DiscussMormonism.com

Following up in a statement that new poster Chap made in the lower Kingdom, I am wondering, "Is it reasonable to expect the LDS Church to be morally in advance of the rest of contemporary society"?

The church seemed to lag behind on the race issue, and there are other contemporary issues as well in which the Church seems to be bucking the trend such as rights for women and gays.

moksha wrote:Following up in a statement that new poster Chap made in the lower Kingdom, I am wondering, "Is it reasonable to expect the LDS Church to be morally in advance of the rest of contemporary society"?

The church seemed to lag behind on the race issue, and there are other contemporary issues as well in which the Church seems to be bucking the trend such as rights for women and gays.

Mormonism generally restricts the definition of morality to sexual conduct. I think that's partly why they have seemed to lag behind in other moral issues.

Runtu wrote:Mormonism generally restricts the definition of morality to sexual conduct. I think that's partly why they have seemed to lag behind in other moral issues.

Amen. Although true evil resides in those who are so-called intellectuals, so-called gays, and so-called feminists.

Are questions of race, slavery, forced labor, capital punishment for heinous crimes -- questions of morality of of social consensus?

Does God absolutely decree all races are equal?, slavery is morally wrong?, capital punishment is Satanic, forced labor is wicked?

I, Valorius, am better than some of you. I suspect one or two of you are better than me. You think so, don't you? Therefore we are not equal. If the race of which I am a member is different (not equal) to the race of which you are a member, then the races are not equal because their members are not equal across that racial divide.

I will say this: I consider all races "equal" in the sense of their members' acces to God, ability to live moral lives, the ability to be intelligent, artistic, and good, though not equally weighted in all areas.

Churches are composites of individuals. A church can be no better than its best member, nor worse than its worst member. impo (In my proud opinion).

A church may lead all others in morality, just as a certain person may lead all others in morality (Jesus, Gandhi), intelligence (DaVinci, Goethe, the Iron Chefs), or artistry (Shakespeare, Rubin, Mozart).

A few years ago, the LDS Church refused to be lead down the primrose path of condemning the use of torture along with a bunch of other Churches. Instead they took a more conservative position of not emphatically saying it was wrong. Many LDS apologists at FAIR even went so far as to championing the usage of torture as a valid and efficient means of information retrieval when such information was warranted.

To me, this seemed to indicate a desire to take the moral low road of doing whatever works in either war or whenever a domestic threat is posed. I would expect a Church to seek the moral high ground and leave the muddy bottom ground to the hard core pragmatists.

I have also noticed a hands off policy for many business ethics questions as well.

Is Runtu right that to the Mormon Church, the only valid moral issues are sexual in nature?

moksha wrote:Is Runtu right that to the Mormon Church, the only valid moral issues are sexual in nature?

Unfortunately moksha, they have failed in this respect as well.

Child predator preventions policies took years in the making only after much neglect, trial and error and lawsuits. No inspiration there. When you staff a bunch of lawyers, it seems to be more about the money than protecting the innocent.

But, remember Mormons got a policy about coffee while many will die stuffing their faces with junk food.

moksha wrote:Is Runtu right that to the Mormon Church, the only valid moral issues are sexual in nature?

I think morality has become synonymous with abstinence from certain (most) sexual conduct in the minds of many people. I have met plenty of people who I only heard use the word "morality" strictly in this sense.

I think the definition of what constitutes morality/immorality has changed over the years and will continue to change. Much like the rest of the "doctrine", whatever constitutes it (did I forget to mention the definition of doctrine has changed and will continue to change, as well?)

This slippery revisionism is why I see no reason for the Church to completely bellyflop in the next many, many years. Pehaps less people will convert, but if they have survived the Book of Abraham papyri being found, the race issue, blood atonement and MMM, the lying, cheating prophets sleeping with teenagers or married women, they can definitely survive things like the DNA issue and homosexual orientation being real, which would surely undermine the plan of happiness, according to Elder Faust.

I mean, look at the Catholic Church. They are still thriving and well, despite all the atrocities.

I'll remember this conversation when I receive an invitation to a gay couple's temple wedding in my sixties, and when I watch them wear whatever garb will be considered mainstream wedding attire instead of temple clothing, getting sealed to each other in a ceremony that does not refer to the wife as her husband's property, and which will be open to the non-LDS public in a sealing room decorated with flowers.

The church seemed to lag behind on the race issue, and there are other contemporary issues as well in which the Church seems to be bucking the trend such as rights for women and gays.

I fail to see why the Church should allow antiMormons and leftwingers to define what is moral for it.

bcspace wrote:I fail to see why the Church should allow antiMormons and leftwingers to define what is moral for it.

Hi bcspace. I see you've changed your lovely sig line calling me "assman" (that was very moral, by the way).

I fail to see why the Church should reduce the meaning of the word "morality" to sexual issues to the point that kids don't know it can refer to other things, even though the rest of the world understands morality differently.

The issue is not who considers what moral. It's that morality can relate to things like lying, cheating, stealing, cruelty, etc., not just sex.

The FLDS church seems to share the definition of morality with the LDS church, though, given the recently disclosed confessions of Warren Jeffs. I would say that what he did to all his followers was immoral, yet he clearly means molestation by immorality.

And since we all know the FLDS and LDS churches have nothing in common, I suppose the LDS definition of morality is not entirely subjective;)

I fail to see why the Church should allow antiMormons and leftwingers to define what is moral for it.

Hi bcspace. I see you've changed your lovely sig line calling me "assman" (that was very moral, by the way).

As moral as were your proctologist references. A little play on pop culture never hurt anyone.

I fail to see why the Church should reduce the meaning of the word "morality" to sexual issues to the point that kids don't know it can refer to other things, even though the rest of the world understands morality differently.

I don't see that the Church has done that at all. Rather, LDS gospel principles speak out against all sorts of leftwing immorality such as socialism and opposition to the death penalty.

The issue is not who considers what moral.

Amen. Truth trancends all paradigms.

It's that morality can relate to things like lying, cheating, stealing, cruelty, etc., not just sex.

Well now you are back to defining morality yourself despite what you just said. However, I think you can find all those issues addressed by LDS scripture and doctrine and you may also find room for leeway depending on the circumstances.

The FLDS church seems to share the definition of morality with the LDS church, though, given the recently disclosed confessions of Warren Jeffs. I would say that what he did to all his followers was immoral, yet he clearly means molestation by immorality.

I think people, not wanting to actually use the specific and descriptive words (embarassment?), use something general like 'immorality'. This does not limit the definition of 'immorality' to sexual sin.