Elder Jörg Klebingat's Comments on Moral Relativism

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Yes we do as you suggest. Everyone in attendance at that Fireside was English speaking so they were just plain snickerdoodles. Biscochitos are New Mexicanish with sometimes a crunchier texture. Great snickerdoodles have a softer texture that falls apart when you dip them in milk! The one thing that frustrates me here is that there is no scrapple. I grew up in Pennsylvania eating scrapple and apple butter for breakfast. It was a Mennonite staple. I have searched high and low here - no scrapple or apple butter! We have to order both online. 

I’m glad you make donations in your ward. I had the impression that you were not allowed to do it.
 

Biscochitos were a foodie part of our Christmas celebrations when I grew up in New Mexico. My mother had an excellent recipe that we still use. I love apple butter. My grandmother made delicious apple butter. Both my mom and grandma were excellent quilters, but they were not guilters. 😉

Edited April 10, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[SwedishLDS]

Fundamentally the talk is about being willing to be different and stand out. To be the light on the hill and not hide our faith.

This talk is perfect for our time, where religion is being increasingly ignored in everyday life. Hold to the Rod which is christ.

“True disciples of Jesus Christ,” President Nelson taught, “are willing to stand out, speak up, and be different from the people of the world. They are undaunted, devoted, and courageous.” (Klebingat)

“We can accept and respect others without endorsing their beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lord’s will. There is no need to sacrifice truth on the altar of agreeableness and social desirability.” (Klebingat)

we should respect our own beliefs and not downplay them to fit in.

Edited April 10, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, SwedishLDS said:

Fundamentally the talk is about being willing to be different and stand out. To be the light on the hill and not hide our faith.

This talk is perfect for our time, where religion is being increasingly ignored in everyday life. Hold to the Rod which is christ.

“True disciples of Jesus Christ,” President Nelson taught, “are willing to stand out, speak up, and be different from the people of the world. They are undaunted, devoted, and courageous.”

My housemates and I were able to watch General Conference this weekend. We unanimously found this talk to be our favourite.

[SwedishLDS]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My housemates and I were able to watch General Conference this weekend. We unanimously found this talk to be our favourite.

same. Loved it! Such a relief from a world of doubt and confusion

Edited April 10, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

Fundamentally the talk is about being willing to be different and stand out. To be the light on the hill and not hide our faith.

This talk is perfect for our time, where religion is being increasingly ignored in everyday life. Hold to the Rod which is christ.

“True disciples of Jesus Christ,” President Nelson taught, “are willing to stand out, speak up, and be different from the people of the world. They are undaunted, devoted, and courageous.”

“We can accept and respect others without endorsing their beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lord’s will. There is no need to sacrifice truth on the altar of agreeableness and social desirability.”

we should respect our own beliefs and not downplay them to fit in.

A couple of questions - Who are the "true disciples of Jesus Christ;" "the people of the world;" the "others;" and what are "their beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lord's will"? Who are the "we" in the fourth and fifth lines as you have typed them? Thanks so much. Blessings to you all on this Sabbath (Sunday) day.

[SwedishLDS]

Cheers Navidad. I had a lovely time at church today, and I am so happy with the beautiful weather outside where I live. There was a cute little baby girl at church today and I had so fun playing with her. Shes 2 and her name is Esmeralda

All the sentences within quotes on my previous post are quotes from Klebingats article, thus any explanation from me and not him will be flawed. I have edited my previous post for more clarity. 

I will try to answer your questions to the best of my abilities

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

A couple of questions - Who are the "true disciples of Jesus Christ;"

Discipleship is a path. A follower of Jesus Christ is someone who lives according to Christ’s teachings (D&C 41:5).(https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/disciple?lang=eng)

• John 8:31  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
• “Genuine discipleship is a state of being. … Disciples live so that the characteristics of Christ are woven into the fiber of their beings, as into a spiritual tapestry.” —Robert D. Hales, “Becoming a Disciple of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” 46.
• “Our love for the Sabbath day does not end when the chapel doors close behind us but instead opens the doors to a beautiful day of resting from routine tasks, studying, praying, and reaching out to family and others who need our attention.” —Neil L. Andersen, “Overcoming the World,” 58.
• The restored gospel of Jesus Christ is a way of life. It is not for Sunday only. It is not something we can do only as a habit or a tradition if we expect to harvest all of its promised blessings. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7).

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

"the people of the world;"the "others;" and what are "their beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lord's will"?

the other eight billion people. We live in a world of a diverse set of faiths and peoples, and part of the struggle for any individual these days that grows up is how to navigate that. Jesus taught in the scriptures not to isolate ourselves (like for example the amish, note: this is no attack on the amish), but to "Live in the world but not of the world".  https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/how-should-christians-live-in-a-world-thats-not-our-home.html Followers of Jesus are supposed to be different, and be a light on the hill, and for that light to shine we need to let others see it.

But even if we are different, "We can accept and respect others without endorsing their beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lord’s will. There is no need to sacrifice truth on the altar of agreeableness and social desirability." (Klebingat). President Nelson continued on this type of path on Saturday morning when he said: “Contention violates everything the Savior stood for and taught. I love the Lord Jesus Christ and testify that His gospel is the only enduring solution for peace. His gospel is a gospel of peace.” (Nelson)

 

Now, as to beliefs or actions 

 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have a variety of doctrines but this contains some key ones: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/gospel?lang=eng.

