggest that moral relativists feel no responsibility, or that they are only concerned with their "rights" is just mistaken.  One can simultaneously accept that God's truths and God's morals are absolute while accepting that our understanding and interpretation of such things are unavoidably relative. 

Quote

This pattern of fasting, praying, and pondering is that same pattern by which all may come to know the truth. Not surprisingly, this pattern also emphasizes that a knowledge of truth is acquired by taking personal responsibility for one’s actions, not merely as a right we are entitled to.

Fasting, praying, and pondering are my bedrock.  I take personal responsibility for my actions.  I strive to align myself with the absolute source that is the elephant (I think you all know what I am referencing by now), but alas, I am a mortal who sees through a glass dimly and who blindly palpates the elephant to the best of my ability - I am a relativist, something that is increasingly being attacked in the church, see:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/truth-and-tolerance/

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/now-is-the-time-to-defend-truth-elder-christofferson-declares?lang=eng

It is unfortunate that these attacks are based on incomplete and misguided understanding of this philosophy.  I only hope that this increasing drive to malign relativism along with those who subscribe to it, do not drive away the rising generation who probably have a more healthy understanding of this philosophy.  One survey from 2 decades ago showed that 3/4 of college seniors polled believed in moral relativism.  I wonder how many LDS subscribe to the philosophy of relativism and feel maligned and pushed away by talks like this.  A healthy and proper understanding of how relativism jives perfectly with Latter-day Saintism would go a long way in missionary efforts towards the rising generation.  Talks like this do not help.

Edited April 7, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is unfortunate that these attacks are based on incomplete and misguided understanding of this philosophy. 

It is like “socialism” and a few other terms, I am guessing.  There is a popular, oversimplified understanding that has got quite a few things misunderstood. They are responding to that understanding rather than the technical one.  Labels are dangerous, but so useful too.

[bsjkki]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

In conference, Elder Jörg Klebingat made the following comments:

The reference is 2 Nephi 2:13, which states:

That is not at all what relativism states.  We can believe in law and sin.

Church leaders are increasingly attacking relativism, but I wonder if they really understand it or consider how moral relativism does not necessarily exclude the idea that God has absolutes. 

He continues to define relativism:

Again, this is a clear misunderstanding.  Perhaps there are some who misuse relativism to justify "behavioral lapses", but that should not be used against relativism in general.

He continues:

Again, that simply is untrue.

He goes on:

This also is a mischaracterization of what relativism is.  To suggest that moral relativists feel no responsibility, or that they are only concerned with their "rights" is just mistaken.  One can simultaneously accept that God's truths and God's morals are absolute while accepting that our understanding and interpretation of such things are unavoidably relative. 

Fasting, praying, and pondering are my bedrock.  I take personal responsibility for my actions.  I strive to align myself with the absolute source that is the elephant (I think you all know what I am referencing by now), but alas, I am a mortal who sees through a glass dimly and who blindly palpates the elephant to the best of my ability - I am a relativist, something that is increasingly being attacked in the church, see:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/truth-and-tolerance/

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/now-is-the-time-to-defend-truth-elder-christofferson-declares?lang=eng

It is unfortunate that these attacks are based on incomplete and misguided understanding of this philosophy.  I only hope that this increasing drive to malign relativism along with those who subscribe to it, do not drive away the rising generation who probably have a more healthy understanding of this philosophy.  One survey from 2 decades ago showed that 3/4 of college seniors polled believed in moral relativism.  I wonder how many LDS subscribe to the philosophy of relativism and feel maligned and pushed away by talks like this.  A healthy and proper understanding of how relativism jives perfectly with Latter-day Saintism would go a long way in missionary efforts towards the rising generation.  Talks like this do not help.

Maybe start this discussion with your understanding of the term so we have a clear starting point. 
 

Is this accurate, IYO?

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by bsjkki

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Maybe start this discussion with your understanding of the term so we have a clear starting point. 

