John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Kishkumen]

Evidence-based morality vs faith-based morality.

Naturalistic epistemology vs. faith-based epistemology.

[_Kishkumen]

Sure, but the difference in degree may be big enough to matter.

I am still grappling with that one. Many people are as invested in narratives in the Hebrew Bible as they are those of the New Testament, and yet those of the Hebrew Bible, particularly those belonging to the Iron Age or Bronze Age, are almost certainly completely made up.

At least in my understanding, Dehlin's complaint about the official Mormon story was not that it had supernatural elements, but that it was contradicted by available historical evidence, which Mormon leaders have sometimes concealed or distorted. There is no story about Moses having sex with a swan recorded in a Dead Sea Scroll that the Pope locked away in a safe. Or if there is, I don't know about it. Maybe Dan Brown does.

If the stories of the faith are viewed as being exemplary, then they will of a necessity be drawn into conformity with present views. It used to be that the First Vision was not the capitalized First Vision. It used to be that polygamy was more important for the faith; of course, before that polygamy was vehemently denied, while it was practiced in secret. That's a lot of complexity to impose on Sunday School. In any case, if the point is to construct spiritually inspiring narratives that reflect the contemporary life of the community, then of a necessity those things that conflict with that point of view will be elided. The important thing, from the orientation of a spiritual witness epistemology, is the spiritual witness and how it can be strengthened. Faith is exercised in the things that the spiritual witness was grounded in, not in the shifting conversations of academic history.

Again this diverges for me from the theme of this thread. I don't mean to call the Mormon Brethren immoral just for teaching supernatural beliefs per se. The concern is that they failed to publicize evidence that they themselves either knew or should have known.

Pursuing the digression at least a short way, however, I don't think I can accept a "mythological worldview" as a valid alternative today, where by "alternative" I mean that one ignores or even rejects the scientific understanding of nature, in favor of accepting myths which are genuinely incompatible with science. I don't think one can sustain that kind of worldview today except by shirking due diligence, which does start to become immoral for me.

First of all, I am not just talking about the miraculous. I am talking about a narrative in which a spiritual witness is grounded. It may contain the miraculous, but it is not only the miraculous. It is a narrative that grounds faith and identity as a Latter-day Saint.

Secondly, I am not concerned here with what you or I can accept in epistemological terms. That is not the question I am interested in in this thread. We show clearly in our posting habits here what we accept and reject. The question in front of me is whether I can grant the goodness and decency of people who privilege a mythological worldview and do their best to harmonize it with a scientific one. Living in a pluralistic society challenges us to respect human beings whose views may clash strongly with our own. I don't think it is too much to ask that we not call the reliance on devotional or mythological history within a faith community "immoral."

[_Kishkumen]

Your entire response focused on historians evaluating history, the nature of religious narrative and "important intellectual work" needed to help the church come into the 21st Century in providing identity, community, and a means of quench a "thirst for divine things."

Yes! Those were my thoughts at the time. I was not claiming to give a comprehensive response.

But since we agree what they did was unethical, cool. I know, that was caveated with it being your position you wouldn't do the same thing but aren't adequately trained in devotional history to make that call in regards to the Church having done it, repeatedly and often. But considering neither is the LDS leadership, I think we have our answer.

I agree that certain people have done unethical things with regard to handling the evidence of the history of Mormonism. I believe the LDS Church should be more open, providing access to more materials for historians to use in their work. I think it is immoral to pressure historians to omit and change history written for academic purposes.

At the same time, I believe that the Church is within its rights to follow its own philosophy and methodology regarding the story of its past. If it chooses to focus almost exclusively on that version within a devotional context, that is fine with me. Members should be educated, in my view, regarding the difference and the reasons for the difference. That the community's discourse about history has not caught up to the challenges of the present is not surprising to me, but I am optimistic that we will continue to see improvements.

Richard Bushman cannily observed that the story of Mormon history told in Sunday School is practically liturgical. Sunday School is not the place for hashing out which version of the First Vision is to be preferred over others in which respects, etc. The establishment of the Joseph Smith History as canonical scripture determined which version would be the foundation of the devotional history of Mormonism as meditated upon and discussed in church meetings.

[_fetchface]

Are you perhaps getting bogged in a merely semantic difference? People can differ on what they count as "the act" and what they count as "the context", without necessarily disagreeing on anything substantial.

If I define "cutting with a knife" as the act then the difference between murder and surgery is context. And if I consistently draw the line between act and context at that low a level then, sure, probably no individual act can ever be inherently moral or immoral.

Okay, even if I define "acts" at a higher level than knife cuts there can still be extenuating circumstances in context. It's still a matter of language to say what part of the total situation is context and what part is "the act". You might say that even the act of murder can be justified if it is the only way to save innocent lives, while I might say that killing an attacker to save innocents is not an act of murder. Debating that is what I would call boring.

If I look at some particular event, and include all of its context when I refer to it as an act, then I think that act can absolutely be immoral. So if Meadowchik is using "act" in a way that includes context like that then I think she can be right, too.

