John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:38 pm
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
I think that the majority of the top leaders genuinely believe that if they fail to correct a misconception in someone's mind, and that misconception leads to them being a more faithful member of the church, this is a good thing since they will be more likely to return to God. The end result is a major factor in the morality of the action for them.
For them, it is as if we are all members of a weird school that is threatening to give us one written test to determine whether we inherit millions of dollars or get executed on the spot. They are our tutors trying to help us pass the test. They know that the test only has some simple mechanics questions as far as physics goes, so are they going to teach us the esoteric theories of physics? No, they are going to stick to basics and actively discourage their pupils from looking at that more complex information. Never mind that this gets you closer to the truth, the truth isn't the goal. Getting to the right side of the absurd punishment/reward is. The stakes are too high to waste any time!
Okay, so maybe that analogy isn't perfect but I hope it illustrates that a lot of "immoral" systems are propped up with ridiculous background beliefs that make their results perfectly moral if you accept the underlying assumptions.
We can say that it is immoral to hide the truth, but is it immoral to hide the truth from someone if you knew the truth would get them killed? How much less immoral would it be if it helped them avoid eternal punishment?
I hate the way the truth was hidden from me and I don't think the church leaders had any right to do that, but I can also understand the calculation being made on the other side of that.
For them, it is as if we are all members of a weird school that is threatening to give us one written test to determine whether we inherit millions of dollars or get executed on the spot. They are our tutors trying to help us pass the test. They know that the test only has some simple mechanics questions as far as physics goes, so are they going to teach us the esoteric theories of physics? No, they are going to stick to basics and actively discourage their pupils from looking at that more complex information. Never mind that this gets you closer to the truth, the truth isn't the goal. Getting to the right side of the absurd punishment/reward is. The stakes are too high to waste any time!
Okay, so maybe that analogy isn't perfect but I hope it illustrates that a lot of "immoral" systems are propped up with ridiculous background beliefs that make their results perfectly moral if you accept the underlying assumptions.
We can say that it is immoral to hide the truth, but is it immoral to hide the truth from someone if you knew the truth would get them killed? How much less immoral would it be if it helped them avoid eternal punishment?
I hate the way the truth was hidden from me and I don't think the church leaders had any right to do that, but I can also understand the calculation being made on the other side of that.
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
fetchface wrote:I think that the majority of the top leaders genuinely believe that if they fail to correct a misconception in someone's mind, and that misconception leads to them being a more faithful member of the church, this is a good thing since they will be more likely to return to God. The end result is a major factor in the morality of the action for them.
For them, it is as if we are all members of a weird school that is threatening to give us one written test to determine whether we inherit millions of dollars or get executed on the spot. They are our tutors trying to help us pass the test. They know that the test only has some simple mechanics questions as far as physics goes, so are they going to teach us the esoteric theories of physics? No, they are going to stick to basics and actively discourage their pupils from looking at that more complex information. Never mind that this gets you closer to the truth, the truth isn't the goal. Getting to the right side of the absurd punishment/reward is. The stakes are too high to waste any time!
Okay, so maybe that analogy isn't perfect but I hope it illustrates that a lot of "immoral" systems are propped up with ridiculous background beliefs that make their results perfectly moral if you accept the underlying assumptions.
We can say that it is immoral to hide the truth, but is it immoral to hide the truth from someone if you knew the truth would get them killed? How much less immoral would it be if it helped them avoid eternal punishment?
I hate the way the truth was hidden from me and I don't think the church leaders had any right to do that, but I can also understand the calculation being made on the other side of that.
I think one can speculate endlessly on any individual leader's personal motivations for deception, but we don't have to judge their character to evaluate whether an action was good or bad, or honest or immoral. I realised that I had personally experienced someone lying to me and about me consistently in a way that affected me importantly, and that such action is wrong. If anyone did that to me, I would not be able to trust them as a friend or as a prophet.
So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether Joseph Smith thought he was doing something ultimately good. He lied to people on a consistent basis in ways that affected their lives in matters of great importance. That makes him untrustworthy whether as a friend or as a prophet.
That, to me, is at the essence of the immorality. Who knows if leaders have wrestled with the moral hazards of how the church has communicated and miscommunicated over the generations? I don't care what any one of them thinks if they do not take enough care to maintain actual moral authority of the office as much as maintaining the current appearance of moral authority.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:38 pm
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
Meadowchik wrote:I think one can speculate endlessly on any individual leader's personal motivations for deception, but we don't have to judge their character to evaluate whether an action was good or bad, or honest or immoral. I realised that I had personally experienced someone lying to me and about me consistently in a way that affected me importantly, and that such action is wrong. If anyone did that to me, I would not be able to trust them as a friend or as a prophet.
So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether Joseph Smith thought he was doing something ultimately good. He lied to people on a consistent basis in ways that affected their lives in matters of great importance. That makes him untrustworthy whether as a friend or as a prophet.
That, to me, is at the essence of the immorality. Who knows if leaders have wrestled with the moral hazards of how the church has communicated and miscommunicated over the generations? I don't care what any one of them thinks if they do not take enough care to maintain actual moral authority of the office as much as maintaining the current appearance of moral authority.
But surely you understand that a deception can be moral or immoral depending on the context. For example, I would happily tell a lie to save Anne Frank from the gas chamber, even though I think honesty is a very important moral principle. It would be immoral not to. Context matters, and in the case of Mormonism you have a whole bunch of fake beliefs adding context. They may not be objectively real, but they are real to the people taking them into account.
Each of us stacks our moral principles in order of importance and we use them to try to make the best decision. I can't help it if others have their principles out of order, but I can appreciate that they are following a process. I can also disagree with their order, as I do with the church leaders. Boyd K Packer had his moral principles out of order.