Good idea.  It will have to wait until I am at a computer - probably tomorrow.  But for now, you can reference the parable of the blind men and the elephant, which I think perfectly encapsulates my understanding of the philosophy and our experience with the divine and absolute in mortality.

https://www.commonlit.org/en/texts/the-blind-men-and-the-elephant

Edited April 7, 2022 by pogi

[JustAnAustralian]

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Is this accurate, IYO?

Also the same question for the first paragraph of the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Quote

Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is a term used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and their own particular cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often labeled simply as a relativist for short. In detail, descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1] Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when considerably large disagreements about the morality of particular things exist.[2]

 

[Kenngo1969]

I suppose it simply illustrates how simple-minded I am, but, personally, I liked Elder Klebingat's address:

 

[The Nehor]

I am not convinced that the gospel has that many moral absolutes beyond obeying God. There are a lot of general rules but many of them have exceptions.

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I suppose it simply illustrates how simple-minded I am, but, personally, I liked Elder Klebingat's address:

 

I’m glad you liked it.  He had a lot of good stuff in there too.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

... I am a relativist, something that is increasingly being attacked in the church [sic] ...

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Why do you say that?

[Kenngo1969]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why do you say that?

Largely, my posting was tongue-in-cheek.  However, I agree with previous posters who have indicated that it is important for you to define the term so they know how you are using it.  Otherwise, I think massive miscommunication, misunderstanding, and, possibly, even some rancor might ensue.  Also, I think it might be useful for you to ponder whether you might, wittingly or not, be making Elder Klebingat an "offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21).

Edited April 8, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[pogi]

First, I object to the generalization into a single concept of moral relativism.  Can you tell that I am a relativist yet!?

To suggest that moral relativism = bad, and moral absolutism = good oversimplifies each philosophy and doesn't capture the nuance of human experience and philosophy.

Perspective is key in everything.  And relativism is all about perspective, for me. 

From my personal perspective, I believe that absolute truth/morality exists - that is God's perspective and understanding of truth/morality.  In this life, in mortality, we are like the characters in the blind men and the elephant.  We all have different perspectives and thus different experiences and thus interpretations and understandings of truth/morality.  Our version of truth/morality in mortality is therefore relative.  Is that not yet obvious from participating on this board???

God's truth is absolute, man's version of truth is relative, by design.  We feel after him in faith.  Each has a different perspective, and we will all be judged based on our best efforts to feel after the truth and live by the truth to our best understanding  - which is not perfect - hence the need for faith!   We are not going to be judged according to any universal and absolute standard of absolute truth, but we will be judged according to our relative relation to it. 

The philosophy of epistemological holism (which I also subscribe to and is also expressed in the parable of the blind men and the elephant) also requires moral relativism to be a thing in mortality

Another principle I believe in is that man cannot sin in ignorance.  Sin is therefore relative to our individual perspective and understanding.  Relative morality requires a relative judgment - which is what we believe in. 

I have hope and faith that I am approaching the truth - line upon line and precept upon precept, but I have experienced enough disagreements in perspective with good and faithful people to believe that we all probably have some learning and insight before we approach conceptual absolutism.   Every line and every precept that the Lord distills upon my soul via the Holly spirit often has the effect of altering or enhancing my understanding and perspective of previous lines and precepts as I graduate from milk to meat. I have no doubt whatsoever that this process will continue for countless ages until I am one with the Lord in understanding, one sin truth, and one in morality.  Until then, I cannot pretend in good faith that my truth/morality is absolute - not knowing what I don't know and all.  

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 Also, I think it might be useful for you to ponder whether you might, wittingly or not, be making Elder Klebingat an "offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21).

No, that is not my intent.  I have nothing against him personally.  If by making him an "offender for a word" you mean that I strongly disagree with this specific portion of his talk and think that such language may actually harmful to our cause and to missionary work, then I guess I am guilty as charged.  I am not laying a snare for him, as the scriptures state.  As I have already acknowledge, I am pleased that you liked his talk as most of it, I thought, was good.