The gospel is our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The central doctrine of the gospel is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Articles of Faith 1:4).

In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment (see 3 Nephi 27:16). Enduring to the end implies “patient continuance in well doing” (Romans 2:7), striving to keep the commandments (see 2 Nephi 31:10), and doing the works of righteousness (see D&C 59:23)

As for the part on "beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lords will?" 

Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God. (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/devil?lang=eng)

There are two spirits or sorts of influences on earth. One is of God; the other is of the devil. The spirit that is of God leads to light, truth, freedom, and every good thing. The spirit that is of Lucifer leads to darkness, error, bondage, and every evil thing. They are at enmity one with another, with conflict between them. The “power” of one is the “spirit” “that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2). The other is “revealed” by the Spirit of God. And no man knoweth “the things of God” but by “the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:11).

 

Respect to you

Edited April 10, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Teancum]

On 4/7/2022 at 10:03 PM, 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.

Religions don't believe in absolute truth.  They believe in their flavor of truth then call it absolute.  But lots of different religions have different terms or definitions for "absolute truth" and even yours has not been absolute as it has changed.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Teancum

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, SwedishLDS said:

Cheers Navidad. I had a lovely time at church today, and I am so happy with the beautiful weather outside where I live. There was a cute little baby girl at church today and I had so fun playing with her. Shes 2 and her name is Esmeralda

All the sentences within quotes on my previous post are quotes from Klebingats article, thus any explanation from me and not him will be flawed. I have edited my previous post for more clarity. 

I will try to answer your questions to the best of my abilities

Discipleship is a path. A follower of Jesus Christ is someone who lives according to Christ’s teachings (D&C 41:5).(https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/disciple?lang=eng)

• John 8:31  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
• “Genuine discipleship is a state of being. … Disciples live so that the characteristics of Christ are woven into the fiber of their beings, as into a spiritual tapestry.” —Robert D. Hales, “Becoming a Disciple of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” 46.
• “Our love for the Sabbath day does not end when the chapel doors close behind us but instead opens the doors to a beautiful day of resting from routine tasks, studying, praying, and reaching out to family and others who need our attention.” —Neil L. Andersen, “Overcoming the World,” 58.
• The restored gospel of Jesus Christ is a way of life. It is not for Sunday only. It is not something we can do only as a habit or a tradition if we expect to harvest all of its promised blessings. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7).

the other eight billion people. We live in a world of a diverse set of faiths and peoples, and part of the struggle for any individual these days that grows up is how to navigate that. Jesus taught in the scriptures not to isolate ourselves (like for example the amish, note: this is no attack on the amish), but to "Live in the world but not of the world".  https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/how-should-christians-live-in-a-world-thats-not-our-home.html Followers of Jesus are supposed to be different, and be a light on the hill, and for that light to shine we need to let others see it.

But even if we are different, "We can accept and respect others without endorsing their beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lord’s will. There is no need to sacrifice truth on the altar of agreeableness and social desirability." (Klebingat). President Nelson continued on this type of path on Saturday morning when he said: “Contention violates everything the Savior stood for and taught. I love the Lord Jesus Christ and testify that His gospel is the only enduring solution for peace. His gospel is a gospel of peace.” (Nelson)

 

Now, as to beliefs or actions 

 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have a variety of doctrines but this contains some key ones: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/gospel?lang=eng.

The gospel is our Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The central doctrine of the gospel is the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Articles of Faith 1:4).

In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom. The Savior has promised that if we endure to the end, faithfully living the gospel, He will hold us guiltless before the Father at the Final Judgment (see 3 Nephi 27:16). Enduring to the end implies “patient continuance in well doing” (Romans 2:7), striving to keep the commandments (see 2 Nephi 31:10), and doing the works of righteousness (see D&C 59:23)

As for the part on "beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lords will?" 

Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God. (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/devil?lang=eng)

There are two spirits or sorts of influences on earth. One is of God; the other is of the devil. The spirit that is of God leads to light, truth, freedom, and every good thing. The spirit that is of Lucifer leads to darkness, error, bondage, and every evil thing. They are at enmity one with another, with conflict between them. The “power” of one is the “spirit” “that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2). The other is “revealed” by the Spirit of God. And no man knoweth “the things of God” but by “the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:11).

 

Respect to you

Thanks for your kind and thorough reply. I didn't go to the ward today because I have a raging case of the flu. It was testimony and fast Sunday - my favorite. But, I thought out of love for our people, many of whom are older than me (that is old!), I stayed home and slept all morning.

I just finished watching Elder Klebingat's talk. It was well written and delivered and I can readily understand why it is the favorite of many. At the same time, I must confess that it bothered me. Why did it bother me? Because it left no place for people like me. Some have asked me why I don't watch General Conference talks live? The answer is simple. There is rarely if ever a place for me in them. You see, with the exception of "baptism for the remission of sins" I agree with everything you wrote in your reply to my questions. Yet, by the implication of the Elder's talk, I have no place and probably no peace. You see, by my understanding of "LDS talk" I am liminal (neither, nor) I am of no place.

He touched on all the favorite LDS verbiage, the vast majority of which would also be regularly found within any Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian sermon. Within the ten minutes of the talk, there was nothing for me to disagree with; there was also nothing for me to relate to in a personal sense. I hope that makes sense.

