Is Mormonism Morally Relative?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Polygamy Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:04 am

Post by _Polygamy Porter »

Some Schmo wrote:
The Nehor wrote: My reasoning is different though. I'm terrified God will ask me to prove that I can do better. He can be like that sometimes.


Yeah... god can be a real dick sometimes. But you gotta give him credit for being able to turn a buck.
Up in his Heav'n he is a regular on Cops for being a dead beat abusive father.

One of the favorite episodes is when they bust him for drowning his kids in the pool for not keeping their rooms clean.

Or the episode when he goes ape sh!t with the shoe polish... TWICE! Black and Brown.

Or the very first episode where he grounds a full 1/3 of his kids from going to the crusty ball of dirt amusement planet, all because he was never around and one of his oldest boys got them to make bad choices..


Yeah, Elohim is a som'b!tch.
_A Light in the Darkness
_Emeritus
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:12 pm

Post by _A Light in the Darkness »

Suggesting people make a reasonable choice to defer to the moral wisdom of others, be it God or his representatives on Earth, is not moral relativism. If you think it is, I suggest looking up what moral relativism is. Check out an online philosophy encyclopedia.


When it comes to b***s***, big-time, major league b***s***, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. ... Religion easily has the greatest b***s*** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good b***s*** story. Holy S***!


This from the person who asks other people to apologize for offending others.
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Post by _Lucretia MacEvil »

A Light in the Darkness wrote:Suggesting people make a reasonable choice to defer to the moral wisdom of others, be it God or his representatives on Earth, is not moral relativism. If you think it is, I suggest looking up what moral relativism is. Check out an online philosophy encyclopedia.


When it comes to b***s***, big-time, major league b***s***, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. ... Religion easily has the greatest b***s*** story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good b***s*** story. Holy S***!


This from the person who asks other people to apologize for offending others.


Taking offense promotes as much grimness in the world as giving offense.
_A Light in the Darkness
_Emeritus
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 3:12 pm

Post by _A Light in the Darkness »

Taking offense promotes as much grimness in the world as giving offense.


That is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. But it is a wonderful defense of saying whatever horrible thing you want and then blaming your victim for taking offense. If your job is to apologize for any mean-spirited, rude thing you wish to say, congrats on a job well done. Only not really.

Runtu attacked me for suggesting that a person either wasn't honest or competent. He made much of how awful this was to suggest the possiblity someone might not be fully honest. Then, completely oblivious to the hypocrisy, he decries religion as a money-making b***s*** scheme.
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Post by _Lucretia MacEvil »

A Light in the Darkness wrote:
Taking offense promotes as much grimness in the world as giving offense.


That is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. But it is a wonderful defense of saying whatever horrible thing you want and then blaming your victim for taking offense. If your job is to apologize for any mean-spirited, rude thing you wish to say, congrats on a job well done. Only not really.


You're criticizing an idea that you don't understand.

Runtu attacked me for suggesting that a person either wasn't honest or competent. He made much of how awful this was to suggest the possiblity someone might not be fully honest. Then, completely oblivious to the hypocrisy, he decries religion as a money-making b***s*** scheme.


True to form, blow something out of proportion so you have something to condemn. If you want to turn this board into a pity party for yourself, at least bring along a chocolate cake!
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

Some Schmo wrote:
The Nehor wrote: My reasoning is different though. I'm terrified God will ask me to prove that I can do better. He can be like that sometimes.


Yeah... god can be a real dick sometimes. But you gotta give him credit for being able to turn a buck.


I didn't say that. I'm sorry I shared this with people who don't have a sufficiently developed sense of cosmic humor.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

grayskull wrote:Mormons are absolutists when it comes to judging the sins of the rest of the world and relativists while absolving their founders.