It may seem to some that my engagement here ways heavily on the critical side.  I try to balance that.  In my day to day life though I focus more on the uplifting and positive aspects of my church, leaders, and faith. I give praise where I see it is due.  This site is one of the only places in my life where I discuss rare criticisms and explore different perspectives on such matters.  It is nice to have a safe place to do that. We all need one. So, I am sure that some have already judged my and will continue to judge me as being a fence sitter or doubter and only look for the bad to criticize in others, but that could not be further from the truth from a holistic perspective of my life and attitude.  I am died in the wool through and through.  I feel that I am fairly unique among some members though in that I actually acknowledge the fact the church and its leaders are fallible, and that it is ok to talk about those instances.  I think it is good and healthy to discuss our concerns and seek to improve situations and what we perceive to be unhealthy cultures within the church.  When we all speak up, we get a better picture of the elephant, I think.     

Edited April 8, 2022 by pogi

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

In conference, Elder Jörg Klebingat made the following comments:

The reference is 2 Nephi 2:13, which states:

That is not at all what relativism states.  We can believe in law and sin.

Church leaders are increasingly attacking relativism, but I wonder if they really understand it or consider how moral relativism does not necessarily exclude the idea that God has absolutes. 

He continues to define relativism:

Again, this is a clear misunderstanding.  Perhaps there are some who misuse relativism to justify "behavioral lapses", but that should not be used against relativism in general.

He continues:

Again, that simply is untrue.

He goes on:

This also is a mischaracterization of what relativism is.  To suggest that moral relativists feel no responsibility, or that they are only concerned with their "rights" is just mistaken.  One can simultaneously accept that God's truths and God's morals are absolute while accepting that our understanding and interpretation of such things are unavoidably relative. 

Fasting, praying, and pondering are my bedrock.  I take personal responsibility for my actions.  I strive to align myself with the absolute source that is the elephant (I think you all know what I am referencing by now), but alas, I am a mortal who sees through a glass dimly and who blindly palpates the elephant to the best of my ability - I am a relativist, something that is increasingly being attacked in the church, see:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/truth-and-tolerance/

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/now-is-the-time-to-defend-truth-elder-christofferson-declares?lang=eng

It is unfortunate that these attacks are based on incomplete and misguided understanding of this philosophy.  I only hope that this increasing drive to malign relativism along with those who subscribe to it, do not drive away the rising generation who probably have a more healthy understanding of this philosophy.  One survey from 2 decades ago showed that 3/4 of college seniors polled believed in moral relativism.  I wonder how many LDS subscribe to the philosophy of relativism and feel maligned and pushed away by talks like this.  A healthy and proper understanding of how relativism jives perfectly with Latter-day Saintism would go a long way in missionary efforts towards the rising generation.  Talks like this do not help.

Are you asserting that the version of moral relativism you embrace, as a believing Latter-Day Saint, is going to be the very same moral relativistic outlook embraced by hardened atheists who believe there is no such thing as eternal truth? I intuitively anticipate atheists would totally reject your version of moral relativism and condemn it as being heretical.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The American university where I studied for my bachelor's degree allowed students each year to nominate an academic to give a symbolic 'last lecture' right before graduation. In my final year, the choice was a professor in the Department of Philosophy, who chose to speak on moral relativism. (Summary: he wasn't a fan.) I still remember his statement that he had grown weary of students who thought it was hip and edgy to declare themselves relativists ... only to discover that they actually weren't when, for example, a housemate stole their shoes, moved out without paying her share of the bills, etc.

[filovirus]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

First, I object to the generalization into a single concept of moral relativism.  Can you tell that I am a relativist yet!?

To suggest that moral relativism = bad, and moral absolutism = good oversimplifies each philosophy and doesn't capture the nuance of human experience and philosophy.

Perspective is key in everything.  And relativism is all about perspective, for me. 