You see, I am by LDS verbiage either of Zion or of Babylon. Well, I am neither. I don't dwell in the Kingdom, nor will I be forced into the great and spacious building. I am neither member nor mocker. I don't have hold of the iron rod, even though my life is centered on a strong faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I am on the edge of inside of the COJCOLDS, which is the same as saying I am nowhere. I am firmly built on the rock (Christ), but not on some elements of LDS doctrine. Therefore I am either a sheep or a wolf in sheep's clothing. By his talk I am forced into either being of the world or the LDS church. I am neither.

Much of this talk focused on dividing mechanisms (between members and others) and generalizations about the latter. There is "us" and "billions of others," who are all lumped together in one category called "the world." I have lived my entire life seeking not to be part of the world, probably more consciously than most members of the LDS church who I have met. I reject the world, right down to not playing cards, going to movies, or dancing. But my church affiliation is not yours', therefore you can only strive to "accept and respect" my beliefs and actions without endorsing them. I am not sure how you accept and respect my beliefs and actions while at the same time, starting with my baptism, covenants, ordination, mission, other ordinances, priesthood, understanding of salvation, commitment to Christ, etc. tell me I am just plain wrong! Actually you don't ever say that, but it is one way or another endemic to almost every LDS talk. Your certitude is in no way provisional, requiring some humility in it until we get to the other side and see through a glass clearly, not darkly. The LDS member is a fine ceramic. I hold my treasures in a clay jar. When you force me into a binary and liminal existence, that is neither acceptance nor respect. It merely creates distance and relegates me to the world, the church of the devil, the great and spacious building, and Babylon. Now can you understand why I don't relish watching General Conferences? Any and all faith is binary, either "us" or "them."

Am I of the Church of God or the Church of the Devil? You see, his talk is far too binary for me. I am not a moral relativist, but I do believe in more than two categories to place people. I certainly am not a perfect spiritual tapestry, but my commitment to Christ, His teachings, and promises are as firmly woven into the tapestry of my being as they are in any member of the church who I have ever met.

Let me assure you that I believe with all my heart that the genuine and sincere member of the COJCOLDS is every bit as much a member of the Kingdom of God and the Church (gathered community) of God as I am. You need nothing from me to be completely and totally dedicated to Christ and His kingdom and to be assured of eternal life with Him (with Him - not in a second or third kingdom where He only visits on occasion). You don't need to be Mennonite to be as or more Godly than I am.Thanks for your kind reply. I hope you can receive what I am saying. That is all I can ask.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Religions don't believe in absolute truth.  They believe in their flavor of truth then call it absolute.  But lots of different religions have different terms or definitions for "absolute truth" and even yours has not been absolute as it has changed.

It would be more fair to say that many believe in absolute truth. Where they err is when they think they know it.

I don’t think most Christian faiths accept the rules of this world are absolutes. They are wartime measures designed for a fallen world filled with idiots.

[SwedishLDS]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your kind and thorough reply. I didn't go to the ward today because I have a raging case of the flu. It was testimony and fast Sunday - my favorite. But, I thought out of love for our people, many of whom are older than me (that is old!), I stayed home and slept all morning.

I just finished watching Elder Klebingat's talk. It was well written and delivered and I can readily understand why it is the favorite of many. At the same time, I must confess that it bothered me. Why did it bother me? Because it left no place for people like me. Some have asked me why I don't watch General Conference talks live? The answer is simple. There is rarely if ever a place for me in them. You see, with the exception of "baptism for the remission of sins" I agree with everything you wrote in your reply to my questions. Yet, by the implication of the Elder's talk, I have no place and probably no peace. You see, by my understanding of "LDS talk" I am liminal (neither, nor) I am of no place.

He touched on all the favorite LDS verbiage, the vast majority of which would also be regularly found within any Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian sermon. Within the ten minutes of the talk, there was nothing for me to disagree with; there was also nothing for me to relate to in a personal sense. I hope that makes sense.

You see, I am by LDS verbiage either of Zion or of Babylon. Well, I am neither. I don't dwell in the Kingdom, nor will I be forced into the great and spacious building. I am neither member nor mocker. I don't have hold of the iron rod, even though my life is centered on a strong faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I am on the edge of inside of the COJCOLDS, which is the same as saying I am nowhere. I am firmly built on the rock (Christ), but not on some elements of LDS doctrine. Therefore I am either a sheep or a wolf in sheep's clothing. By his talk I am forced into either being of the world or the LDS church. I am neither.

Much of this talk focused on dividing mechanisms (between members and others) and generalizations about the latter. There is "us" and "billions of others," who are all lumped together in one category called "the world." I have lived my entire life seeking not to be part of the world, probably more consciously than most members of the LDS church who I have met. I reject the world, right down to not playing cards, going to movies, or dancing. But my church affiliation is not yours', therefore you can only strive to "accept and respect" my beliefs and actions without endorsing them. I am not sure how you accept and respect my beliefs and actions while at the same time, starting with my baptism, covenants, ordination, mission, other ordinances, priesthood, understanding of salvation, commitment to Christ, etc. tell me I am just plain wrong! Actually you don't ever say that, but it is one way or another endemic to almost every LDS talk. Your certitude is in no way provisional, requiring some humility in it until we get to the other side and see through a glass clearly, not darkly. The LDS member is a fine ceramic. I hold my treasures in a clay jar. When you force me into a binary and liminal existence, that is neither acceptance nor respect. It merely creates distance and relegates me to the world, the church of the devil, the great and spacious building, and Babylon. Now can you understand why I don't relish watching General Conferences? Any and all faith is binary, either "us" or "them."

