Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am quite fine judging the church by standards we use for the rest of humanity.  The leaders claim to be prophets, seer and revelators. Yet their track record is no better than any other human leaders.  Thus I treat what they say as thus. Thanks for confirming my position.

What metrics are you using?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I think this is a difficult part of the discussion. We may end up needing to agree to disagree, but I am inclined to believe that racism and bigotry were wrong in all eras. Sometimes when I see someone claim that "context matters" and "avoiding presentism matters," it appears to me that they are arguing for moral relativism -- that God's morality around how we treat other human beings is a function of time place and circumstance. If this is your meaning, then I think it is important to make clear that we are claiming that God's eternal laws allow for racism and bigotry at God's discretion. In this direction, we might need to talk more about how God can declare anything right and true and good if He so chooses, and that maybe there is nothing eternally true and moral. I find that most LDS believe in some kind of absolute, eternal moral truths that God cannot violate, so discussion in this direction would need to talk about what kinds of things God can and cannot declare "not sin."

On other occasions, I think we mean that God in His infinite ability to perfectly blend justice, love, and mercy can forgive sins that were committed in ignorance or for other reasons that He judges sufficient to overlook our sin. But the sin is technically still a sin. IMO, this would be the kind of meaning for "context matters" that I would attribute to Elder Petersen and those before him. God never once claimed that racism and bigotry were good and true and right. For reasons that remain mysterious to me, though, He chose not (or maybe could not??) to grant revelation, but allowed these men to deceive themselves into believing that racism and bigotry were right and true and good.

Honestly, neither of those options sets comfortably in my mind. The first option leaves me wondering if there is absolute truth and morality, or if morality is truly relative. The second option leaves me wondering why God would tolerate such an egregious violation of eternal truth for so long among His people.

Maybe you have a different meaning to "context matters" and "avoiding presentism matters?"

Good points and good questions. 

It should be well known by now that I am a relativist.  I agree that these arguments which attempt to defend the immoral actions (by todays standard) of past leaders do sound very much like moral relativist arguments, which I welcome but do find ironic.

Let me share my perspective on this matter to see if it might offer some benefit to people on both sides of this issue.  As a moral relativist, I do see valid points from both sides.  First, let me state that by the standards of relativism, even relativism can only be relatively true.  That means there must be absolute truth/morality.  And I believe there is.  Absolute truth for me is what exists when one perceives of all truth circumscribed in to one great whole.  I take a holistic view of absolutism.  Absolute truth is the whole elephant - which only God can see with his "all seeing eye".   Without this holistic perspective, only relativism exists.  We can't be absolutely certain of our interpretation of what we "know" without perceiving of how it relates to all other parts that create the whole.   Truth and morality, in relation to mortal man, is therefore relative.  In relation to God, it is absolute.  This seems to me to be pretty obvious when we consider these events we are discussing.  Morality clearly was different for people back then, their truth/morality regarding black people was different from our truth/morality today; which we may eventually come to learn is different from THE TRUTH (God's truth) as we approach Godhood.  There is no way to compare our perspective to God's.  Revelation doesn't work that way.  Everything God gives us inevitably must pass through our limited mortal filters and perspectives.  Thus we see teachings and "revelations" of past prophets change over time as our understanding and interpretations evolve.  It is progressive in nature. That is how it is supposed to be.  Sometimes we get it wrong.  Sometimes we get it right but it is incomplete and not properly understood or interpreted.     

For this reason, I agree that "context matters" etc.  I don't believe that past leaders should be condemned for their relative truth.  They were largely products of their time.  Where I disagree with many is that I think we should judge and condemn past teachings based on our present standards.  We should practice presentism in that regard, because if we don't condemn past teachings, then we are at risk of repeating history as we play apologist for immorality.  In this way we can condemn the teaching/morality of the past without condemning the leaders.   We are taught to do the same today in the present.  We can judge immorality as we see it practiced today without judging individuals.  That is what we are commanded to do, in fact. 

Line upon line, precept upon precept our perception of truth and morality will evolve and progress until all truth is circumscribed into one great whole in our minds and we see as God sees and know as God knows and thus become God's ourselves with absolute knowledge of absolute truth/morality.   That wont happen until exaltation, so it would be helpful in our progression if we stopped pretending to be God's now with absolutes and black and white nonsense which inhibit progression and slows down evolution in morality, and often places the church behind the curve. 

The last question of why God tolerates such egregious violations of His absolute truth is more difficult to answer without perceiving and knowing God's holistic perspective.  But I suspect it is largely based on His plan where relativity is a feature rather than a bug.  Man cannot sin in ignorance.  He may transgress a law, but he cannot sin against a higher morality he is ignorant about and cannot perceive.  That is a feature of his mercy.  We are going to be judged according to what we did with the light we perceive, and not by the absolute holistic light of God in its fullness that we cannot perceive of.  Our purpose is to learn to hear, to let ourselves hear the still small voice of the spirit as we remove distractions from our minds and from our lives as directed by the spirit.  "He who has ears to hear, let him hear".  That process is relative and progressive towards ultimate absolutism.  It is different/relative for everyone.   

