John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_honorentheos]

Remember, the question is not what you and I find immoral, honor, or even what many Americans have long assumed was immoral, but what we can conclude is inherently, universally immoral.

Given universal, objective morality doesn't exist, I hope we had more foresight than to make this our standard. More realistic is the standard that one apply a consistent moral philosophy.

For example -

Some would in fact argue that laws against bigamy are an affront to Western liberal values of our day.

True. Consistent with my position are two items. First, if there is a law against it, the law applies to all regardless of one's views or claim of religious exemption. But second, in a liberal democracy such laws are subject to modification and change with the agents of said change being the people from whom the authority of democractic government is derived. The LDS Church assuming it knows best what is in the interest of the adult membership, thus justifying it's manipulation of facts is anti-Democratic. I think I made that point earlier in this thread. It's a core principle, though. And consistently being applied.

I do not find it to be obviously immoral that a church would not teach the totality of its history in proselyting or devotional services.

Teach in proselyting or devotional services? Don't know. The church is weird in how it overlaps history and religious teachings anyway. Actively manipulating the narrative around the Church's history and hiding it's history even in the context of teaching about it's history in classes and texts about it's history? Hmmm. Yeah. The fact it does so to maintain authoritative control of the membership is immoral.

Moreover, the issue becomes more complicated when comparing the actions of an individual man with those of what is essentially a committee. Dershowitz is defending the misconduct of a single president in a particular system. The idea that an elected official would compromise national security in pursuit of the goal of re-election is, for me, an easy question to decide, as without a certain degree of national security, there is nothing left to protect.

The Dersh is arguing the office of the President, a branch of government embodied by one human being, is above standards of law and order that claim misconduct by the executive branch is not checkable by other branches of government so long as the Executive Branch believes its actions are in the interest of the nation. That's stupid. So is claiming the Church is not subject to questions of moral behavior if they are sincere in the belief their deceiving the membership is in their best, eternal interests. The content of belief is a distraction. The application of ethical principal requires a blindness to such favoritism or partisanship to be rightly called just.

[_Meadowchik]

"There is something fundamentally immoral to presenting a narrative that people build their entire lives upon. They decide what to do with their education, how much money to give, who to marry, when to marry, how many kids to have, what professions to pursue… There’s this massive amount of decisions that you make, you know in a finite life, and to base that life on a narrative, when not only the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, when leaders know the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, and intentionally - for as long as they could - withheld the information that would allow people to make an informed decision about how they spend their finite time and resources –that’s profoundly immoral." John Dehlin.

There's a lot of irony here considering John built Mormon Stories off a false narrative.

Now, it's certainly not the same, as the church is of course asking people to give up their "time, talents, and all that they possess" but you have to admit that John of all people calling foul on the church for hooking people in with a false narrative and then squeezing them for time and cash is pretty rich.

John Dehlin and his Open Stories fiefdom is like the Micro Machines version of the Mormon Church.

There are things Joseph Smith said that I agree with, not because he said it, but because of the ideas standing on their own.

[_Kishkumen]

Given universal, objective morality doesn't exist, I hope we had more foresight than to make this our standard. More realistic is the standard that one apply a consistent moral philosophy.

Whose moral philosophy? Which one is the best? Which one is right?

First, if there is a law against it, the law applies to all regardless of one's views or claim of religious exemption. But second, in a liberal democracy such laws are subject to modification and change with the agents of said change being the people from whom the authority of democractic government is derived. The LDS Church assuming it knows best what is in the interest of the adult membership, thus justifying it's manipulation of facts is anti-Democratic. I think I made that point earlier in this thread. It's a core principle, though. And consistently being applied.

So, if the law is un-Constitutional . . .

Anyhow . . . Why not argue that breaking blue laws was immoral? The speed limit?

I don’t think so.

Yes, I don’t follow you on the notion of the manipulation of the facts. There is a question regarding what different people believe the facts to be. There is enough disagreement that some would say there was no First Vision at all. Good historians mostly accept that it did happen. Is teaching that it happened manipulating the facts? Which version represents the facts?

Teach in proselyting or devotional services? Don't know. The church is weird in how it overlaps history and religious teachings anyway. Actively manipulating the narrative around the Church's history and hiding it's history even in the context of teaching about it's history in classes and texts about it's history? Hmmm. Yeah. The fact it does so to maintain authoritative control of the membership is immoral.