Am I of the Church of God or the Church of the Devil? You see, his talk is far too binary for me. I am not a moral relativist, but I do believe in more than two categories to place people. I certainly am not a perfect spiritual tapestry, but my commitment to Christ, His teachings, and promises are as firmly woven into the tapestry of my being as they are in any member of the church who I have ever met.

Let me assure you that I believe with all my heart that the genuine and sincere member of the COJCOLDS is every bit as much a member of the Kingdom of God and the Church (gathered community) of God as I am. You need nothing from me to be completely and totally dedicated to Christ and His kingdom and to be assured of eternal life with Him (with Him - not in a second or third kingdom where He only visits on occasion). You don't need to be Mennonite to be as or more Godly than I am.Thanks for your kind reply. I hope you can receive what I am saying. That is all I can ask.

Thank you Navidad and hope you feel better. thats tricky. I can almost feel your emotions through the screen, its very heartful. I think you are a true disciple for sure.

I see what you mean, and I see your concern. Yeah there is certainly the member/nonmember divide to some degree, but

I think that Christ will wipe away every tear and make every thing right in the end. People that want to follow him, like you, will always get to do so. I believe we both know Navidad, God to be an all powerful, all loving and just God, and thats what is most important to me.

There might be a church now (or not), but when he comes with the millenium it will surely be replaced by something somewhat different. 

If I have to be rebaptized as baptist when I go to heaven that’s fine, but while I am here I will do my best to be christlike, and I think Christ cares most about what we become like in the end. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Navidad said:

You need nothing from me to be completely and totally dedicated to Christ and His kingdom and to be assured of eternal life with Him (with Him - not in a second or third kingdom where He only visits on occasion)…

CFR, please. 
 

Quote

Why did it bother me? Because it left no place for people like me…by the implication of the Elder's talk, I have no place and probably no peace. You see, by my understanding of "LDS talk" I am liminal (neither, nor) I am of no place.

This is not the LDS belief. Elder Oaks talk describes the glorious-beyond-comprehension places God has prepared for all his children. We do not believe in eternal hell and ostracism except for a very few who crucify Christ anew. You are far, far, far from such a thing. One of our doctrines that I love is “insofar as men do good they shall in no wise lose their reward.” That’s as inclusive as it can get. 

Please remind me….do you believe God or Jesus have physical bodies in which they will dwell with their people in eternity? Is there an actual physical location where we will abide?

Well, it is a talk for church members at the conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, no? He specifies his audience frequently…”so, what about us?”

Still, here’s a wonderful thought anyone could take away from his address…

Quote

“Blessed is he,” the Savior said, “whosoever shall not be offended in me.” Elsewhere we learn that “great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.” Nothing! So let’s ask ourselves, “Am I enduring for a while, but when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, by and by am I offended? Am I firmly built on the rock of Jesus Christ and His servants?”…If we really want to be valiant disciples of Christ, we will find a way. Otherwise, the adversary offers enticing alternatives. But as faithful disciples, “we need not apologize for our beliefs nor back down from that which we know to be true.”

There are other talks in conferences that address non-members.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[MrShorty]

I like to think there are moral absolutes, and that moral relativity is wrong, but there seem to be relatively few examples of moral absolutes. One example I keep coming back to is slavery. Judeo-Christian history (and even LDS history, what with Brigham Young's views on slavery) seems to suggest that slavery was morally acceptable for most of human history, and it has only been in the last few hundred years where we have considered the possibility that slavery might be morally wrong. If I define moral relativism by the JS quote about what is wrong in one circumstance may be right in another (so morality is relative to the context), then it seems that the morality of slavery depends on circumstance or context. I don't know about moral absolutes or moral relativity, but the idea that slavery was once considered morally acceptable turns my stomach. If there is an issue where one could talk in terms of moral absolutes, I would think slavery would be right up there. But, if I approach the issue as a moral absolute, I have to figure out why God would tolerate it for so many thousands of years. If I accept that God can tolerate something as morally reprehensible (to me) as slavery, then what moral issues really rise to the level of absolutes (I have said before that God should easily be able to tolerate a few same sex marriages if he could tolerate slavery throughout Biblical history)?

Maybe alongside the debate over what do moral relativism and absolutism mean, I am asking for examples of moral absolutes. It sometimes seems to me that God can tolerate almost any moral  belief or choice as long as the chooser is sincere (perhaps because He can redeem any moral code through Christ's Atonement), even if there are eternal moral laws that God created or is subject to.

[pogi]

On 4/8/2022 at 3:41 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. The Law of Justice demands this. No unclean thing can enter God’s presence. We are all unclean. Mercy through the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the antidote. 

The demands of justice have already been answered.  Wherever those demands of absolute justice originated, and whoever it was that demanded it, they are eternally shut-up in Christ.  Christ has already satisfied those demands and the only person we have to answer to now is Christ who has his own relative standards, via grace, that we will be judged by.  There is no absolute standard what we will be held accountable for anymore.  Eternal spiritual death no longer awaits us because of this.  That is all explained in the garden scene and temple ritual.   