This may or may not help, but thought I'd offer it. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

So you are an attorney, huh? Quelle surprise.

Yes.  Most of us have habits and skills in our lives that influence our overall outlook.  As an attorney I am interested in evaluating disputed issues by evidentiary examination, reasoning, and substantively considering opposing or varied points of view.  I don't do my clients any favors by ignoring evidence and arguments from opposing positions, or by ignoring flaws and mistakes in our position.  While I am a zealous advocate for their interests, they sometimes don't fully grasp that a big part of my job is telling them what they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear.

I can't help but wonder if that is what is going on in this thread.  I have suspected you came to this board and started this thread to justify the opinion and conclusion you've already reached, rather than to examine or formulate an opinion/conclusion.  Hence the loaded / conclusory / rhetorical questions.  Hence your refusal to substantively respond to questions which are at odds with your opinion/conclusion.  Hence your resorting to the Appeal the Motive fallacy, to wit:

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I decided against answering your questions because I am suspicious of your motives, which seem to be to demonstrate how well you can dismantle an argument.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. 

In this thread, my thesis is as follows:

A) Rejection of Racism: Racism and bigotry are terrible things, and contravene the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

B) Avoidance/Mitigation of Presentism: "Presentism," that is, "uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts," is a poor basis for either generalized historiography or passing condemnatory moral judgments on people long dead.  It "transforms the study of history from an intellectually honest inquiry into a mass of politically and emotionally charged means of furthering political and social agendas that have nothing to do with a genuine intellectual interest in learning the cultural roots of our current cultural ideals and realities."  It is, "at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation" because "{i}nterpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior."  Consequently, "{o}ur forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards."  Presentism therefore ought to be avoided, or at lease acknowledged and addressed in discussions such as these, as it enables us to contextualize and understand the past, and therefore take lessons in both emulating our predecessors' virtues and strengths and avoiding or overcoming their weaknesses and failures.  That is, of course, "not to say that any of these findings are irrelevant or that we should endorse an entirely relativist point of view."  Rather, "we must question the stance of temporal superiority that is implicit {in presentism}."  Historical figures ought to be viewed in ways that involve more than condemning them for their failures and mistakes and errors.  

C) Avoidance of Expectations/Requirements of Infallibility: In the particular context of the Restored Gospel, there are ample admissions, both ancient and modern, that the oracles of God are imperfect and make mistakes, including substantial ones.  Notions of infallibility, whether explicit or implicit, must be set aside.

D) Neither Condemn Nor Ignore, but Learn: In assessing the failings and errors of past and present leaders in the Church, although we need to avoid notions of infallibility, we still need to come to terms with those failings/errors.  I think the best way to do that is to apply Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."  We ought to neither justify nor condemn nor ignore historical figures for their mistakes and shortcomings, but rather learn from them.  "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."  (3 Nephi 14:2.)  

E) Failures are Often Not Definitive: We are living in an era in which virtual online retreads of the Cadaver Synod.  We deploy presentism to rise up and publicly proclaim our own supposed virtues and superiority by condemning long-dead historical figures.  We reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities.  So Moses becomes a murderer.  Noah becomes a drunkard.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington become slaveowners.  Martin Luther King, Jr. becomes an adulterer and plagiarist.  Gandhi was a sexist and racist.  And that's all they were.  This is a serious mistake in reasoning, historiography, and discipleship.

F) Navel-Gazing / Failure/Refusal to Credit Improvements in the Church: "Navel-gazing" is "self-indulgent or excessive contemplation of oneself or a single issue, at the expense of a wider view."  This is what is happening with in this thread as regarding Elder Petersen's unfortunate views/remarks.  When a "wider view" of the Church is taken as it exists in the here and now, when we give fair and reasonable consideration to its extensive improvement in addressing and condemning racism and other prejudices (including express and repeated repudiations of the racialized/racist teachings of past leaders), when we acknowledge these improvements and give credit where it's due, we are much better situated to review and consider the Church's condition, both past and present.  Navel-gazing impedes that.

G) Avoiding the Nirvana Fallacy: I have not previously raised the Nirvana Fallacy in this thread.  I do so now.  This fallacy is described here:

Quote
Quote

 

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.
...
In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good").

The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969, who said:

 

The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.

My sense is that some members of the Church are harboring idealized, unrealistic expectations about the Church, and its leaders and members, and its history.  This is the "perfect" part of Voltaire's maxim.  Online "shock value" compilations and other critical work very hard to alienate members of the Church from their faith, and often do so using the means and methodologies I am summarizing here.  Such compilations are full of cheap shots presented for shock value.  Presentism.  Facile criticism.  Misrepresentation by omission and distortion.  A determined effort to keep these topics decontextualized and sensationalized.  Sarcasm.  No effort to study or meaningfully understand.  And intermingled with them are some legitimate criticisms. 

