Elder Jörg Klebingat's Comments on Moral Relativism

[Fether]

.

Edited April 8, 2022 by Fether

[Fether]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Calling @mfbukowski to the thread.

 

[pogi]

13 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.

My concern is that "moral relativism" (which has a pretty diverse range from extreme to more nuanced forms) is being generalized condemned here.  There is no nuance in the black and white condemnation of moral relativism, and that will only serve to marginalize many people who subscribe to different degrees/versions of moral relativism.  We should not generalize with these things.  Such is the danger that lies in absolutism - it doesn't allow for nuance - everything is black or white.  It leads to dogmatism.  I am afraid that moral absolutism, a philosophy of man, is approaching religious dogma in our church.  

Quote

Defining moral relativism is difficult because different writers use the term in slightly different ways; in particular, friends and foes of relativism often diverge considerably in their characterization of it.  Therefore, it is important to first distinguish between some of the positions that have been identified or closely associated with moral relativism before setting out a definition that captures the main idea its adherents seek to put forward.

https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

This is why I see potential harm in the way moral relativism is being addressed in the church.  There is room in our teachings and beliefs for moral relativism.  I think it is unavoidable to some degree.  I think it is best that our church leaders not endorse moral absolutism (which I see as extremely dangerous, unnecessarily divisive and marginalizing, and is contrary to many of our core teachings).  

While it is impossible to define moral relativism in a way that captures every viewpoint, the following are some basic positions that most relativists would probably endorse, including myself.  

Quote

 

1.  Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community).

2.  No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other.

https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

 

These positions align with our understanding of final judgment.  They align with our understanding of sin, how it is relative to each individuals standpoint, situation, understanding, condition, level of ignorance. 

It also aligns with Alma 32 which is equates testimony with personal relative experience and not with provable objective facts or "perfect knowledge".  We rely on faith, not absolute objectivity.

The idea that a relativist would condemn anything as "heretical" is a funny thought though.   While many relativists may disagree with my belief in God, there are many God believing relativists too.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

This. 
 

Quote

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire

https://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONR/itc/Book _of_Mormon/02_1nephi/1nephi01/1nephi01_25circumstances_js.htm

Seems like a pretty relativistic morality to me. 

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

Sounds like some natural law dude who also likes making strawmen out of imaginary relativists.

A big problem with Mormon straw man aversion to moral relativism is that they don't even understand the absolute morality they claim to believe in nor the implication such entails. This is abundantly clear in my college ethics classes that I teach. Absolute morality in theism is primarily rooted in either natural law or divine command theory. These both make general sense in traditional Christianity, where morality can be absolute because ALL things are created by God and nothing exists outside of him. In natural law, such morality exists because God essentially imbued all of creation with a certain sense of morality (for Augustine, this is our will and his solution to the foreknowlege/freewill debate, as God is able to know what we will choose because he is the source of the will that makes such choices). For divine command theory, such morality exists because the all-powerful God decrees it as such. Both of these are untenable in Mormon theology (at least as generally understood), because God is not an absolutely all-powerful deity. Rather than producing all existence (including morality) out of nothing, God exists in a world where morality supposedly already "exists." What does that even mean?

Sure, some Mormon thinkers (like Ralph Hancock) may appeal to natural law and argue that an absolute morality is somehow some metaphysical reality ingrained into the threads of reality, but my own Wittgensteinian perspective on that just finds it silly. There isn't some morality just existing out there outside of human societies and minds; rather morality is a construct that persons within social groups (believers could very easily include God into such a group) develop to maintain, grow, potect, etc those social groups. (Basically Thomas Hobbes's line of thought.) Even if some absolute morality somehow existed out there (which is nonsense anyways), humans cannot directly access (or cannot directly access a deity that has direct access to it), and so any attempt to point to it is simply some social group deciding that their particular moral construct is better than others. (I argue that philosophical moral theories like Kant categorical imperative or whatever iteration of utilitarianism are doing the same. They aren't locating a universal morality; rather, they are just presenting one, and subscribers are simply choosing one moral outlook over an other.)

Ultimately, everyone is a moral relativist, because everyone is picking and choosing which moral theory they think is best. And everyone is in a sense a moral absolutist, because they are going to pick the moral theory that they think everyone ought to subscribe to. (I have yet to encounter a single person who "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" and will very quickly say that those persons simply don't exist--or are such cherry-picked idiots on street that they cannot be used to make any general claims. [Same goes for political shows that interview random people to show how those with opposing ideologies are idiots.])