Every sin already payed for.  Every demand is eternally answered and satisfied.  All accountability has been reconciled in Christ.  Hence we are "no longer under law, but under grace."  Many in the church have long struggled to reconcile Paul's words with our doctrine of work and accountability.  We still believe that we are under law.  We still believe in accountability.  We still believe that works are necessary.  What if many are misunderstanding Paul though?  What if he is speaking of law in absolute terms?  What if he is speaking of those absolute "demands of justice" which have already been answered and which we are no longer accountable to?  What if Paul was introducing the concept of moral relativism via the grace of Christ?  When we interpret Paul in this way, there is no longer tension and contradiction between him and Peter.  Paul is speaking of absolute law which was answered in Christ, while Peter was speaking to relative law which is individualistically administered by Christ to each of us via his light.   There has long been an unnecessary tension between these two view points, when in fact they can be understood in harmony if we interpret Paul as speaking of absolute law and justice being answered, and Peter speaking of the new relative law and justice being in force.  Works are no longer needed to answer the absolute demands of justice.    If we were still accountable to an absolute standard, there is nothing that we can do in and of ourselves to save ourselves by works.   That is what Paul was saying.  Our works are worthless, in that sense.  The absolute standard is an impossible standard to answer via works.  Absolutism, as it applies to us in mortality, is dead in Christ.  It doesn't apply, period.  There are no pluralistic demands of absolute justice.  We are no longer accountable to those demands.  Christ bought us with a price, and we are only accountable to him now.  There is only His single demand of relative obedience to what we have each relatively been given via individualized light.  What exists and applies to us via the infinite atonement of grace is moral relativism.  That is the gift!  We should embrace it. 

We will not be held morally accountable for what we don't know, thanks to the atonement and grace of Christ.  Final judgment will thus be applied relative to our individual perspective/understanding and circumstances.      Christ is indeed the antidote to absolutism.  The result is a grace of relativism.  

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/10/2022 at 7:33 AM, Navidad said:

A couple of questions - Who are the "true disciples of Jesus Christ;" "the people of the world;" the "others;" and what are "their beliefs or actions that do not align with the Lord's will"? Who are the "we" in the fourth and fifth lines as you have typed them? Thanks so much. Blessings to you all on this Sabbath (Sunday) day.

There are too many people who are too actively against faith and who actively engage in violations of the Lord's will (overwhelmingly, think Ten Commandments) for anyone who is a person of faith to belong in that category (i.e., someone who is not "a true disciple of Jesus Christ") rather than someone who is not a person of faith.  By all means, follow Him where you believe He is leading you.  Faithful Latter-day Saints will do the same.  Eventually, the Lord of the Universe, He who is "Mighty to Save," will sort out the details later.  The only person to whom you are accountable for how you live your life is God, not any Latter-day Saint ... not Elder Klebingat, not President Russell M. Nelson.  

Edited April 11, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

On 4/10/2022 at 6:36 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quote

 

Fundamentally the talk is about being willing to be different and stand out. To be the light on the hill and not hide our faith.

This talk is perfect for our time, where religion is being increasingly ignored in everyday life. Hold to the Rod which is christ.

“True disciples of Jesus Christ,” President Nelson taught, “are willing to stand out, speak up, and be different from the people of the world. They are undaunted, devoted, and courageous.”

 

My housemates and I were able to watch General Conference this weekend. We unanimously found this talk to be our favourite.

I don't know if anyone has yet posted a link to the text of Elder Klebingat's talk, but here it is: Valiant Discipleship in the Latter Days

Here's the bit about moral relativism:

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, that “whatsoever a man {does is} no crime,” 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.”

The online version does not include footnotes, but “whatsoever a man {does is} no crime" is a quote from Alma 30:17, which is summarizing Korihor's philosophy.

The  “{often use} their intellectual reservations to cover their {own} behavioral lapses” is, I believe, a citation to a 2004 General Conference talk by Elder Maxwell (or else Elder Maxwell's 1979 book, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, which may be the original source) :

Quote

In Later years, I saw a few leave the Church who could then never leave it alone. They used often their intellectual reservations to cover their behavioral lapses (see Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience [1979], 110). You will see some of that. By the way, do not expect the world’s solutions to the world’s problems to be very effective. Such solutions often resemble what C. S. Lewis wrote about those who go dashing back and forth with fire extinguishers in times of flood (see The Screwtape Letters [1959], 117–18). Only the gospel is constantly relevant, and the substitute things won’t work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

On 4/8/2022 at 1:58 PM, MiserereNobis said:

It's interesting to me that there is no formalized mysticism in Mormonism. I know the idea of prayer and receiving a testimony is foundational. I would think there would have been people who wanted to take it further and use meditative practices. Is the issue that Christian meditation comes from other denominations, and thus they are questionable and/or possibly contrary to LDS doctrines? Or could it be more cultural, since your church's cultural background is protestant and protestants tend to have less formalized meditative practices?

While our church is steeped in the concept of personal revelation (mysticism) through self-surrender, contemplation, and prayer, we don't have the St John's of the Cross and Teressa of Avila's which formalized the practice of contemplative prayer into a discipline with modern-day monks and retreats devoted to furthering the practice through inspiration and education with practical applications and benefits.