What you call actively manipulating I would sometimes call struggling to come to grips with a changing understanding of history. I do not think that the authoritarian tendencies spring directly from a historical narrative. Nor does authority entirely depend on a particular narrative. Big changes have led to a shift of emphasis in the history.

The end of polygamy posed a huge challenge to the Church. That was a difficult problem to navigate. The narrative had been centered on polygamy, now that it had ended, polygamy could no longer be at the center of the story of faith. I find that a tough one. It is not so easy to condemn the decision to shift the story away from polygamy based on the complicated situation and the stakes.

So is claiming the Church is not subject to questions of moral behavior if they are sincere in the belief their deceiving the membership is in their best, eternal interests. The content of belief is a distraction. The application of ethical principal requires a blindness to such favoritism or partisanship to be rightly called just.

No, stupid is equating the illegal actions of one president with an evolving community’s changing faith narrative.

[_Kishkumen]

What I take exception to is not so much the Church’s reliance on a story of the faith that does not track with academic historical scholarship. No, I am much more troubled by the Church disciplining scholars for telling different versions of the history outside of official Church venues. Punishing member scholars for their scholarship does strike me as authoritarian, oppressive, and immoral.

Sunday School is arguably not a scholarly exercise. Likewise scholarship is not Sunday School.

[Guest]

It is definitely this [FLDS] man's responsibility to engage with the world and do his best to form correct beliefs, but while he does believe the crazy, he's going to exercise whatever power he has in ways that appear very immoral to someone who does not share his beliefs, but they do have a sort of internal consistency within the system that shows them to be minimizing harm when they are actually just causing senseless harm.

Roman Catholic moral theory allows "invincible ignorance" as an excuse. If people not only didn't know better, but could not have known better, then it isn't their fault. Maybe there's a degree of sincere craziness at which that makes sense.

Below that point, though, I think there's a range in which no-one has a right to be that self-confident, especially when others' lives are going to be affected. Everybody who has outgrown puberty should know from experience that they can be wrong, and should therefore be double-checking assumptions that are now going to affect other people.

American criminal law has the concept of "depraved indifference". It allows prosecutors to charge a person with murder even if it is acknowledged that the accused did not intend to kill anyone, because somebody died from the excessive negligence of the accused. Caring too little about consequences for others is considered to be just as bad as deliberate malice. Obviously Mormon leaders aren't depraved murderers but I think something of the principle might apply to them. Just because they weren't trying to hurt anybody doesn't mean they're innocent, if they were excessively negligent in failing to double-check their own assumptions once the stakes were raised to include all those other people besides themselves.

[_honorentheos]

Given universal, objective morality doesn't exist, I hope we had more foresight than to make this our standard. More realistic is the standard that one apply a consistent moral philosophy.

Whose moral philosophy? Which one is the best? Which one is right?

Good questions that deserve deep consideration and informed debate. Informed, considered debate requires information. Thus, why authoritarian institutions control it, chosing instead to infantilize their adult membership. Consider, even if one believed in an objective universal morality it would require the same to ensure one was accessing it rather than falling prey to bias. The threat of confusing justification for moral reason exists regardless. One just demands we recognize there is no special pleading available to make our argument for us.

First, if there is a law against it, the law applies to all regardless of one's views or claim of religious exemption. But second, in a liberal democracy such laws are subject to modification and change with the agents of said change being the people from whom the authority of democractic government is derived. The LDS Church assuming it knows best what is in the interest of the adult membership, thus justifying it's manipulation of facts is anti-Democratic. I think I made that point earlier in this thread. It's a core principle, though. And consistently being applied.

So, if the law is un-Constitutional . . .

...then Supreme Court review.

Yes, I don’t follow you on the notion of the manipulation of the facts. There is a question regarding what different people believe the facts to be. There is enough disagreement that some would say there was no First Vision at all. Good historians mostly accept that it did happen. Is teaching that it happened manipulating the facts? Which version represents the facts?

Another good question demonstrating why access to the facts matter.

My observation is your moral reasoning here is based on a subjective granting of ranked privilege for various groups. Religion gets to Trump the average LDS member so the cultural myth of a religion is determined to be of higher worth and value in your estimate than individual choice and liberty. Conversely, religious cultural myth is subordinate to scholarship. When the actions of an institution punish a scholar for contradicting or suggesting an alternative interpretation from that of the orthodox religious narrative, you side with th scholar. Given how the mind works, that seems to be giving all moral reasoning over to justifying ones biases and emotional preferences for particular groups.

