John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[Guest]

Yes on both counts. But that is my system of morality, based on my prioritization of moral principles. And there are certainly situations where I think that causing harm or hiding information is the right thing to do.

I can respect that. What's key here to me is the airing of information and elaborating on the arguments. It is not an authoritarian tactic, unlike the church's, rather it inserts more democratic elements into the process, even if they are marginal and unapproved.

In short, make the claim and its argument and let people decide.

[_honorentheos]

Whether by my voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same.

That does not address my objection to your sloppy assignment of blame to the leadership in this instance.

Earlier in the thread you excused individual behavior due to their being believing cogs in the wheel of the machine that is the institutional church. You're arguing whichever side suits you on a particular point. Feel free to say whatever you want about my pointing this out. At least it isn't arbitrary and silly. Oh, and wrong.

His idea of what the history should be like is absolutely informed by scholarly history. There is no question that this is the case. He doesn’t have to refer to it explicitly here for that to be obviously true. His whole faith struggle is predicated on the primacy of scholarly history over the traditional faith narrative.

Ok. He's clearly saying what he didn't say because you know what he was saying between the lines. Got it.

History is not a Platonic form. The history of history has everything to do with this argument. You can’t ignore that. If you do, you’re ignoring everything that makes the conflict intelligible and reducing the terms to absolutes. There is not a consensus on what a perfect, morally correct history or handling of history is. What I learn from you is what your particular values and assumptions about history are. They do not seem to be grounded in an appreciation for the historic evolution of historiography. That knowledge actually matters here.

Even if we were to assume the entire issue here is the handling of history, you are then arguing in defense of hiding resources to protect a particular narrative. That's not ethical in any field. You want to argue the people doing so aren't trained historians so they shouldn't be held to the same standard as a professional historian? Unethical behavior when practicing in a field where one lacks training isn't defensible anywhere, anyhow. You want to shift the argument, the problem remains: Withholding the information is unethical. That doing so tightens the grip of authority of the leadership of the church over the membership, steals agency from the membership, and infantilizes the membership in doing so is simply immoral.

I don't know why you want to burn yourself up over this issue. You're on the wrong side. You recognize that readily when the subject isn't the LDS church who is behaving in the same manner. Your defense swings wildly from argument to argument as needed to defend the assumed position even when it contradicts previous positions you've laid out.

[_honorentheos]

And your above statement is why I was citing Haidt earlier. I was alluding to the fact that a lot of these guys honestly believe that submission to authority and loyalty are moral positives (independent of what that loyalty and submission to authority is trying to get you to do). This is a very foreign way of thinking to me (and probably to you) but it is indeed the way they think.

To simply dismiss and condemn this way of thinking as immoral doesn't help us understand how these incentives for being less-than-honest happen, nor does it help us reach these types of people with our arguments. That's where I'd like to get to.

How does it happen that people hide information that advantages them and disadvantages others?

Really?

[Guest]

How does it happen that people hide information that advantages them and disadvantages others?

Really?

When one of your starting assumptions for the foundation of your moral thinking is that the universe is ruled by a cosmic alpha ape who values loyalty-testing for its own sake, and that getting onto the good side of that being is of the utmost importance for everyone, and if you trick people into complying with the alpha ape they will benefit, things get pretty twisted up pretty quickly. Moral up becomes moral down, so to speak.

I don't agree that their thinking is valid but since I once subscribed to it, I feel like I understand it a bit, and I feel like I can be a bit sympathetic and understanding of the deluded.

[_Lemmie]

History is not a Platonic form. The history of history has everything to do with this argument. You can’t ignore that. If you do, you’re ignoring everything that makes the conflict intelligible and reducing the terms to absolutes. There is not a consensus on what a perfect, morally correct history or handling of history is. What I learn from you is what your particular values and assumptions about history are. They do not seem to be grounded in an appreciation for the historic evolution of historiography. That knowledge actually matters here.

Even if we were to assume the entire issue here is the handling of history, you are then arguing in defense of hiding resources to protect a particular narrative. That's not ethical in any field. You want to argue the people doing so aren't trained historians so they shouldn't be held to the same standard as a professional historian? Unethical behavior when practicing in a field where one lacks training isn't defensible anywhere, anyhow. You want to shift the argument, the problem remains: Withholding the information is unethical. That doing so tightens the grip of authority of the leadership of the church over the membership, steals agency from the membership, and infantilizes the membership in doing so is simply immoral.

I don't know why you want to burn yourself up over this issue. You're on the wrong side. You recognize that readily when the subject isn't the LDS church who is behaving in the same manner. Your defense swings wildly from argument to argument as needed to defend the assumed position even when it contradicts previous positions you've laid out.

This is what I don’t get about Kishkumen’s point. The last discussion I recall reading here about the 1832 first vision account, I’m pretty sure kishkumen called it a slam dunk case of suppression. Why the switch to a contradictory position now?

[_Holy Ghost]

Is this discussion about Mormonism or Alan Dershowitz's argument in the U.S. Senate trial last week about what is okay for a president to do?

[_Kishkumen]

This is what I don’t get about Kishkumen’s point. The last discussion I recall reading here about the 1832 first vision account, I’m pretty sure kishkumen called it a slam dunk case of suppression. Why the switch to a contradictory position now?