In our church, there is emphasis on "pondering" as a form of meditation - but there is no formal discipline, practice, structure, or outline to guide us - and we emphasize prayer which is often structured as a verbal or mental communication towards God.  The outline, as taught from primary up, often follows the following format 1) address our Father in Heaven, 2) we thank thee for..., 3) we ask the for..., 4) close in the name of Jesus Christ.  While this format is perfectly valid and legitimate in our day-to-day communion with God, it is largely one-sided, one-way communication.  It lacks the "listening" element of prayer.  What we don't have is any formal teachings or structured guidance on how to "listen" more effectively.  This is where I have holy envy for Catholicism with its rich history of contemplative prayer, which is really all about listening.  

While I don't think Latter-day Saints are opposed to the idea of, and concepts taught in contemplative prayer, they often find it foreign and perhaps even torturous to just sit and "listen" in contemplative prayer for 20 minutes twice daily.  Most would feel overwhelmed and lost without formal guiding principles of how to effectively listen and direct our attention.  Those who do practice in our church borrow guiding principles and practices from Buddhism and Catholicism.  There is no question whatsoever that this practice has enhanced and enrichened my spiritual life beyond what it ever has been.  Where I mostly talked to God before, I mostly listen now, and he talks to me more than I ever imagined once the distractions are quieted.  

Quote

 And a great and mighty wind tore into the mountains and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12After the earthquake there was a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a still, small voice.

Contemplative prayer teaches us to look past the distracting wind, earthquakes, and fires taht ever demand our attention to notice that still small voice which is ever present and speaking to us.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

The demands of justice have already been answered.  Wherever those demands of absolute justice originated, and whoever it was that demanded it, they are eternally shut-up in Christ.  Christ has already satisfied those demands and the only person we have to answer to now is Christ who has his own relative standards, via grace, that we will be judged by.  There is no absolute standard what we will be held accountable for anymore.  Eternal spiritual death no longer awaits us because of this.  That is all explained in the garden scene and temple ritual.   

Every sin already payed for.  Every demand is eternally answered and satisfied.  All accountability has been reconciled in Christ.  Hence we are "no longer under law, but under grace."  Many in the church have long struggled to reconcile Paul's words with our doctrine of work and accountability.  We still believe that we are under law.  We still believe in accountability.  We still believe that works are necessary.  What if many are misunderstanding Paul though?  What if he is speaking of law in absolute terms?  What if he is speaking of those absolute "demands of justice" which have already been answered and which we are no longer accountable to?  What if Paul was introducing the concept of moral relativism via the grace of Christ?  When we interpret Paul in this way, there is no longer tension and contradiction between him and Peter.  Paul is speaking of absolute law which was answered in Christ, while Peter was speaking to relative law which is individualistically administered by Christ to each of us via his light.   There has long been an unnecessary tension between these two view points, when in fact they can be understood in harmony if we interpret Paul as speaking of absolute law and justice being answered, and Peter speaking of the new relative law and justice being in force.  Works are no longer needed to answer the absolute demands of justice.    If we were still accountable to an absolute standard, there is nothing that we can do in and of ourselves to save ourselves by works.   That is what Paul was saying.  Our works are worthless, in that sense.  The absolute standard is an impossible standard to answer via works.  Absolutism, as it applies to us in mortality, is dead in Christ.  It doesn't apply, period.  There are no pluralistic demands of absolute justice.  We are no longer accountable to those demands.  Christ bought us with a price, and we are only accountable to him now.  There is only His single demand of relative obedience to what we have each relatively been given via individualized light.  What exists and applies to us via the infinite atonement of grace is moral relativism.  That is the gift!  We should embrace it. 

We will not be held morally accountable for what we don't know, thanks to the atonement and grace of Christ.  Final judgment will thus be applied relative to our individual perspective/understanding and circumstances.      Christ is indeed the antidote to absolutism.  The result is a grace of relativism.  

 

Perhaps we are talking past each other. I am referring to Alma 12. 
 

Quote

31 Wherefore, he gave commandments unto men, they having first transgressed the first commandments as to things which were temporal, and becoming as gods, knowing good from evil, placing themselves in a state to act, or being placed in a state to act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good—
32 Therefore God gave unto them commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption, that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death, which was an everlasting death as to things pertaining unto righteousness; for on such the plan of redemption could have no power, for the works of justice could not be destroyed, according to the supreme goodness of God.
33 But God did call on men, in the name of his Son, (this being the plan of redemption which was laid) saying: If ye will repent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son;
34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest.
35 And whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest.
36 And now, my brethren, behold I say unto you, that if ye will harden your hearts ye shall not enter into the rest of the Lord; therefore your iniquity provoketh him that he sendeth down his wrath upon you as in the first provocation, yea, according to his word in the last provocation as well as the first, to the everlasting destruction of your souls; therefore, according to his word, unto the last death, as well as the first.
37 And now, my brethren, seeing we know these things, and they are true, let us repent, and harden not our hearts, that we provoke not the Lord our God to pull down his wrath upon us in these his second commandments which he has given unto us; but let us enter into the rest of God, which is prepared according to his word.

All must be baptized, confirmed, endowed, and sealed, except children who did before the age of accountability.

[Bernard Gui]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

While our church is steeped in the concept of personal revelation (mysticism) through self-surrender, contemplation, and prayer, we don't have the St John's of the Cross and Teressa of Avila's which formalized the practice of contemplative prayer into a discipline with modern-day monks and retreats devoted to furthering the practice through inspiration and education with practical applications and benefits.