These summaries of the Church are, understandably, difficult or impossible to reconcile with the Church's narrative about itself, which has long tended toward an idealized presentation (though I am happy to note that the Church has made a lot of improvement on this in recent years.  Some members, then, end up facing seemingly irreconcilable options

  • Option A: the Church is essentially good and decent and ordained of God (as claimed by the Church), or
  • Option B: the Church is essentially flawed and corrupt, and even evil (as claimed by authors of the above-referenced "big lists").

Applying Voltaire's maxim, the "perfect" (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the "good" (Option A).  Consequently, some folks go with Option B, because it seems the only plausible means of reconciling what they thought about the Church with what they now know about the Church.

 I think we need to avoid the Nirvana Fallacy.  It doesn't work.  A good way to avoid or overcome it is to read a 2018 book written by Elder Bruce and Sister Marie Hafen, Faith is Not Blind.  

H) Faultfinding and Failure/Refusal to Credit Improvements in the Church: This thread is rife with faultfinding.  It is a toxic exercise, both because it contravenes many of the core principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which commands us to repent, to forgive, to leave judgments to God, to sustain the Brethren, to not speak evil of them, etc.), and also because a person determined to find fault will pretty much always succeed at it.

I) "Hate Speech""Hate speech" is a relatively new idea.  It is primarily a political / legal phrase and concept.  It is also typically defined in quite broad and vague ways.  The unfortunate consequence of these characteristics (hate speech is new, it is primarily political/legal, it is broadly/vaguely defined), is that the phrase is quite prone to being arbitrarily weaponized against unpopular groups/speech and/or disregarded relative to popular groups/speech.  It also becomes a bit clunky and ill-adapted when deployed in a Latter-day Saint context.

---

Apart from the "Nirvana Fallacy," everything above I have said, most of them in a variety of ways and several times over.

You are not disregarding essentially the entirety of my thesis by challenging/impugning my "motive."  I think this is an Appeal to Motive fallacy.

You are, of course, under no obligation to answer anything put to you (apart from CFRs).  We are all here voluntarily, after all.  But I think I've raised a few salient points regarding the topic of this thread, and that you are sidestepping those points.  Whether that is due to inability, or unwillingness, or both, I can't really say.

Some years ago I attended a CLE ("Continuing Legal Education") at which several judges from the Utah Supreme Court and Utah Court of Appeals participated in a panel discussion, followed by a Q&A.  One of the questions asked was something like "What is the most common shortcoming you find in attorneys who appear before you, either in their written briefs or their oral arguments?"  Virtually every judge wanted to respond, all saying the same thing along these lines: "Answer our questions.  Don't be evasive.  Don't equivocate.  Don't side-step.  Don't make stuff up.  You don't do yourselves any favors by avoiding addressing weaknesses or gaps in your case."

Food for thought.

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

That is part of your employment after all, is it not?

It is not.  And I am not writing here as an attorney, or as part of my "employment."

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

My reason for posting wasn't about point scoring,

Nor is mine.

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

it was to express dismay and bewilderment.

Yes, I understand that.  My concern is that you are developing a sort of affection for this "dismay and bewilderment," so much so that you are resenting questions and points which might mitigate or undermine your condemnatory conclusions about Elder Petersen and other leaders of the Church.

As an attorney, sometimes I have a client who comes in the door with some strongly-held preconceived notions of either what has happened factually, or how "the law" applies or should apply to those facts.  They are seldom altogether correct in their assessments, but they are not altogether incorrect, either.  When this happens, there are are four things I need to do:

1) ascertain the "facts" of the case (what actually happened),
2) research and apply the law to the facts,
3) present options to my client for how to address the result, and
4) manage the client's expectations and emotions.

Part of #4 above is telling finding ways to help my client understand and accept what they need to hear, and to overcome disappointment or frustration at not being told what they want to hear.  This can be a difficult endeavor because each client is unique, as are their circumstances. But I am not there as their friend or bishop or bartender, but as their lawyer.  I can be civil and polite and friendly all the day long, but not to the extent of avoiding or equivocating about difficult truths and circumstances.

You are not my client, and I am not your attorney.  Nor are you an adverse party.  But we are nevertheless having a difficult conversation about a difficult topic, and I think you are sidestepping things you don't want to hear or address.

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I have no problem offering answers to any question you might pose (though my answers are unlikely to be the least bit interesting), but I suspect said answers would simply be turned against me. No one wishes to be made to look silly.

Well, I would be happy to take our conversation private.  If you want to go that way, please message me.

I have not intended to give offense, but I apparently have.  I apologize, and I hope you can forgive me.  

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

But you appear to be obsessed with them here. 

Wow.  I guess it helps you to disparage others? Do you better now? This is a discussion board.  I hardly worry about such things outside of this board. And thinking critically about this here is hardly obsessing.

 

But guess what Bernard.  I invested a significant part of my life in your church. It has had impact on means my family and my friends.  And I still have family and friends involved.  So I am  I am sorry if it hurts your feeling that I am critical of men you claim to be prophets, seers and revelator to such an extent that you need to be disparaging.  It is not my fault that they seem to expect to be followed fairly unquestionably but get so much wrong. The apologetic course has become such that the apologist has to downplay their role in ways they never do themselves.  

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
7 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

my entire life has been based on the assumption that general authorities at all levels speak the words of God rather than the philosophies of men mingled with scripture — which, in turn, are the philosophies of other men mingled with the assertions of even fewer who claimed to wield authority from God. Perhaps it's all a massive distortion.

I have a testimony of something, but whatever I have always believed about general authorities seems to be heading for the trash.

... I'm left trying to figure out how much of my belief set is contrived bunkum. I have no plans to abandon my faith; I'm simply wondering how much of it is an exhausting fabrication.

Disillusionment, even partial disillusionment, is usually quite unpleasant in the moment but it also opens doors we otherwise would not have paid attention to.  I'm no longer LDS but have retained an affinity for the LDS Church and many of the concepts it teaches. 

One of those concepts is found in the 9th Article of Faith, namely, that God "does now reveal, and will yet reveal, many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven."  In my opinion, at the present time the "does now reveal" part is mostly coming from outside the lines of authority claimed by the LDS Church. 

Imo one such source which was not available (at least not in abundance) to previous generations is accounts of near-death experiences.  Joseph Smith said, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than would by reading all that ever was written on the subject."   Near-death experience accounts are a source of first-hand experiences from those who have "gazed into heaven five minutes".   Here is an account of someone with an LDS background, cued up to where his experience begins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N-oGYYb7kY&t=562s

And a couple of relevant YouTube channels:

Love Covered Life Podcast - YouTube

NDE Compilations - YouTube

Imo near-death experiences are not the only method by which God "does now reveal... many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of heaven", but they are among the most accessible, with an abundance being just a YouTube search away.  There is no associated codified religion, but imo that's a good thing because it means there are no strings attached.  We can simply use what we find useful. 

Disillusionment (including partial disillusionment) may be a blessing in disguise, as it is arguably both impetus and permission to "seek [and ye shall find]" .   

 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
12 hours ago, MrShorty said:
Quote
Quote

It doesn't matter what era you were raised in.

With respect, it most certainly does.  Context matters.  Avoiding presentism matters.  Mormon 9:31 matters.

I think this is a difficult part of the discussion. We may end up needing to agree to disagree, but I am inclined to believe that racism and bigotry were wrong in all eras.

So do I.  I have repeatedly repudiated such thing, and do so again here.

My objections regarding presentism are not based on moral relativity.  Most (but not all) basic "moral" transgressions / shortcomings / failings are pretty much "eternal."  "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is as true today as it was when Moses descended from Sinai with the stone tablets.  However, what if there is a person that has grown up in a social/cultural or familial milieu where petty theft is common, or even largely ignored / tolerated / accepted in a person's family or community?  What if they grow up being taught that filching here and there is harmless?  What if a person grows up in that environment, absorbs those lax norms and tolerances, and in so doing ends up doing what everyone around him is doing, which is to steal?  

What about social/cultural acceptance of marital infidelity?  

What about social/cultural acceptance of ethnocentrism or racism?

I am not saying that the immorality of an act may be more or less definitive and established, and yet not perceived as wrong by the individual due to social/cultural/familial factors and influences.

I am not saying that we should avoid "presentism" because 19th-century racism was morally acceptable (now or then), but that we should seek to contextualize, to understand, and to learn, and that we generally refrain from defining notable historical figures solely by their failures.  Sometimes such withholding of judgment is not practical where an individual's moral ledger is so massively lopsided that "righteous judgment" is not only feasible, but reasonable.

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Sometimes when I see someone claim that "context matters" and "avoiding presentism matters," it appears to me that they are arguing for moral relativism -- that God's morality around how we treat other human beings is a function of time place and circumstance.

No, I am not saying that.  I am saying that God works with us despite our failures.  God chose to work with and through Jonah, even though he hated the people of Nineveh.  That God did this does not sanctify or justify Jonah's failings.

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

If this is your meaning, then I think it is important to make clear that we are claiming that God's eternal laws allow for racism and bigotry at God's discretion.

I think racism and bigotry are components of this fallen world.  Overcoming these and other sins are part of the Plan of Salvation.

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In this direction, we might need to talk more about how God can declare anything right and true and good if He so chooses, and that maybe there is nothing eternally true and moral. I find that most LDS believe in some kind of absolute, eternal moral truths that God cannot violate, so discussion in this direction would need to talk about what kinds of things God can and cannot declare "not sin."

That's a difficult and speculative topic.  I am glad to be alive in 2023, and to have as resources the scriptures, living prophets and apostles, personal revelation, and reasoning.

