Is Mormonism Morally Relative?

[_Mister Scratch]

Let's boil all this down to something useful:

Moral Relativism = Presentism.

[_Some Schmo]

Greetings Brethren!

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!

Clear? Really? So is it "eye for an eye" or is it "turn the other cheek?" Is it "don't spill your seed" or "hold to the rod?"

Doesn't seem very clear to me.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

To Tommy: ROFL - I will get back to you in just a minute.

First, I agree with Guy that the notion of moral expertise seems rediculous. I disagree with him in that absolute moral truths are discoverable. I think that we can talk about absolute morality or absolute truth - but neither is discoverable. I wouls suggest that we can approach them - but knowing how close we are is something else entirely.

To Tommy - there is certainly something fundamentalist and wrong about your comments. What the prophets teach us is that we need to learn for ourselves how to judge between good and evil. But this does not make every action for every person identical with respect to what is good or what is evil. The way things are, there is always a great deal of ambiguity in our lives.

Further, the prophets themselves are not the best equipped to tell us what to do. And in fact, most of them tell us this. They do not want to be the ones directing us in all our actions - or being used as justification for our actions. We are just as capable of doing good by claiming to follow the prophets as we are capable of doing evil. I am not interested in morality based on the interpretations of other peoples claims to revelation - when the source of revelation for me on personal level is right there, and accessible. And of course your own arrogance and presumption in thinking you can guess where my own beliefs must lead ... I really don't think so. Let me invite you to not worry so much about the scriptures and about the prophets and spend a bit more time talking to God yourself. It really is an enlightening experience.

The problem that you have here isn't that I am teaching moral relativism. I am simply recognizing that it exists. I don't think that you can make any special claim to absolute truth. Any truth which you can present here must first be filitered by your language, your culture, you society, your economic and political stauts, but your knowledge and experience. You simply cannot get to some kind of moral absolutes as understood by God. And this is probably a very good thing, seeing as that we aren't expected to be perfect. Mind you, I think that Scratch's opinion is out of place as well. Morality seems to go (at least in practice for an awful lot of people) far beyond presentism.

By the way, I am pretty certain that you are taking Elder Maxwell's comments out of context - having just finished reading the speech again. The problem isn't in recognizing moral relativism, its in getting people to stop privledging one morality over another, and instead continue to approach God to gain a better understanding of what God wants for us to do. And of course this is what God wants.

[_Mister Scratch]

Mind you, I think that Scratch's opinion is out of place as well. Morality seems to go (at least in practice for an awful lot of people) far beyond presentism.

How do you figure? The presentism applied by Mopologists such as Nighthawke and Pahoran is absolutely a form of moral relativism. (E.g., "Joseph Smith's polyandry was okay, because morals were different back then.")

[_Benjamin McGuire]

By the way - a good example of moral relativism as taught as theology by the LDS church is the notion that people are judged according to the light and knowledge which they have received. What might be sin for one isn't necessarily sin for someone else. ... just something to ponder.

[_Mister Scratch]

By the way - a good example of moral relativism as taught as theology by the LDS church is the notion that people are judged according to the light and knowledge which they have received. What might be sin for one isn't necessarily sin for someone else. ... just something to ponder.

I agree with you, Ben. It's sort of like the BKP quote I have in my sig line: the "usefulness" of truth is all relative.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Scratch -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism ... l_analysis)

I quote:

"Presentism is also related to the problematic question of history and moral judgments. Among historians, the orthodox view may be that reading modern notions of morality into the past is to commit the error of presentism. To avoid this, some historians restrict themselves to describing what happened, and attempt to refrain from using language that passes judgment. For example, when writing history about slavery in an era when the practice was widely accepted, some believe that using language that condemns slavery as "wrong" or "evil" would be presentist, and should be avoided.

There are many critics of this application of presentism. Some argue that to avoid moral judgments is to practice moral relativism, a controversial idea. Some religious historians argue that morality is timeless, having been established by God, and therefore it is not anachronistic to apply timeless standards to the past. (In this view, while mores may change, morality does not.) Others argue that historians, like all humans, cannot truly be objective, and so moral judgments will always be a part of their work. David Hackett Fischer, for his part, writes that historians cannot avoid making moral judgments, and indeed they ought to make them, but that they should be aware of their biases, and write history in such a way that their biases do not create a distorted depiction of the past."

I am curious then as to what exactly you meant when you claimed that moral relativism is the same as presentism. If we suggest that in embracing the idea of moral relativism we are trying to avoid being critical of other groups, of other societies, of other times based on our own moral beliefs, then how can this be presentism? I think you may be confused about what you are trying to say here. It seems quite inappropriate to me to judge other societies by our own values. To use the notion which you raise of polyandry, just because our society views polyandry as immoral, doesn't mean that it is immoral for it to be practiced elsewhere in other societies, does it?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

To continue - it may be quite appropriate to say that Joseph's polyandry wasn't morally inappropriate based on conditions then - but, as with any other argument involving burdonsome issues of morality, there ought to be a fairly conclusive presentation of evidence to show this was the case.

[_Dr. Shades]

It seems quite inappropriate to me to judge other societies by our own values. To use the notion which you raise of polyandry, just because our society views polyandry as immoral, doesn't mean that it is immoral for it to be practiced elsewhere in other societies, does it?

Ben, in your opinion, was polyandry immoral in Joseph Smith's society?

[_Mister Scratch]

Scratch -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism ... l_analysis)

I quote:

"Presentism is also related to the problematic question of history and moral judgments. Among historians, the orthodox view may be that reading modern notions of morality into the past is to commit the error of presentism. To avoid this, some historians restrict themselves to describing what happened, and attempt to refrain from using language that passes judgment. For example, when writing history about slavery in an era when the practice was widely accepted, some believe that using language that condemns slavery as "wrong" or "evil" would be presentist, and should be avoided.

There are many critics of this application of presentism. Some argue that to avoid moral judgments is to practice moral relativism, a controversial idea. Some religious historians argue that morality is timeless, having been established by God, and therefore it is not anachronistic to apply timeless standards to the past. (In this view, while mores may change, morality does not.) Others argue that historians, like all humans, cannot truly be objective, and so moral judgments will always be a part of their work. David Hackett Fischer, for his part, writes that historians cannot avoid making moral judgments, and indeed they ought to make them, but that they should be aware of their biases, and write history in such a way that their biases do not create a distorted depiction of the past."

Ben, I am well aware of the definition of presentism, and understand quite well---as many Mopologists apparently do not---why the theory/methodology was developed in the first place.

I am curious then as to what exactly you meant when you claimed that moral relativism is the same as presentism. If we suggest that in embracing the idea of moral relativism we are trying to avoid being critical of other groups, of other societies, of other times based on our own moral beliefs, then how can this be presentism?

My apologies---it seems that my initial post was confusing. What is mean is, Mopologetic application of presentism = Moral Relativism.

I think you may be confused about what you are trying to say here. It seems quite inappropriate to me to judge other societies by our own values.

Hence why it is a controversial idea. Apparently, you find it "inapproriate" to condemn the man-boy love practiced in ancient Greece.

To use the notion which you raise of polyandry, just because our society views polyandry as immoral, doesn't mean that it is immoral for it to be practiced elsewhere in other societies, does it?

You are using the term "other societies" in a vacuous, overly ambiguous and abstract way. We know enough about the society of Joseph Smith's day to make a legit judgment.