In our church, there is emphasis on "pondering" as a form of meditation - but there is no formal discipline, practice, structure, or outline to guide us - and we emphasize prayer which is often structured as a verbal or mental communication towards God.  The outline, as taught from primary up, often follows the following format 1) address our Father in Heaven, 2) we thank thee for..., 3) we ask the for..., 4) close in the name of Jesus Christ.  While this format is perfectly valid and legitimate in our day-to-day communion with God, it is largely one-sided, one-way communication.  It lacks the "listening" element of prayer.  What we don't have is any formal teachings or structured guidance on how to "listen" more effectively.  This is where I have holy envy for Catholicism with its rich history of contemplative prayer, which is really all about listening.  

While I don't think Latter-day Saints are opposed to the idea of, and concepts taught in contemplative prayer, they often find it foreign and perhaps even torturous to just sit and "listen" in contemplative prayer for 20 minutes twice daily.  Most would feel overwhelmed and lost without formal guiding principles of how to effectively listen and direct our attention.  Those who do practice in our church borrow guiding principles and practices from Buddhism and Catholicism.  There is no question whatsoever that this practice has enhanced and enrichened my spiritual life beyond what it ever has been.  Where I mostly talked to God before, I mostly listen now, and he talks to me more than I ever imagined once the distractions are quieted.  

Contemplative prayer teaches us to look past the distracting wind, earthquakes, and fires taht ever demand our attention to notice that still small voice which is ever present and speaking to us.  

We are often counseled to pause after prayer, contemplate, ponder, and more.

As the children sing,

Quote

Through a still small voice, the Spirit speaks to me
To guide me, to save me from the evil I may see.
If I try to do what’s right, he will lead me thru the night,
Direct me, protect me, and give my soul his light.
Listen, listen. The Holy Ghost will whisper.
Listen, listen to the still small voice.

Listen to the still small voice!
Listen! Listen! when you have to make a choice.
He will guide you always.

And the weekly Come Follow Me invitation…

Quote

Pay attention to your thoughts and feelings, even if they are unrelated to what you are reading. Those impressions may be the very things that your Heavenly Father wants you to learn.
 

As you read and ponder_____, record the impressions that come to you. As you do this regularly, your ability to recognize the whisperings of the Holy Ghost will grow. Not every meaningful principle in the scriptures can be highlighted in these outlines. Listen to the Spirit to help you focus on the truths you need. As you study the scriptures, pay attention to spiritual impressions you receive about ways you can become more like Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We are often counseled to pause after prayer, contemplate, ponder, and more.

As the children sing,

And the weekly Come Follow Me invitation…

 

Yes, "listening" is something that is taught, but as you note it is usually a passive thing we are encouraged to do while reading the scriptures or pondering spiritual ideas.  As I noted, the idea of sitting still in prayer and practicing active listening for any extended period of time in stillness and quiet is a foreign practice in Mormonism, and is probably intolerable to many without practical tools/skills.   There is nothing wrong with listening in these other forms, but as I said "what we don't have is any formal teachings or structured guidance on how to "listen" more effectively.  This is where I have holy envy for Catholicism with its rich history of contemplative prayer, which is really all about listening."

"Listen" is all we have.  If we want to learn "formalized" (which MiserereNobis is referring to) listening practices, structure, or teaching, it is fairly absent from what I can see.   For that, we have to turn to Buddhism and Catholicism, or other mystic traditions.   Nothing wrong with that either.  As brother Brigham noted, we should take truth from all faith traditions and bring it home to Mormonism.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging that other faith traditions have beneficial or advanced practices, teachings, and even truths, which we lack in Mormonism.  I have studied both, and I can tell you that there is no comparison in terms of formalized teachings/practices. 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps we are talking past each other. I am referring to Alma 12. 
 

All must be baptized, confirmed, endowed, and sealed, except children who did before the age of accountability.

Yes, there are saving ordinances which are required for exaltation, but even those are relative moral requirements in mortality.  There is no absolute moral standard for the mortal man.     Judgment of our mortal life is indeed relative.  I will concede that there may be a few absolute standards of judgment in terms of saving ordinances, but these are very limited and are relative moral requirements for the mortal man on earth.  Morality for us in mortality is still relative. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, there are saving ordinances which are required for exaltation, but even those are relative moral requirements in mortality.  There is no absolute moral standard for the mortal man.     Judgment of our mortal life is indeed relative.  I will concede that there may be a few absolute standards of judgment in terms of saving ordinances, but these are very limited and are relative moral requirements for the mortal man on earth.  Morality for us in mortality is still relative. 

I respectfully disagree. There is one standard for all which is the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. The law of justice demands this. It was established before the foundation of the world. We cannot attain it by ourselves because we sin, but there are things all are required to do. Repentance is one. Because of the Atonement, mercy is applied, and we know it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. Moroni put it this way…

Quote

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I respectfully disagree. There is one standard for all which is the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. The law of justice demands this. It was established before the foundation of the world. We cannot attain it by ourselves because we sin, but there are things all are required to do. Repentance is one. Because of the Atonement, mercy is applied, but we know it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. Moroni put it this way…

Again, I am speaking of how we will be judged for what we did in mortality - not what will be required for exaltation in countless ages of progression after death.  As I noted, God does have absolutes - and to be God, we will need to reach that same level some day.  In mortality however, our morality is relative. 