From my personal perspective, I believe that absolute truth/morality exists - that is God's perspective and understanding of truth/morality.  In this life, in mortality, we are like the characters in the blind men and the elephant.  We all have different perspectives and thus different experiences and thus interpretations and understandings of truth/morality.  Our version of truth/morality in mortality is therefore relative.  Is that not yet obvious from participating on this board???

God's truth is absolute, man's version of truth is relative, by design.  We feel after him in faith.  Each has a different perspective, and we will all be judged based on our best efforts to feel after the truth and live by the truth to our best understanding  - which is not perfect - hence the need for faith!   We are not going to be judged according to any universal and absolute standard of absolute truth, but we will be judged according to our relative relation to it. 

The philosophy of epistemological holism (which I also subscribe to and is also expressed in the parable of the blind men and the elephant) also requires moral relativism to be a thing in mortality

Another principle I believe in is that man cannot sin in ignorance.  Sin is therefore relative to our individual perspective and understanding.  Relative morality requires a relative judgment - which is what we believe in. 

I have hope and faith that I am approaching the truth - line upon line and precept upon precept, but I have experienced enough disagreements in perspective with good and faithful people to believe that we all probably have some learning and insight before we approach conceptual absolutism.   Every line and every precept that the Lord distills upon my soul via the Holly spirit often has the effect of altering or enhancing my understanding and perspective of previous lines and precepts as I graduate from milk to meat. I have no doubt whatsoever that this process will continue for countless ages until I am one with the Lord in understanding, one sin truth, and one in morality.  Until then, I cannot pretend in good faith that my truth/morality is absolute - not knowing what I don't know and all.  

 

Isn’t that what has always been taught. The we will all be judged accordingly to the light, knowledge, and understanding that we as individuals have received along the way? But we will still need to justify our moral decisions to God at the final judgement. And greater light, knowledge, and understanding comes greater accountability.

[rongo]

Aside from @pogi's theory about moral relativism (which I think he's going to be hard-pressed to define and defend) . . .

Aside from that, Jörg Klebingat was assigned the difficult task of dissolving the Armenia stake and reorganizing the Church in what was then the stake and mission (which had previously been touted as a strong stake with wards headed by native Armenians). My young women's president's parents were in that mission at the time, and the entire Church population was invited to a hotel ballroom for the conference. The entire stake presidency and other stake leaders and all but one of the bishops were released (he was called to be the sole native branch president), and the country was re-formed into a district with branches under the mission president, with foreign senior missionaries called as branch presidents. Roughly 2/3 of those present nearly rioted and stormed out (creating disturbances outside the hotel). Elder Klebingat thanked those who remained and told them that together, they would rebuild the Church in Armenia. Those who were angry resented the "carpetbagger" nature of Armenians being released, but the couple reporting this said that there was a night-and-day difference in the Spirit of the meetings and in feelings of peace and happiness in the new, now very small units. Rampant and widespread corruption and embezzlement were behind the needed change. 

Just some background into Elder Klebingat's history. I'm sure other anecdotes could be added. I think one of his sons served in one of the German missions relatively recently. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by rongo

[Kenngo1969]

I believe I will bow out of further participation in the thread.  I don't think I have anything more to contribute that anyone would see as productive, so my continued participation probably would be superfluous and, as some might see it, harmful.  Ya'all have fun.  

[Fether]

It may also be helpful for those who are against relativism to explain what they define relativism as.

Im against the idea that God’s eternal law changes. I’m ok with the idea that cultural beliefs may affect how God’s laws are applied (modesty dress standards Im different cultures). I do believe there is a God and an absolute law. I also believe the Church has that law and is teaching it. That law is unchanging regardless of how many people think it is wrong

Edited April 8, 2022 by Fether

[strappinglad]

" What is right in one circumstance may be wrong in another " . Is that an example of moral relativism ?? 