Yes, you seem to understand what I'm saying. The only thing I'd quibble with is that some words like 'murder' contain assumed context (intention to do unnecessary harm) so they aren't words that strictly describe an act, but describe intention as well. Murder is morally wrong but killing might not be at all. So I guess the act of murder can't be moral because the definition of the word is that it is immoral killing.

You're right, debating this doesn't seem particularly interesting either. I just thought it was a very elementary idea and was surprised at the amount of push-back I was getting on it.

The point I was trying to make is that since the LDS leaders are true believers themselves, the context to make their actions moral from their point of view exists in Mormon theology and is actually quite strong if you care to really study their scriptures. Mormon God sets an example of deceptive fact-fudging.

Calling the leaders' actions immoral can be quite satisfying when you are angry, but they are by no means cartoon villains. They are out there doing everything they can to make the eternal universe the best that it can be. They have the best intentions, even though it is all BS. Their actions make perfect sense from their point of view.

Given this, the things that I think are interesting to discuss are 1) can I map out how they went wrong and 2) am I making any of the same mistakes myself?

I strongly suspect that the answer to 2) for a lot of exmormons is 'yes' a lot more than they think.

[_Meadowchik]

I don't think it is too much to ask that we not call the reliance on devotional or mythological history within a faith community "immoral."

It's only too much to ask when it is indeed immoral. No need to frame it as immoral because it relies on faith, only immoral when it is immoral, faith or not. Otherwise one is giving cover to immorality, or protection to harmful behavior.

[_fetchface]

I may call Flat Earthers fools, but I won't call them immoral, unless they know about the Big Blue Marble photo and are deliberately hiding it.

You seem to be saying that it is possible for people to disingenuously form a worldview. I do not think this is possible. A worldview by definition cannot be disingenuous. It is what a person truly and honestly believes. Now, some people can lie about their worldview but that wouldn't be a Flat Earther, that would be a conman posing as a Flat Earther, which is a very different animal.

If a person is a Flat Earther, they genuinely think that there is some explanation for that photo being false. They may not know what it is, but they truly believe that it is false. If that is what they truly think, we cannot expect them to run around sharing the photo with everyone when they are trying to pitch their beliefs. To do so would not be moral from their point of view, it would be sharing disinformation.

[_Meadowchik]

Calling the leaders' actions immoral can be quite satisfying when you are angry, but they are by no means cartoon villains. They are out there doing everything they can to make the eternal universe the best that it can be. They have the best intentions, even though it is all ____. Their actions make perfect sense from their point of view.

Good intentions has no bearing on whether their actions are immoral or not, and by the way, I do not think it's all (expletive), but that ithe church has value and impact, and potential to do much good in the lives of people. My position is consistent not just with the nonbelief of other exmormons, but also with believing Mormons who recognize the behavior and regret the actions of their leaders.

[Guest]

Good intentions has no bearing on whether their actions are immoral or not...

I find statements like this puzzling in the extreme. To say there is a huge disconnect between us is an understatement.

ETA: Perhaps Physics Guy can see why I am getting stuck on basic concepts that are not that interesting to discuss.

[_Kishkumen]

It's only too much to ask when it is indeed immoral. No need to frame it as immoral because it relies on faith, only immoral when it is immoral, faith or not. Otherwise one is giving cover to immorality, or protection to harmful behavior.

That depends very much on the standard one adopts for what is immoral. If you assume that only a naturalistic account of Mormonism written according to academic standards is moral, whereas the internal faith-driven perspective is inherently immoral, then, yes, you will find the Church's activities to be immoral. I would also say that your standard is hopelessly biased to the point of precluding the possibility of any meaningful discussion.

I am not saying what you do think. I am setting up a hypothetical.

[_Meadowchik]

It's only too much to ask when it is indeed immoral. No need to frame it as immoral because it relies on faith, only immoral when it is immoral, faith or not. Otherwise one is giving cover to immorality, or protection to harmful behavior.

That depends very much on the standard one adopts for what is immoral. If you assume that only a naturalistic account of Mormonism written according to academic standards is moral, whereas the internal faith-driven perspective is inherently immoral, then, yes, you will find the Church's activities to be immoral. I would also say that your standard is hopelessly biased to the point of precluding the possibility of any meaningful discussion.

I am not saying what you do think. I am setting up a hypothetical.

Shall we use a less personal example then?

There are parents who have refused emergency life-saving medical treatment to their children because they say it goes against their religious beliefs, whose children have then died as a result of that inaction.

I say that inaction is immoral. Also, as an additional issue, it is criminal.

Do you want to say they have a right to believe what they do and then act on it, therefore by inaction allowing their child to die? Do they have a right to do that? Is it moral if they sincerely believe that a dead child is safer in the arms of Jesus than under the "Satanic" influence of modern medicine?

Should we refrain from calling their inaction immoral, or should we expect them to meet basic standards of decency and "not harming" that our society holds in common, that of caring for and not neglected our children?

My opinion on this is the same as it was as a believing Mormon: their court pleas betrayed their actions as inpure: if they are willing to let their child die in order to live their religious beliefs, then they should also be willing to pay the lesser price and go to jail for their religious beliefs.