Wha...?

Of course the excision and locking away of the 1832 account is a clear case of suppression. The person(s) responsible did the wrong thing. Period. Nothing I have said here should lead anyone to think I believe otherwise. It is really curious to watch the misinterpretations multiply.

[_Kishkumen]

The religion as a system places revelation at the foundation of its epistemology.

I seem to remember a blurb on the church website that stated explicitly that spiritual confirmation is more sure than information we gather with our 5 senses. I can't seem to find it at the moment but I'll keep looking.

ETA: Not the one I was looking for, but interesting:

What can we learn about balance from the recent fuss about historical documents? The lessons on straying off center are vivid. Would the discovery of any document, no matter how contradictory to what you believe to be true, destroy your testimony? It may raise some intellectual questions, but it need not destroy your testimony. There is an avenue to truth greater than intellect and more certain than the five senses. The most glorious of all avenues to truth is direct revelation from heaven. A saving testimony will never come from a spectacular historical or archaeological find, and a testimony need never be lost on the basis of such a find.

2nd ETA: Found it!

We can receive a sure testimony of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ only by the power of the Holy Ghost. His communication to our spirit carries far more certainty than any communication we can receive through our natural senses.

Thank you, fetchface. This is very helpful.

[Guest]

Earlier in the thread you excused individual behavior due to their being believing cogs in the wheel of the machine that is the institutional church. You're arguing whichever side suits you on a particular point. Feel free to say whatever you want about my pointing this out. At least it isn't arbitrary and silly. Oh, and wrong.

Nope! Sorry. You have misunderstood me.

Ok. He's clearly saying what he didn't say because you know what he was saying between the lines. Got it.

He's clearly saying things in the context of everything he has previously said. If we don't understand what he has said over time, what he says in one quote may be misunderstood. That's not a revolutionary idea. It's pretty standard for a responsible and accurate interpretation of the evidence.

Even if we were to assume the entire issue here is the handling of history, you are then arguing in defense of hiding resources to protect a particular narrative. That's not ethical in any field. You want to argue the people doing so aren't trained historians so they shouldn't be held to the same standard as a professional historian? Unethical behavior when practicing in a field where one lacks training isn't defensible anywhere, anyhow. You want to shift the argument, the problem remains: Withholding the information is unethical. That doing so tightens the grip of authority of the leadership of the church over the membership, steals agency from the membership, and infantilizes the membership in doing so is simply immoral.

I don't know why you want to burn yourself up over this issue. You're on the wrong side. You recognize that readily when the subject isn't the LDS church who is behaving in the same manner. Your defense swings wildly from argument to argument as needed to defend the assumed position even when it contradicts previous positions you've laid out.

Yeah, I don't think you are really getting what I am saying. What I am saying is that, within the community of believers, the faithful narrative and those things that support it will be favored and amplified, whereas things that challenge it will be resisted and dismissed. What was once resisted may be embraced once believers learn how it may be read in a supportive way. I think Don's book is a fine example of how something that might have potentially been resisted because one might have expected it to be controversial and faith-challenging can be embraced because, although it does not simply tell the same old narrative, it is seen as illuminating and adding to the faith narrative.

What appears to you to be immoral because it does not conform to your priorities and values can, within the system of values and priorities of the community, be deemed acceptable. If we understand things sympathetically through the eyes of insiders, even if only for the sake of intellectual clarity, we improve our understanding of the community and compassion for its members. It is easy to make sweeping judgments according to different standards. For example, marrying more than one person is wrong. Right? I am not inviting you to change your morals. I am inviting you to change your approach to dealing with other cultures.

You're a funny guy, and this is an entertaining thread. I am not "burning myself up" over this. I can do this all day and enjoy myself.

[_honorentheos]

How does it happen that people hide information that advantages them and disadvantages others?

Really?

When one of your starting assumptions for the foundation of your moral thinking is that the universe is ruled by a cosmic alpha ape who values loyalty-testing for its own sake, and that getting onto the good side of that being is of the utmost importance for everyone, and if you trick people into complying with the alpha ape they will benefit, things get pretty twisted up pretty quickly. Moral up becomes moral down, so to speak.

I don't agree that their thinking is valid but since I once subscribed to it, I feel like I understand it a bit, and I feel like I can be a bit sympathetic and understanding of the deluded.

During a period of being a poor student I lived next to a couple who were, frankly, criminals. They were supporting a drug habit and spoke about crime as if it were just another job a person might have. They had a son who was about 5 or 6 and he spoke of being a criminal as if they were his heroes and he was clearly being raised with a moral foundation that didn't match one that society as a whole would get on board with let alone find sympathetic. I felt bad for the kid but no degree of sympathy changes the facts that what he was being exposed to and taught to value was unethical. His upbringing was unethical. Everything about that situation left me wondering about how parents can be such screw ups.in their kids lives and made a lasting impression on me. But one of those impressions included the fact his story is hardly unique. And while I feel sympathy for the kid, the law is all the more important for being both a constraint as well as a disincentive acting against those forces.

Put bluntly, at some point you have to pick a lane or be a dangerous driver yourself.