Were the demands of justice not answered in the atonement?  We answer to Christ now, right?  He bought us with a price.  Christ sets the standard that our mortal actions will be judged by, and it is individualized. 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, "listening" is something that is taught, but as you note it is usually a passive thing we are encouraged to do while reading the scriptures or pondering spiritual ideas.  As I noted, the idea of sitting still in prayer and practicing active listening for any extended period of time in stillness and quiet is a foreign practice in Mormonism, and is probably intolerable to many without practical tools/skills.   There is nothing wrong with listening in these other forms, but as I said "what we don't have is any formal teachings or structured guidance on how to "listen" more effectively.  This is where I have holy envy for Catholicism with its rich history of contemplative prayer, which is really all about listening."

"Listen" is all we have.  If we want to learn "formalized" (which MiserereNobis is referring to) listening practices, structure, or teaching, it is fairly absent from what I can see.   For that, we have to turn to Buddhism and Catholicism, or other mystic traditions.   Nothing wrong with that either.  As brother Brigham noted, we should take truth from all faith traditions and bring it home to Mormonism.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging that other faith traditions have beneficial or advanced practices, teachings, and even truths, which we lack in Mormonism.  I have studied both, and I can tell you that there is no comparison in terms of formalized teachings/practices. 

 

I guess we understand the invitation “to listen to the Spirit and “to ponder these things in our hearts” differently. 
There are copious references to “the still small voice” and how it is best heard.
If we were truly in need of the formalized teachings and practices you propose we borrow from other faiths, they would be revealed and taught by the prophets. Their instructions have been clear and consistent. President Eyring spoke of this in his last two conference addresses.  My mission President Ted Brewerton said it this way in Oct 1995 Conference…

Quote

The sun rises rather quietly, and at times we think that the Lord’s voice is that quiet, but his voice is audible if we will only pray, meditate, and listen as he places clear thoughts in our minds.

Please take the last word.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

There is no question whatsoever that this practice has enhanced and enrichened my spiritual life beyond what it ever has been.  Where I mostly talked to God before, I mostly listen now, and he talks to me more than I ever imagined once the distractions are quieted.  

You should write a book on this or at least an article.  That would make a decent Ensign article.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I like to think there are moral absolutes, and that moral relativity is wrong, but there seem to be relatively few examples of moral absolutes. One example I keep coming back to is slavery. Judeo-Christian history (and even LDS history, what with Brigham Young's views on slavery) seems to suggest that slavery was morally acceptable for most of human history, and it has only been in the last few hundred years where we have considered the possibility that slavery might be morally wrong. If I define moral relativism by the JS quote about what is wrong in one circumstance may be right in another (so morality is relative to the context), then it seems that the morality of slavery depends on circumstance or context. I don't know about moral absolutes or moral relativity, but the idea that slavery was once considered morally acceptable turns my stomach. If there is an issue where one could talk in terms of moral absolutes, I would think slavery would be right up there. But, if I approach the issue as a moral absolute, I have to figure out why God would tolerate it for so many thousands of years. If I accept that God can tolerate something as morally reprehensible (to me) as slavery, then what moral issues really rise to the level of absolutes (I have said before that God should easily be able to tolerate a few same sex marriages if he could tolerate slavery throughout Biblical history)?

Maybe alongside the debate over what do moral relativism and absolutism mean, I am asking for examples of moral absolutes. It sometimes seems to me that God can tolerate almost any moral  belief or choice as long as the chooser is sincere (perhaps because He can redeem any moral code through Christ's Atonement), even if there are eternal moral laws that God created or is subject to.

Slavery was probably originally a rough moral choice made against a worst alternative. You fight a war with a neighboring tribe. You win and capture a large portion of their people. What do you do? If you release them they can come fight you again. You can’t realistically imprison them en masse as that requires a civilization capable of manning a prison with the ability to provide food for those in it. You could kill them all but that seems horrible. The solution often was to make them work for you under controlled conditions so they “earn their keep” and are not a resource drain while keeping them from being able to rise up and kill you. Moral? Not really. Logical and probably better than genocide? Yeah. Then slavery got to be big business. Suddenly someone realized that slavery practiced en masse could lead to prosperity and profit and slave raids show up and wars with the intention of enslaving the enemy. Then it got to be even bigger business and raiding parties worked full time to procure new stock.

In the ancient world it sort of made sense. Then you have places like Sparta using it beyond all reason to the point it transformed their whole society and Rome where slavery basically displaced a lot of important classes in society and was one key factor in the whole thing collapsing. The US used a particularly abhorrent version that married the whole thing to explicit racism as the wealthy of the Southern States tried to retain the wealth and prestige of the old feudal lords on their plantations and multiplied human misery. Even worse was the even more barbarous importation and exploitation of slaves to the Caribbean islands. The slave trade was abolished but in practice this was not out of any sense of curtailing the practice of slavery but was aimed at keeping the ability to practice large-scale slavery in the hands of those who already owned slaves.

I can see God not taking a strict anti-slavery position and telling the victorious tribe to let their enemies go and maybe come back. Or at least that the writers of history would portray it as okay. I am not sure what God’s views are but I suspect God has always hated the practice and hated the sins that led to it showing up in the first place and hated even more the sins that led greedy people to spread the practice beyond its original purpose to multiply misery and fulfill Cain’s old mandate to convert human life into property through exploitation or murder. That exploitation is still pervasive and we excuse it on grounds I doubt God finds in any way impressive.