TLDR: When people complain about moral relativism, what they are really complaining about is that someone else is not accepting their claims of absolute morality.

EDIT: Also, I would bet a dollar that the context of current LDS fears of moral relativism is all about how much of society is rejecting conservative moral claims about homosexuality and gender. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by the narrator

[pogi]

12 hours ago, filovirus said:

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.

Yes, exactly.  It is all relative in that way. We will not all be judged by the same universal standard of moral absolutism, but by the relative light we have been given and our relative understanding of that light. 

[pogi]

11 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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

In terms of personal accountability, I would say that what is morally wrong (sin) in one circumstance, may not be morally wrong (sin) in another circumstance.  Man cannot sin in ignorance. That is moral relativism to some degree.   

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by pogi

[filovirus]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

In terms of personal accountability, I would say that what is morally wrong (sin) in one circumstance, may not be morally wrong (sin) in another circumstance.  Man cannot sin in ignorance. That is moral relativism to some degree.   

This reminds me of the story Les Misérables. Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread to feed his staving family. He knew it was wrong to steal, but he did it anyway. Was this a sin? To Jean it was a worthy cause. But to the baker, he is out a loaf of bread. Makes me glad that I am not the final judge. So much to think about.

[pogi]

10 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

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

Do you see any reason for concern in their over-generalization and condemnation and mischaracterization of philosophies that they clearly don't appreciate the nuances of?  Do you see any concern with religious leaders full throated endorsement of potentially dangerous philosophies of men (moral absolutism) without really explaining what they personally mean by it?

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by pogi

[SwedishLDS]

 

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you see any reason for concern in their over-generalization and condemnation and mischaracterization of philosophies that they clearly don't appreciate the nuances of?  Do you see any concern with religious leaders full throated endorsement of potentially dangerous philosophies of men (moral absolutism) without really explaining what they personally mean by it?

 

Philosophies of man is always dangerous, but thats why we have prophets that keep the apostasy at bay, and I see a lot of members and non members a like making up their own speculations these days. I mean, I see what you mean, you probably are concerned about political polarization and things like that. I would love to see all members putting their faith first, and politics second.

The whole idea of Gods commandments is moral absolutism though. Now, that doesnt mean that the anti-waxxers are right or anything.

I think President Nelson complemented this talk well with his talk about burying the war hatchet.

i dont see the mischaracterization you speak of. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[SwedishLDS]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

In terms of personal accountability, I would say that what is morally wrong (sin) in one circumstance, may not be morally wrong (sin) in another circumstance.  Man cannot sin in ignorance. That is moral relativism to some degree.   

 

I think you have a point in that we will be judged for living “according to the best light [we] have", we have also been taught this a lot in the church. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-39?lang=eng. Everyone though has the light of christ which enables us to make correct moral judgements. We are also told people are judged according to their knowledge. We know however what the truth is as members.

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

This reminds me of the story Les Misérables. Jean Valjean stole a loaf of bread to feed his staving family. He knew it was wrong to steal, but he did it anyway. Was this a sin? To Jean it was a worthy cause. But to the baker, he is out a loaf of bread. Makes me glad that I am not the final judge. So much to think about.

Well it can  be both. I would say its a sin, but a very understandable one, and I dont think he is under much of any condemnation. I certainly dont blame him. But like you say, we are not the judge, we are told to forgive others and if we do so we in turn will have our trespassses forgiven. The commandments are given to us though, the gospel is simple, so is the doctrine of the atonement.

Edited April 8, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[pogi]

1 hour ago, SwedishLDS said:

 

Philosophies of man is always dangerous, but thats why we have prophets that keep the apostasy at bay, and I see a lot of members and non members a like making up their own speculations these days. I mean, I see what you mean, you probably are concerned about political polarization and things like that. I would love to see all members putting their faith first, and politics second.

The whole idea of Gods commandments is moral absolutism though. Now, that doesnt mean that the anti-waxxers are right or anything.

I think President Nelson complemented this talk well with his talk about burying the war hatchet.

When you hang out in places like this long enough, you will find that each (even within the church) has their own unique interpretation of God’s collective words, the prophet’s words, and how they apply to us.  We can’t even agree on what the most basic and fundamental principle of “truth” means.  Our understanding and moral accountability towards these words are relative.  