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

On other occasions, I think we mean that God in His infinite ability to perfectly blend justice, love, and mercy can forgive sins that were committed in ignorance or for other reasons that He judges sufficient to overlook our sin. But the sin is technically still a sin. IMO, this would be the kind of meaning for "context matters" that I would attribute to Elder Petersen and those before him.  God never once claimed that racism and bigotry were good and true and right.  For reasons that remain mysterious to me, though, He chose not (or maybe could not??) to grant revelation, but allowed these men to deceive themselves into believing that racism and bigotry were right and true and good.

I think this is getting closer to the mark.

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Honestly, neither of those options sets comfortably in my mind. The first option leaves me wondering if there is absolute truth and morality, or if morality is truly relative.

I think there is absolute truth and morality, but it's application can vary by circumstance, by motive, etc. 

An example: Police Officer Jones pulls his sidearm and shoots Bob Smith three times, two times center-mass followed by a headshot.  Bob was dead before he hit the ground.  Can we attach "absolute truth and morality" to what Officer Jones did?  Based on the limited information provided, we would need to say "I'm not sure.  Context and motive matters."  So his act may be "moral" in Situation A (Officer Jones shot Bob because Bob had just decapitated a bystander on the street with a machete and was advancing on another with the machete raised), but not in Situation B (Officer Jones shot Bob in secret and at night, to prevent Bob from testifying against a relative of Officer Jones).  

We as individuals often (but not always) lack information and context sufficient to form meaningful and reasoned and "righteous" moral judgments.  Moreover, it is often not within our stewardship or responsibility to condemn another person.  There certainly can be "absolute truth and morality," but we just may lack the information and/or standing to fully access it.  

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The second option leaves me wondering why God would tolerate such an egregious violation of eternal truth for so long among His people.

That's a fair question.  He let the Israelites in the Old World and the Nephites and Lamanites in the New descend into all sorts of wrongdoing.  He let devout Catholics kill devout Protestants, and vice versa.  He let the Saints in Cedar City commit an atrocity at Mountain Meadows.

12 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Maybe you have a different meaning to "context matters" and "avoiding presentism matters?"

I think I do.  I hope the foregoing is sufficient to clarify my intent and position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

Thank you for your excellent illustrations of black and white thinking.  Just about every sentence expresses black/white binary thinking. 

5 hours ago, John L said:

The church thrives on its members living a black/white life.

A great example of a black/white thinking.  Its a statement that is either true or false.  It misses that there might be areas where the church encourages black/white thinking and where it doesn't/

 

5 hours ago, John L said:

Like teaching members that someone who drinks coffee is sinning and someone who doesn't is not sinning.

Another true/false (black/white) statement.  I personally unaware of any church teaching that not drinking coffee means someone is not sinning. Almost every teaching I am aware of is that we are all sinners and we all need the atonement of Christ to overcome sin.  Also a non Black/White approach would be to discuss exactly how serious the church views drinking coffee (almost all of my experience with coffee comes from my mission where the locals seemed to be in a competition on how many thing they could add coffee to).  I never personally felt that I needed to be sent home for this and neither did any of my leaders. 

 

5 hours ago, John L said:

There's no "gray" area for most members.

Another Black/White thinking statement.  A am really unaware of any member of the church that doesn't struggle with degrees in their obedience.  Dealing with ambiguity is part of the plan.  We aren't instructed in all things and we should be compelled in all things.  Many commandments can contradict other commandments and part of the challenge is learning how to live the higher law, often at the expense of not following the letter of the lower law. 

 

5 hours ago, John L said:

That can be said for most of what is taught in the church. Like the word apostate. Once a member is seen as an apostate, a switch is flipped in the brain and the member is seen in a totally different perspective when members interact with him or her. We're taught to be that way because it makes us easier to control as a group. Take the word mormon for instance. One day it's used in the churches multi million dollar add campaign, the next day it's being condemned by the prophet. Most members have just accepted it and moved

Each one of these sentences expresses a black/white thought.  Each statement assumes a yes/ no and not gray area.  Either one is an apostate or not.  If one is an apostate we shun, if they are not, we accept. Either we are controlled as a group or we do what we want.   The reality is that there are an almost infinite degree of apostasy and an infinite way we interact with people. 

  I suppose we can discuss how much the church has influenced your black/white view of the world. Personally I find that this black/white thinking is pretty common both in and out of the church.  People like certainty and it takes less work to make black/white judgements.

Edited by Danzo
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Teancum said:

One wonders what things President Nelson says today might be ignored and tossed away 50 years from now.  Seems pretty common for the church to do this.

Do you really "wonder" at this?

What about his denunciations of elective abortion?  What about his statements pertaining to marriage as being between a man and a woman?  Or about the Law of Chastity?  Seems like abortion and gay sex/marriage are the two  big "I hope the Brethren eventually come around to my sociopolitical perspective on this"-style topics. 

Any others?  Can you think of statements he has made that might reasonably be construed as problematic by members of the Church in 50 years?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

If you don't mind my asking, why do you frequent such a place as this? Are you hedging your bets? I rather suspect that if I became sufficiently disenfranchised to stop attending church that I would head in the opposite direction from where its members gather.

I've been a member for 53 years, so it's in my veins. I tried attending other churches and it was not my jive I guess. I'm glad this site came up on my computer in 2012 and I'm glad I thought in order to keep reading posts it had me register. I could have left this place, maybe I should have, and many probably wish I would, but it's my "ward family" in a strange kind of way. Once you get to know the posters and their personalities you come to love them like family. I'm able to be my true self, can't do that around many of my LDS family and friends. It's a great landing spot for me for the mean time, and one I don't want to move away from unless I have to. Being able to say what my issues are, you can't do that on some LDS forums. I'm on "limited" because I crossed some lines apparently. But luckily I'm able to post an allotment or limited posts, cannot give upvotes or down, but I'm glad I'm still able to post. Where else could one go really to get these issues out of the way. I've tried the boards that are preaching to the choir, and I need a middle ground, can't cross over the fence. Because I feel at home in this culture of LDS. I'm glad there are posters who fully believe but notice the things that are wrong in the church but realize it's people running it. Not always God, people mess up even while trying to be His hands. I believe that members can stay, even while not believing everything from it's leaders. I am glad you're here. I hope you stay if it helps you to get these frustrations out. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

Good points and good questions. 

It should be well known by now that I am a relativist.  I agree that these arguments which attempt to defend the immoral actions (by todays standard) of past leaders do sound very much like moral relativist arguments, which I welcome but do find ironic.

Let me share my perspective on this matter to see if it might offer some benefit to people on both sides of this issue.  As a moral relativist, I do see valid points from both sides.  First, let me state that by the standards of relativism, even relativism can only be relatively true.  That means there must be absolute truth/morality.  And I believe there is.  Absolute truth for me is what exists when one perceives of all truth circumscribed in to one great whole.  I take a holistic view of absolutism.  Absolute truth is the whole elephant - which only God can see with his "all seeing eye".   Without this holistic perspective, only relativism exists.  We can't be absolutely certain of our interpretation of what we "know" without perceiving of how it relates to all other parts that create the whole.   Truth and morality, in relation to mortal man, is therefore relative.  In relation to God, it is absolute.  This seems to me to be pretty obvious when we consider these events we are discussing.  Morality clearly was different for people back then, their truth/morality regarding black people was different from our truth/morality today; which we may eventually come to learn is different from THE TRUTH (God's truth) as we approach Godhood.  There is no way to compare our perspective to God's.  Revelation doesn't work that way.  Everything God gives us inevitably must pass through our limited mortal filters and perspectives.  Thus we see teachings and "revelations" of past prophets change over time as our understanding and interpretations evolve.  It is progressive in nature. That is how it is supposed to be.  Sometimes we get it wrong.  Sometimes we get it right but it is incomplete and not properly understood or interpreted.     

For this reason, I agree that "context matters" etc.  I don't believe that past leaders should be condemned for their relative truth.  They were largely products of their time.  Where I disagree with many is that I think we should judge and condemn past teachings based on our present standards.  We should practice presentism in that regard, because if we don't condemn past teachings, then we are at risk of repeating history as we play apologist for immorality.  In this way we can condemn the teaching/morality of the past without condemning the leaders.   We are taught to do the same today in the present.  We can judge immorality as we see it practiced today without judging individuals.  That is what we are commanded to do, in fact. 

Line upon line, precept upon precept our perception of truth and morality will evolve and progress until all truth is circumscribed into one great whole in our minds and we see as God sees and know as God knows and thus become God's ourselves with absolute knowledge of absolute truth/morality.   That wont happen until exaltation, so it would be helpful in our progression if we stopped pretending to be God's now with absolutes and black and white nonsense which inhibit progression and slows down evolution in morality, and often places the church behind the curve. 

The last question of why God tolerates such egregious violations of His absolute truth is more difficult to answer without perceiving and knowing God's holistic perspective.  But I suspect it is largely based on His plan where relativity is a feature rather than a bug.  Man cannot sin in ignorance.  He may transgress a law, but he cannot sin against a higher morality he is ignorant about and cannot perceive.  That is a feature of his mercy.  We are going to be judged according to what we did with the light we perceive, and not by the absolute holistic light of God in its fullness that we cannot perceive of.  Our purpose is to learn to hear, to let ourselves hear the still small voice of the spirit as we remove distractions from our minds and from our lives as directed by the spirit.  "He who has ears to hear, let him hear".  That process is relative and progressive towards ultimate absolutism.  It is different/relative for everyone.   

This may or may not help, but thought I'd offer it. 

Perhaps a further example might provide some clarity.  Let's switch from "moral relativism" to "medical relativism."  What would we say about the hygiene and other day-to-day health practices of, say, a family of serfs living in medieval England?  Probably pretty "bad" by today's standards, right?  However, a doctor living near London may have a comparatively improved understanding of the human body, medicine, etc., but much of his medical practice would still be seen as outdated and barbaric by today's standards.

So . . . do we condemn the serfs and the doctor?  Or just one or the other?  What they knew and understood at the time about the body, physical health, medicines, medical treatments, etc. was substantially inferior to what we, in 2023, know and understand.  Does this matter, though?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Thank you for your excellent illustrations of black and white thinking.  Just about every sentence expresses black/white binary thinking. 

A great example of a black/white thinking.  Its a statement that is either true or false.  It misses that there might be areas where the church encourages black/white thinking and where it doesn't/

 

Another true/false (black/white) statement.  I personally unaware of any church teaching that not drinking coffee means someone is not sinning. Almost every teaching I am aware of is that we are all sinners and we all need the atonement of Christ to overcome sin.  Also a non Black/White approach would be to discuss exactly how serious the church views drinking coffee (almost all of my experience with coffee comes from my mission where the locals seemed to be in a competition on how many thing they could add coffee to).  I never personally felt that I needed to be sent home for this and neither did any of my leaders. 

 

Another Black/White thinking statement.  A am really unaware of any member of the church that doesn't struggle with degrees in their obedience.  Dealing with ambiguity is part of the plan.  We aren't instructed in all things and we should be compelled in all things.  Many commandments can contradict other commandments and part of the challenge is learning how to live the higher law, often at the expense of not following the letter of the lower law. 

 

Each one of these sentences expresses a black/white thought.  Each statement assumes a yes/ no and not gray area.  Either one is an apostate or not.  If one is an apostate we shun, if they are not, we accept. Either we are controlled as a group or we do what we want.   The reality is that there are an almost infinite degree of apostasy and an infinite way we interact with people. 

  I suppose we can discuss how much the church has influenced your black/white view of the world. Personally I find that this black/white thinking is pretty common both in and out of the church.  People like certainty and it takes less work to make black/white judgements.

The whole point of any religion is to "shrink" the gray area and help members concentrate on the black and white, our church is no different. Infact, our church is one of a handful of churches that claims to have answers for just about anything you have been, or you are wondering about in this very moment.  Making us, for the most part, black and white thinkers. That's why so many converts find the teachings of the church very appealing. 

Link to comment
22 hours ago, smac97 said:

saying or doing something that has imperiled someone's exaltation? 

This is a circular statement invented by apologists. What would it take to “imperil” someone’s exaltation when apologists can loop back to the infinite atonement that fixes everything in the life to come. The prophet told you to murder someone and you did? Well the atonement will surely take care of that. “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, John L said:

The whole point of any religion is to "shrink" the gray area and help members concentrate on the black and white, our church is no different. Infact, our church is one of a handful of churches that claims to have answers for just about anything you have been, or you are wondering about in this very moment.  Making us, for the most part, black and white thinkers. That's why so many converts find the teachings of the church very appealing. 

Again,  You are making wonderful examples of black/white thinking. The whole point? of any religion?  There is no other point to a religion? There are no religions with a different point?   The church has an answer for anything you are wondering about?  Wow!, Just Wow!  

If the church made you a black/white thinker, they sure did a real good job at it.  

I guess they didn't try hard enough with me and most of the people I associate with at church. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

saying or doing something that has imperiled someone's exaltation? 

This is a circular statement invented by apologists.

I don't see the circularity.  Could you clarify?

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What would it take to “imperil” someone’s exaltation when apologists can loop back to the infinite atonement that fixes everything in the life to come.

That's a pretty fair question.  But we know there are ways in which an individual can lose his exaltation.  David lost his, for example.

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The prophet told you to murder someone and you did? 

Who is asking this?  It seems to be a circular statement invested by antagonists.  ;) 

19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well the atonement will surely take care of that. “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.”

So . . . yeah.  That would do it.  Murder is unforgiveable (see the David thing above).

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps a further example might provide some clarity.  Let's switch from "moral relativism" to "medical relativism."  What would we say about the hygiene and other day-to-day health practices of, say, a family of serfs living in medieval England?  Probably pretty "bad" by today's standards, right? 

Right.

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

However, a doctor living near London may have a comparatively improved understanding of the human body, medicine, etc., but much of his medical practice would still be seen as outdated and barbaric by today's standards.

Right.

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So . . . do we condemn the serfs and the doctor? Or just one or the other? 

I'm a relativist, I try not to condemn people for their relative views.  Condemnation of people for their relative views seems to be more a feature of absolutists then it is with relativists. 

Perhaps you missed this part in my remarks:

Quote

 For this reason, I agree that "context matters" etc.  I don't believe that past leaders should be condemned for their relative truth.  They were largely products of their time.  Where I disagree with many is that I think we should judge and condemn past teachings based on our present standards.  We should practice presentism in that regard, because if we don't condemn past teachings, then we are at risk of repeating history as we play apologist for immorality.  In this way we can condemn the teaching/morality of the past without condemning the leaders.   We are taught to do the same today in the present.  We can judge immorality as we see it practiced today without judging individuals.  That is what we are commanded to do, in fact. 