[SwedishLDS]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Are you asserting that the version of moral relativism you embrace, as a believing Latter-Day Saint, is going to be the very same moral relativistic outlook embraced by hardened atheists who believe there is no such thing as eternal truth? I intuitively anticipate atheists would totally reject your version of moral relativism and condemn it as being heretical.

this. I really appreciated Klebingats talk and so did many others I talk to. Things are so cloudy nowdays

I feel like you (thread starter) as a believing latter day saint is fundamentally different because you believe God knows the truth, you shared the classic elephant story which Uchtdorf has shared previously and that is good and all. But you are recognising that there is an elephant and such a thing as truth. 

My sibling is a relativist and he believes there is no thing as absolute truth and its all just about the human experience. This is a much more prominent view in our increasingly atheist society.

We live in a society that believes that there is no absolute truth because there is no God, and which is very focused on the individual, that means that the human experience is all there is and as a consequence that also means that tolerance/acceptance is the only thing that matters philosophically. 

Being intolerant is the new sin in the western world. Meanwhile God is rejected or viewed through a ‘saves all regardless of actions in our sins’ lens of Universalism

Now, society isn’t 100% relativist of course, but I think Klebingat, Oaks and others have done a good job on the subject. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[SwedishLDS]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

" What is right in one circumstance may be wrong in another " . Is that an example of moral relativism ?? 

depends on if you are merely acknowledging that life is complicated or if you believe there is no global moral commandment/standard you can hold people to. If one believes in Gods commandments as important, then you are not really morally relativist 

Consider this article https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/now-is-the-time-to-defend-truth-elder-christofferson-declares?lang=eng

Edited April 8, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I believe I will bow out of further participation in the thread.  I don't think I have anything more to contribute that anyone would see as productive, so my continued participation probably would be superfluous and, as some might see it, harmful.  Ya'all have fun.  

It's all relative, Ken. Everyone will see your contributions differently. 

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

In conference, Elder Jörg Klebingat made the following comments:

The reference is 2 Nephi 2:13, which states:

That is not at all what relativism states.  We can believe in law and sin.

Church leaders are increasingly attacking relativism, but I wonder if they really understand it or consider how moral relativism does not necessarily exclude the idea that God has absolutes. 

He continues to define relativism:

Again, this is a clear misunderstanding.  Perhaps there are some who misuse relativism to justify "behavioral lapses", but that should not be used against relativism in general.

He continues:

Again, that simply is untrue.

He goes on:

This also is a mischaracterization of what relativism is.  To suggest that moral relativists feel no responsibility, or that they are only concerned with their "rights" is just mistaken.  One can simultaneously accept that God's truths and God's morals are absolute while accepting that our understanding and interpretation of such things are unavoidably relative. 

Fasting, praying, and pondering are my bedrock.  I take personal responsibility for my actions.  I strive to align myself with the absolute source that is the elephant (I think you all know what I am referencing by now), but alas, I am a mortal who sees through a glass dimly and who blindly palpates the elephant to the best of my ability - I am a relativist, something that is increasingly being attacked in the church, see:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/truth-and-tolerance/

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/now-is-the-time-to-defend-truth-elder-christofferson-declares?lang=eng

It is unfortunate that these attacks are based on incomplete and misguided understanding of this philosophy.  I only hope that this increasing drive to malign relativism along with those who subscribe to it, do not drive away the rising generation who probably have a more healthy understanding of this philosophy.  One survey from 2 decades ago showed that 3/4 of college seniors polled believed in moral relativism.  I wonder how many LDS subscribe to the philosophy of relativism and feel maligned and pushed away by talks like this.  A healthy and proper understanding of how relativism jives perfectly with Latter-day Saintism would go a long way in missionary efforts towards the rising generation.  Talks like this do not help.

Perhaps it would be helpful for someone to contact Elder Klebingat and the others who are similarly out of the way and offer to set them straight?

Edited April 8, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

Calling @mfbukowski to the thread.