Yes, I ultimately believe that some day we can approach moral absolutes in exaltation, but for now, we are resigned to palpate the elephant, each with his own interpretation and individual and unique perspective.  Alma 32 states that if our knowledge of Gods word is perfect, our faith is dormant.  I don’t know about you, but I still rely on faith. Partaking of the fruit after nourishing the seed of the word leads to confirmations and assurances that we are on the right path, but the prophet warned that our knowledge is not perfect.  There is no objective proof.  There is no universal vision and understanding of what absolute truth is.  For all intents and purposes, our relation to truth in mortality is relative. 

Do you believe that all people are going to be held morally accountable by the same universal and absolute standard of morality?  If not, do you see any room for moral relativism to some degree in our teachings?
 

I feel it is better to build on common beliefs than pulling out the “war hatchet” against relativism.  I feel this war against relativism will only ostracize potential believers that we have much in common with.   Our beliefs allow for, and even exemplify fundamental principles found in moral relativism that I have outlined.  We need not draw this black and white line of absolutism without nuance that will drive people away.  We can cast a wider net.  With the conference heavily emphasizing missionary work, I think we can  be more welcoming of diverse views, and abstain from tendencies of creedalism and dogmatism that absolutism often inspires. 

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by pogi

[rpn]

May I suggest that the OP here make those suggestions and identify those concerns with the speaker directly.   Pretty sure that is the type of letter that a speaker might find helpful.

Edited April 8, 2022 by rpn

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Calling @mfbukowski to the thread.

Cheesh!  I keep telling you to use the

"What's it like to be a BAT-SIGNAL"

In the sky!

Thanks, my buddy!  

 

[the narrator]

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

May I suggest that the OP here make those suggestions and identify those concerns with the speaker directly.   Pretty sure that is the type of letter that a speaker might find helpful.

LOLZ

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

I think you have a point in that we will be judged for living “according to the best light [we] have", we have also been taught this a lot in the church. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-39?lang=eng. Everyone though has the light of christ which enables us to make correct moral judgements. We are also told people are judged according to their knowledge. We know however what the truth is as members.

Well it can  be both. I would say its a sin, but a very understandable one, and I dont think he is under much of any condemnation. I certainly dont blame him. But like you say, we are not the judge, we are told to forgive others and if we do so we in turn will have our trespassses forgiven

Everything to mortal man, even the light of Christ, is a relative interpretation based on personal perspective.  We can't get outside of ourselves and our own perspective to see if our understanding and interpretation aligns with some absolute truth. We will all be judged by the light (the light of Christ) we have been given, but in no way is there an absolute and universal morality that escapes relative relation and interpretation by man.

It is helpful for me to conceptualize ideas rather than define them.  For me absolute truth is like a picture on a screen with a nearly infinite number of pixels.  Each pixel of light directly influences how we interpret the pixel next to it.  Absolute knowledge where faith is dormant requires a holistic vision/perspective of all the pixels and their relation with each other.  It requires an "all-seeing eye".   In mortality, we pass through a vail by design and each of us are given unique perspectives and glimpses of different pixels of light via the light of Christ or Holly Ghost.  We have an experiential relationship with these pixels that we try to interpret and understand.  We have a subjective feeling that they are good.  we taste of the fruit they yield, so to speak.  But our understanding/interpretation of each individual pixel of light is limited by what we don't know - by the lack of a comprehensive perspective of all pixels - and even though we have an assurance of the fruit and have experienced that the light is good - we may not fully comprehend the meaning of it in relation to other pixels surrounding it that have not yet been revealed to us personally.  Our understanding of that pixel (as absolute as it may be) is entirely relative.  We do not have an absolute understanding of it.  It, to us, is relationally relative to us in mortality and we will be judged according to our understanding of that pixel, and not by the absolute nature of what the pixel is. 

For example, lets say that God reveals to you a yellow pixel.  You have tasted of it's fruit and know that it is good.  You "know" that the pixel is yellow because you have personally experienced it.  There is no denying what you have experienced as it is as real as anything else you have experienced in life.  You cherish that pixel (or "seed", or "precept"  ) and continue to nourish it.  As you are faithful in living according to that precept, that Lord rewards you with more precepts (pixels) as he promised, "line upon line, precept upon precept".  Lets say that the absolute nature of this precept or pixel is blue.  That precept resides next to the yellow precept you received earlier.  Suddenly, what you previously perceived as a yellow pixel now appears green from your perspective.  The new blue pixel has altered your perspective and experiential understanding of the previous pixel.   What you were once "certain" was yellow, now is clearly green from your perspective.   That is how I conceptualize my experience with the spirit and personal revelation.  It is progressive.  I need not cast out the yellow pixel.  It is still a good pixel (seed), I just understand it differently now.  My perspective is enhanced.   From a holistic perspective, we each interpret the "big picture" in entirely different ways because we each have different relative experiences and perspectives with different pixels.   That is why we in gospel discussions, we may all be talking about the exact same pixel and yet describing it in entirely different ways, sometimes vehemently so...because we are so confident in our own personal experience.  But, from each individual perspective, it is possible that none of us are wrong, but from the absolute perspective (God's perspective) it is possible that all of us fall short of understanding what it is we are experiencing.  That is basically another version of the blind men and the elephant.  It helps me conceptualize man's relative relation to absolute truth.  Our concepts of truth are unavoidably relative to our perspective.  God's concepts of truth are absolute.  Never twain shall the two meet until we see all the God sees and become one with him.    If is all based on faith.  There is no objective moral absolute. That is not the nature of relation with truth in mortality.