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What they knew and understood at the time about the body, physical health, medicines, medical treatments, etc. was substantially inferior to what we, in 2023, know and understand.  Does this matter, though?  

Of course it matters.  Again, I stated that we should practice presentism in that regard.  By todays standards, their practices are relatively inferior.  We should judge the morality and medical relativism of the past based on our standards of today, lest inferior practices be renewed.  We can do so without "condemning" anyone. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

To summarize, then, we believe that God bends and fudges morality based on the mainstream teachings of the church, and/or the beliefs of broader society, and/or personal perceptions. 

I have no idea how got this from what I wrote. This is definitely not what I was saying or believe.

I'm saying the exact opposite. The "beliefs of broader society, and/or personal perceptions" have no bearing whatsoever on what is moral or right in God's eyes. Which is why we need to be very careful in declaring that the consistent teachings of past apostles and other church leaders was very wrong on the grounds that they are offensive to the current "beliefs of broader society, and/or personal perceptions.” 

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps before we can come to a consensus on what errors past prophets, apostles, and people might have made, first we need to come to some consensus about how bendable morality is.

I don’t think morality is bendable at all. The only thing that matters it what is right and moral in God’s eyes. The philosophies of man, past and present, are irrelevant in determining what actual is right and moral in God’s eyes and what isn’t. 

And I don’t think it will be possible to come to a complete consensus on what do or do not constitute past and present erroneous consistent teachings of the church. And even if everyone were in agreement about a certain teaching being wrong, this still wouldn’t have any bearing on what God thinks. 
 

And God's ways and thoughts are not the same as the ways and thoughts of mortal man. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I'm saying the exact opposite. The "beliefs of broader society, and/or personal perceptions" have no bearing whatsoever on what is moral or right in God's eyes. Which is why we need to be very careful in declaring that the consistent teachings of past apostles and other church leaders was very wrong on the grounds that they are offensive to the current "beliefs of broader society, and/or personal perceptions.” 

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating some potential pitfalls of absolutist ideologies which can prevent progression in morality.  Is it any wonder why the church so often falls behind the curve?

9 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don’t think morality is bendable at all. The only thing that matters it what is right and moral in God’s eyes.

If only we could see through God's eyes!  

9 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The philosophies of man, past and present, are irrelevant in determining what actual is right and moral in God’s eyes and what isn’t. 

Agreed.  That is because of relativity.

9 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And I don’t think it will be possible to come to a complete consensus on what do or do not constitute past and present erroneous consistent teachings of the church.

Agreed.  That is because of relativity.

9 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And even if everyone were in agreement about a certain teaching being wrong, this still wouldn’t have any bearing on what God thinks. 

Agreed.  That is because of relativity. 

9 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And God's ways and thoughts are not the same as the ways and thoughts of mortal man. 

Agreed.  That is because of relativity.  In fact, that is the definition of relativity - it is scriptural. 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I have no idea how got this from what I wrote. This is definitely not what I was saying or believe.

I'm saying the exact opposite. The "beliefs of broader society, and/or personal perceptions" have no bearing whatsoever on what is moral or right in God's eyes. Which is why we need to be very careful in declaring that the consistent teachings of past apostles and other church leaders was very wrong on the grounds that they are offensive to the current "beliefs of broader society, and/or personal perceptions.” 

I don’t think morality is bendable at all. The only thing that matters it what is right and moral in God’s eyes. The philosophies of man, past and present, are irrelevant in determining what actual is right and moral in God’s eyes and what isn’t. 

And I don’t think it will be possible to come to a complete consensus on what do or do not constitute past and present erroneous consistent teachings of the church. And even if everyone were in agreement about a certain teaching being wrong, this still wouldn’t have any bearing on what God thinks. 
 

And God's ways and thoughts are not the same as the ways and thoughts of mortal man. 

Yeah, and man, I really get a kick out of them there blood sacrifices.  Sqirtin everwhar! 

Jest laugh my head off! 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you really "wonder" at this?

What about his denunciations of elective abortion?  What about his statements pertaining to marriage as being between a man and a woman?  Or about the Law of Chastity?  Seems like abortion and gay sex/marriage are the two  big "I hope the Brethren eventually come around to my sociopolitical perspective on this"-style topics. 

Any others?  Can you think of statements he has made that might reasonably be construed as problematic by members of the Church in 50 years?

Thanks,

-Smac

No idea. I don't have the agenda you want to seem to like to impugn to others that I have bolded above.  I do not see this ever happening.  I imagine McConkie, Peterson and others felt pretty confident in their now tossed under the bus comments on race and the priesthood ban.  As did Brigham Young and others about polygamy.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...