When did we judge the world? Everything I've read says that's God's job. I know he resents it when I try to do it.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_ajax18
_Emeritus
Posts: 6914
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:56 am

Post by _ajax18 »

The Nehor wrote:Speaking only for myself as a practicing LDS I go by what the Spirit says. If you're a strong critic you'd say I listen to my invisible friend so not sure if that would appear better or worse to you than following Church Leaders. I've listened to High Councilors talks and blown them off as irrelevant, usually because the person is trying to morph their personal path to salvation into a general rule.

I try to detect spirit of Prophecy when deciding whether to follow commands from leaders. Some of what they say is good advice but not inspired, some is eternal truth, some is neutral, and some I hear alarms going off.

While Elder Oaks may have said it stronger than I would I avoid criticizing Church Leaders. My reasoning is different though. I'm terrified God will ask me to prove that I can do better. He can be like that sometimes.


I think more reasonable LDS would ascribe to the philosophy you just outlined. The problem I have with the whole thing is that it is done very quietly. It seems I've had to dig pretty deep to get other LDS to admit that ultimately we are responsible for discerning right and wrong by the spirit. Usually the reflex answer is, "The prophet will never lead us astray, and basically that right and wrong is determined by who said it and what office they hold rather than what they actually said." To me this is where it first starts to get into an element of brainwashing and control in the LDS faith. As a member, I don't see this attitude as much, but in the mission field it was a very common tactic used by Church leaders.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

ajax18 wrote:
The Nehor wrote:Speaking only for myself as a practicing LDS I go by what the Spirit says. If you're a strong critic you'd say I listen to my invisible friend so not sure if that would appear better or worse to you than following Church Leaders. I've listened to High Councilors talks and blown them off as irrelevant, usually because the person is trying to morph their personal path to salvation into a general rule.

I try to detect spirit of Prophecy when deciding whether to follow commands from leaders. Some of what they say is good advice but not inspired, some is eternal truth, some is neutral, and some I hear alarms going off.

While Elder Oaks may have said it stronger than I would I avoid criticizing Church Leaders. My reasoning is different though. I'm terrified God will ask me to prove that I can do better. He can be like that sometimes.


I think more reasonable LDS would ascribe to the philosophy you just outlined. The problem I have with the whole thing is that it is done very quietly. It seems I've had to dig pretty deep to get other LDS to admit that ultimately we are responsible for discerning right and wrong by the spirit. Usually the reflex answer is, "The prophet will never lead us astray, and basically that right and wrong is determined by who said it and what office they hold rather than what they actually said." To me this is where it first starts to get into an element of brainwashing and control in the LDS faith. As a member, I don't see this attitude as much, but in the mission field it was a very common tactic used by Church leaders.


Most LDS admit the Mission Field is just a different animal.

When in interview with my Mission President a month before I went home I had the following conversation:

MP: So, if you could do it all again and come out on a Mission would you?
Me: (after thinking for a minute) I'm not sure.
MP: Me either, I could do it once in ignorance but going our again knowing what it will be like, don't know if I could do it.

Another thing he continually cautioned us about was not to think that Mission Life was reality, it is an exception, a brief time away from normality.

It could be just where I live but here in Texas we're told regularly and often that it's our job to discern right and wrong. A few months ago we had a Sacrament Meeting devoted to this.

One of my favorite quotes from Brigham Young:

"...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer."

Joseph F. Smith:

"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves."
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

A Light in the Darkness wrote:
Taking offense promotes as much grimness in the world as giving offense.


That is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. But it is a wonderful defense of saying whatever horrible thing you want and then blaming your victim for taking offense. If your job is to apologize for any mean-spirited, rude thing you wish to say, congrats on a job well done. Only not really.

Runtu attacked me for suggesting that a person either wasn't honest or competent. He made much of how awful this was to suggest the possiblity someone might not be fully honest. Then, completely oblivious to the hypocrisy, he decries religion as a money-making b***s*** scheme.


Oh, for pete's sake! Lighten up. If you took that as my "decrying" anything, you need to develop a sense of humor.

On second thought, if I offended you, I do apologize. It wasn't meant to decry your beliefs or offend you. I thought it was funny even when I was a believer. To each his own, I suppose.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
Post Reply