The prophets are critical in that they hold the keys of the kingdom to unlock the ordinances of salvation for man.  They give us the seeds of God's words.  But those words are relative to each human perspective in how they experience them.  We may all agree that the seed is good via the fruit, but we may not all agree on what it absolutely is.  Objective moral absolutism simply is unapproachable in mortality.  One would have to be God to approach it. 

[SwedishLDS]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The prophets are critical in that they hold the keys of the kingdom to unlock the ordinances of salvation for man.  They give us the seeds of God's words.  But those words are relative to each human perspective in how they experience them.  

 

We have all the commandments, and a temple interview. In no way is it all vague. LoC, WoW, tithing, 10 commandments, leaving on a mission is a priesthood duty, raising a family in the church is important, etc.The gospel really isnt that complicated. Maybe if you are not a member of the church, but as members we have been given all the stardards of which we have to live. We have more than enough knowledge at this point, we just have to do it. Like in Lehis vision of the tree, we live inside a fog yes, but we also have the Rod of Iron which ensures our destination and what we should do.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

We may all agree that the seed is good via the fruit, but we may not all agree on what it absolutely is.  Objective moral absolutism simply is unapproachable in mortality.  One would have to be God to approach it. 

Obscure doctrines sure, but as far as actual behavior as dictated by commandments and prophetic teachings the gospel is really simple. People want to complicate it, which really reminds me of the Timothy scripture: always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

I would love to see all members putting their faith first, and politics second.

Would you mind if I take a bit of a broader view and change one word in you sentence? "I would love to see all Christians putting their faith first, and politics second. Is that ok? If I said, "I would love to see all Mennonites putting their faith first, and politics second," that would seem equally as narrow of me. I would be leaving a large percentage of the members of this forum out, wouldn't I? Thanks and have a great weekend. 

[The Nehor]

17 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.

Those atheists and their continuing fight against heresy, will it ever end?

I suspect you are viewing this as a battle between good and evil and since the evil atheists go one way the righteous and good must go the other way and that half-measures are halfway to hell. The downside is that in this perception the facts don’t matter at all. Or the upside. Depends on point of view.

[SwedishLDS]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Would you mind if I take a bit of a broader view and change one word in you sentence? "I would love to see all Christians putting their faith first, and politics second. Is that ok? If I said, "I would love to see all Mennonites putting their faith first, and politics second," that would seem equally as narrow of me. I would be leaving a large percentage of the members of this forum out, wouldn't I? Thanks and have a great weekend. 

thanks Navidad and you are certainly right. I mean no offense. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

When you hang out in places like this long enough, you will find that each (even within the church) has their own unique interpretation of God’s collective words, the prophet’s words, and how they apply to us.  We can’t even agree on what the most basic and fundamental principle of “truth” means.  Our understanding and moral accountability towards these words are relative.  

Yes, I ultimately believe that some day we can approach moral absolutes in exaltation, but for now, we are resigned to palpate the elephant, each with his own interpretation and individual and unique perspective.  Alma 32 states that if our knowledge of Gods word is perfect, our faith is dormant.  I don’t know about you, but I still rely on faith. Partaking of the fruit after nourishing the seed of the word leads to confirmations and assurances that we are on the right path, but the prophet warned that our knowledge is not perfect.  There is no objective proof.  There is no universal vision and understanding of what absolute truth is.  For all intents and purposes, our relation to truth in mortality is relative. 

Do you believe that all people are going to be held morally accountable by the same universal and absolute standard of morality?  If not, do you see any room for moral relativism to some degree in our teachings?
 