And I wasn't trying to discuss Joseph Smith. I think he was a knowing deceiver at his core. I think his behavior was driven by an underlying personality disorder. I'm talking about Joseph Smith's current-day dupes leading the church, who are more normal people selected for more guardian type personalities.
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
fetchface wrote:Meadowchik wrote:I think one can speculate endlessly on any individual leader's personal motivations for deception, but we don't have to judge their character to evaluate whether an action was good or bad, or honest or immoral. I realised that I had personally experienced someone lying to me and about me consistently in a way that affected me importantly, and that such action is wrong. If anyone did that to me, I would not be able to trust them as a friend or as a prophet.
So at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether Joseph Smith thought he was doing something ultimately good. He lied to people on a consistent basis in ways that affected their lives in matters of great importance. That makes him untrustworthy whether as a friend or as a prophet.
That, to me, is at the essence of the immorality. Who knows if leaders have wrestled with the moral hazards of how the church has communicated and miscommunicated over the generations? I don't care what any one of them thinks if they do not take enough care to maintain actual moral authority of the office as much as maintaining the current appearance of moral authority.
But surely you understand that a deception can be moral or immoral depending on the context. For example, I would happily tell a lie to save Anne Frank from the gas chamber, even though I think honesty is a very important moral principle. It would be immoral not to. Context matters, and in the case of Mormonism you have a whole bunch of fake beliefs adding context. They may not be objectively real, but they are real to the people taking them into account.
Each of us stacks our moral principles in order of importance and we use them to try to make the best decision. I can't help it if others have their principles out of order, but I can appreciate that they are following a process. I can also disagree with their order, as I do with the church leaders. Boyd K Packer had his moral principles out of order.
And I wasn't trying to discuss Joseph Smith. I think he was a knowing deceiver at his core. I think his behavior was driven by an underlying personality disorder. I'm talking about Joseph Smith's current-day dupes leading the church, who are more normal people selected for more guardian type personalities.
Lying to save innocents from genocide is not anything close to lying about information that is supposed to matter to someone's relationship with God. One's a clear choice. The other is gray, where instead of being honest about the gray, the church fails to fully disclose stuff that really matters to the people making major decisions about their own lives.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:38 pm
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
Meadowchik wrote:Lying to save innocents from genocide is not anything close to lying about information that is supposed to matter to someone's relationship with God. One's a clear choice. The other is gray, where instead of being honest about the gray, the church fails to fully disclose stuff that really matters to the people making major decisions about their own lives.
Well, I wasn't trying to say one was more or less clear than the other. I was simply trying to state that context matters. Was I successful at making at least that point?
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
fetchface wrote:I have found Jonathan Haidt's research valuable in helping me realize that others prioritize their moral principles differently than me and it doesn't make them bad people. I disagree with their priorities but I think they are attempting to prioritize the principles that are important to them.
Agreed.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11104
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
I'm amused at the parallels in this thread and the Dershowitz defense.
Calling an act immoral, universally without regard for person or position, is an essential trait of a pluralistic society. The US Supreme Court has established this precedent when it comes to arguments for religious exemption from the law for good reason, demanding all be equal under it. A belief in human sacrifice does not excuse murder. A belief in plural marriage as a sacrament does not excuse bigamy. If the act of hiding the facts to maintain power isn't immoral because the party doing so believes it's in the interests of those being deceive, well then. Enjoy the Dershowitz defense as it lays waste to liberal Western society. We will never agree that the issue is one of personal belief. It's not about religion being in a special category. Its about institutions of authority versus individual liberty and just application of a standard of moral behavior.
Calling an act immoral, universally without regard for person or position, is an essential trait of a pluralistic society. The US Supreme Court has established this precedent when it comes to arguments for religious exemption from the law for good reason, demanding all be equal under it. A belief in human sacrifice does not excuse murder. A belief in plural marriage as a sacrament does not excuse bigamy. If the act of hiding the facts to maintain power isn't immoral because the party doing so believes it's in the interests of those being deceive, well then. Enjoy the Dershowitz defense as it lays waste to liberal Western society. We will never agree that the issue is one of personal belief. It's not about religion being in a special category. Its about institutions of authority versus individual liberty and just application of a standard of moral behavior.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11104
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
fetchface wrote:Context matters, and in the case of Mormonism you have a whole bunch of fake beliefs adding context. They may not be objectively real, but they are real to the people taking them into account.
The context is the church has/had information that it chose to withhold from it's membership that keeps them compliant and ignorant. That's not protecting Anne Frank. That's telling people Dachau was a family summer camp.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
honorentheos wrote:I'm amused at the parallels in this thread and the Dershowitz defense.
Calling an act immoral, universally without regard for person or position, is an essential trait of a pluralistic society. The US Supreme Court has established this precedent when it comes to arguments for religious exemption from the law for good reason, demanding all be equal under it. A belief in human sacrifice does not excuse murder. A belief in plural marriage as a sacrament does not excuse bigamy. If the act of hiding the facts to maintain power isn't immoral because the party doing so believes it's in the interests of those being deceive, well then. Enjoy the Dershowitz defense as it lays waste to liberal Western society. We will never agree that the issue is one of personal belief. It's not about religion being in a special category. Its about institutions of authority versus individual liberty and just application of a standard of moral behavior.
Thank you for this clarity.
Jonathan Haidt was cited earlier as a reference for understanding people's beliefs. In his book The Righteous Mind, he focuses on how people believe and change their beliefs, but he does not make the book about assessing character, which is what seems to be attempted here: "They don't think it's wrong, therefore they are not doing something immoral." The whole point of Haidt's book is about understanding why we believe, so if acting on belief is inherently moral, the entire premise of his book is rendered meaningless.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
Meadowchik, I don’t think that fairly represents what I am saying or Haidt’s work.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist