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.
And your task, your ONLY task, is to the turn the other cheek. If you don't turn the other cheek, you aren't living your religion.
Try to remember exactly what the gospel is... and isn't.
What I find funny about this thread is that the title implies that morality could be fixed or that there might be an absolute morality. I think that morality in general is always relative, is always affected by cultural and social conditions, and so on.
Benjamin McGuire wrote:What I find funny about this thread is that the title implies that morality could be fixed or that there might be an absolute morality. I think that morality in general is always relative, is always affected by cultural and social conditions, and so on.
That was my point in the earlier thread, which is why I thought it was ironic that the church can be said to be morally relative as well.
Moral relativism is the position that the truth of moral statements depends on the customs and standards of a person or group of persons being judged or doing the judging. Asking people to defer to the moral expertise of others from time to time is not moral relativism. In fact, it is accepted as common sense in just about every moral view one can imagine. Rejecting it seems like juvenile rebellion or delusional confidence in oneself. Possibly both.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Moral relativism is the position that the truth of moral statements depends on the customs and standards of a person or group of persons being judged or doing the judging. Asking people to defer to the moral expertise of others from time to time is not moral relativism. In fact, it is accepted as common sense in just about every moral view one can imagine. Rejecting it seems like juvenile rebellion or delusional confidence in oneself. Possibly both.
Ah, but again we come back to the idea of "moral truth." If moral statements are simply societal customs and standards, in what way can there be any "truth" about them? And if there's no truth, then deferring one's own conscience to someone else uncritically would not seem to me common sense. I have no problem in accepting wise and moral counsel, but that's an entirely different thing than uncritically accepting the instructions of those who are in "leadership" positions. And that's what the prophets from Joseph Smith on seem to be asking of us. I note that you have trouble composing a post that does not include namecalling. What is the purpose of your insults?
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.
Ahhh... so you ARE religious! Blame others for being offended. Take no personal responsibility. You must be a perfect little Mormon. Good job!
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
The Nehor wrote: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.
Would it have been so hard to do better than Church leaders on issues related to African-Americans prior to the "revelation."
I am also wondering how you discern what is "eternal truth," from that which is not?
If you are capable of discerning eternal truth, why do you need Mormon authority figures to tell you what it is?
Why not cast the net a bit wider and look for eternal truths from other sources, including non-Mormon ones?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Moral relativism is the position that the truth of moral statements depends on the customs and standards of a person or group of persons being judged or doing the judging. Asking people to defer to the moral expertise of others from time to time is not moral relativism. In fact, it is accepted as common sense in just about every moral view one can imagine. Rejecting it seems like juvenile rebellion or delusional confidence in oneself. Possibly both.
Ah, but again we come back to the idea of "moral truth." If moral statements are simply societal customs and standards, in what way can there be any "truth" about them? And if there's no truth, then deferring one's own conscience to someone else uncritically would not seem to me common sense. I have no problem in accepting wise and moral counsel, but that's an entirely different thing than uncritically accepting the instructions of those who are in "leadership" positions. And that's what the prophets from Joseph Smith on seem to be asking of us. I note that you have trouble composing a post that does not include namecalling. What is the purpose of your insults?
What bestows on someone "moral expertise?"
What evidence is there that Mormon leaders possess a comparative advantage in moral expertise, other than, that is, their assertions that they possess it?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Benjamin McGuire wrote:What I find funny about this thread is that the title implies that morality could be fixed or that there might be an absolute morality. I think that morality in general is always relative, is always affected by cultural and social conditions, and so on.
That was my point in the earlier thread, which is why I thought it was ironic that the church can be said to be morally relative as well.
I agree that morality is often relative, but I also believe that there are "absolute" moral truths, or perhaps best stated as "first moral principles," that serve as the basis for constructing a moral framework. These, though, are limited, and are discoverable through reason, experience, and, most importatly, empathy.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
The teachings of our Lord and our dear Prophet are certainly not relative! Oh the cunning plan of the Evil One who seeks to destroy all that is good and holy, yea, even the Plan of Salvation laid at the foundation of the world!
As our Prophet has clearly taught us in his seminal work "Standing for Something", right is right and wrong is wrong! Can God's teachings be any more clear than that? His teachings are absolute. His teachings are firm, for He is the Rock of our salvation. Our code of law is an unshaking work hewn from the purest stone and hardened in the firm grasp of a Just God who is the Father and Magistrate of us all!
In the name of Jesus Christ, and by the power of Holy Priesthood of Melchizedek, I rebuke all of those Latter-Day Saints who preach that damnable doctrine of men, the doctrine of moral relativism!
As our late apostle Maxwell taught, "If men are not steering by absolute truth, they will drift in the rolling sea of relativism."
Brother McGuire, the Lord is displeased with these things you hath taught. Remember, Nehor was also a priest in the Lord's kingdom who hearkened unto the whisperings of Satan, teaching that there is no need of repentence. This is where your false teachings are headed my good brother. Be not dismayed nor harden your heart toward me. You may repent of your teachings and come clean before the Lord your God still. The Lord loves you as do I. I would like to extend an invitation to you, please, come to my office and let us sup together over the scriptures and teachings of the Prophets. And together, let us learn about God's absolute and divine standards.