I feel it is better to build on common beliefs than pulling out the “war hatchet” against relativism.  I feel this war against relativism will only ostracize potential believers that we have much in common with.   Our beliefs allow for, and even exemplify fundamental principles found in moral relativism that I have outlined.  We need not draw this black and white line of absolutism without nuance that will drive people away.  We can cast a wider net.  With the conference heavily emphasizing missionary work, I think we can  be more welcoming of diverse views, and abstain from tendencies of creedalism and dogmatism that absolutism often inspires. 

 

You have described well why I much prefer certainty that is based on and limited by the term "provisional certainty." Also, I think of the great day of judgment past in Egypt that is found in Exodus 12. The angel of death did not interview all of the first-born inhabitants of each home. The angel simply looked for the blood on the doorpost and if found, passed over. I wonder how that relates to how Christ will judge us at the final judgment? I am not sure. Does that make me a relativist? I don't think so, but then again, I have no certainty about that!

Edited April 8, 2022 by Navidad

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

We have all the commandments, and a temple interview. In no way is it all vague. LoC, WoW, tithing, 10 commandments, leaving on a mission is a priesthood duty, raising a family in the church is important, etc.The gospel really isnt that complicated. Maybe if you are not a member of the church, but as members we have been given all the stardards of which we have to live. We have more than enough knowledge at this point, we just have to do it.

Obscure doctrines sure, but as far as actual behavior as dictated by commandments and prophetic teachings the gospel is really simple. People want to complicate it, which really reminds me of the Timothy scripture: always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

 

 

 

 

I challenge you to find consensus on what “truth” (shouldn’t get any more foundational and basic than that, right?) even means from members on this board.  Then move on to basic concepts such as “knowledge”. Those are the basic fundamental building blocks that we can’t even see eye to eye on.  Then try discussing the WOW and see if you can find consensus...then move on to tithing, etc.  See if you can find consensus on the first vision, was it a corporeal visitation which Joseph saw with his natural eyes, or was it a vision he had while unconscious on the ground?  These are foundational and not “obscure” doctrines.  These have all been debated with differing perspectives and no consensus in sight, even from faithful believing members.   Everything unavoidable must be interpreted, and each perspective unavoidable leads to differing understandings.   

If there Is no room for varying degrees of interpretation and understanding, then you need to start questioning if you are in a cult.   Mormonism is not a cult.  Joseph Smith despised absolutist dogmas and creeds.  Personal subjective experience is the foundation of belief in Mormonism.  Such things are relative.   We don’t believe in any objective and literalist sola scriptura approaches that flourish in absolutist mentality.

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

One would have to be God to approach it.

I would rephrase this to say: "One would have to be a classically omnipotent God to create it." It makes zero sense to talk of approaching, encountering, or accessing a morality that exists outside of oneself.

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, SwedishLDS said:

thanks Navidad and you are certainly right. I mean no offense. 

Absolutely no offense taken. Thanks.

[SwedishLDS]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

I challenge you to find consensus on what “truth” (shouldn’t get any more foundational and basic than that, right?) even means from members on this board.  Then move on to basic concepts such as “knowledge”. Those are the basic fundamental building blocks that we can’t even see eye to eye on.  Then try discussing the WOW and see if you can find consensus...then move on to tithing, etc.  See if you can find consensus on the first vision, was it a corporeal visitation which Joseph saw with his natural eyes, or was it a vision he had while unconscious on the ground?  These are foundational and not “obscure” doctrines.  These have all been debated with differing perspectives and no consensus in sight, even from faithful believing members.   Everything unavoidable must be interpreted, and each perspective unavoidable leads to differing understandings.   

If there Is no room for varying degrees of interpretation and understanding, then you need to start questioning if you are in a cult.   Mormonism is not a cult.  Joseph Smith despised absolutist dogmas and creeds.  

I suppose you are right in the amount of variation to some degree, and I will concede that; however I also feel like a lot of fog recedes when you follow the prophet and that people overcomplicates things sometimes.

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

Personal subjective experience is the foundation of belief in Mormonism.  Such things are relative.   We don’t believe in any objective and literalist sola scriptura approaches that flourish in absolutist mentality.

Personal revelation through the holy spirit is the basis, but I see your point. The danger with the more relativist mindset, imo, is that it makes finding out about God and his teaching seem more difficult, I see it this from people all the time here in Sweden where people dont even bother to think about God because its impossible to find anything out. Perhaps that is what I fear deep down.

 

I think I will need to think some more on this topic, I will have ponder on this.. No offense. I respect you

Edited April 8, 2022 by SwedishLDS