The Church making the decision regarding which historical facts are suitable for their membership to know is questionable moral judgement. Combined with the control over people's decision making the Church exerts, it's immoral that it infantilizes the membership to protect it's own claims of authority over them.

[_kairos]

Whose moral philosophy? Which one is the best? Which one is right?[/quote]
Good questions that deserve deep consideration and informed debate. Informed, considered debate requires information. Thus, why authoritarian institutions control it, chosing instead to infantilize their adult membership. Consider, even if one believed in an objective universal morality it would require the same to ensure one was accessing it rather than falling prey to bias. The threat of confusing justification for moral reason exists regardless. One just demands we recognize there is no special pleading available to make our argument for us.

First, if there is a law against it, the law applies to all regardless of one's views or claim of religious exemption. But second, in a liberal democracy such laws are subject to modification and change with the agents of said change being the people from whom the authority of democractic government is derived. The LDS Church assuming it knows best what is in the interest of the adult membership, thus justifying it's manipulation of facts is anti-Democratic. I think I made that point earlier in this thread. It's a core principle, though. And consistently being applied.

So, if the law is un-Constitutional . . .

...then Supreme Court review.

Yes, I don’t follow you on the notion of the manipulation of the facts. There is a question regarding what different people believe the facts to be. There is enough disagreement that some would say there was no First Vision at all. Good historians mostly accept that it did happen. Is teaching that it happened manipulating the facts? Which version represents the facts?

Another good question demonstrating why access to the facts matter.

My observation is your moral reasoning here is based on a subjective granting of ranked privilege for various groups. Religion gets to Trump the average LDS member so the cultural myth of a religion is determined to be of higher worth and value in your estimate than individual choice and liberty. Conversely, religious cultural myth is subordinate to scholarship. When the actions of an institution punish a scholar for contradicting or suggesting an alternative interpretation from that of the orthodox religious narrative, you side with th scholar. Given how the mind works, that seems to be giving all moral reasoning over to justifying ones biases and emotional preferences for particular groups.

The Church making the decision regarding which historical facts are suitable for their membership to know is questionable moral judgement. Combined with the control over people's decision making the Church exerts, it's immoral that it infantilizes the membership to protect it's own claims of authority over them.[/quote]


Very nicely laid out!!
k

[_fetchface]

Below that point, though, I think there's a range in which no-one has a right to be that self-confident, especially when others' lives are going to be affected. Everybody who has outgrown puberty should know from experience that they can be wrong, and should therefore be double-checking assumptions that are now going to affect other people.

I agree with everything you said. I know you were never Mormon, so I struggle to find words to describe just how saturated Mormonism is with unjustified self-confidence at every level. Mormonism is, more than anything else, unjustified self-confidence. It's not a surprise that the GAs are this way.

I try to understand everyone from their own point of view. This has led me to interesting thoughts like, if a sociopath is incapable of feeling empathy for others, is he morally responsible for the harm he causes? Additionally, if a Mormon leader actually believes his theology, is he morally bad for trying to maximize happiness under it? I can see some very utilitarian trades taking place in his head. I think they know that some of the things they are doing cause some harm, they just think they are minimizing harm overall somehow.

But don't get me wrong. I want noting to do with sociopaths or with Mormon GAs in my life. The world would be a far better place if nobody were either of those things. I just don't think it is particularly useful or interesting to slap the simple label of 'immoral' on them. A deeper understanding helps us act more intelligently to protect ourselves and those who may be under their spell.

[_honorentheos]

Suppose free will is an illusion. Avoiding the lifting of making that case but just putting it out there, the role agency plays in making moral judgement collapses for everyone. Whether or not a person can be held accountable for actions they had some inherent detachment from forming a fully realized empathic understanding of the consequences to others fails to be a standard one could justly apply to anyone.

Given there is pretty good evidence the case for libertarian free will is weak if not outright contradicted by neuroscience we are all on the same playing field as the sociopath or LDS church leaders in the examples above.

[_Physics Guy]

I just don't think it is particularly useful or interesting to slap the simple label of 'immoral' on them. A deeper understanding helps us act more intelligently to protect ourselves and those who may be under their spell.

I think a careful reading of the Dehlin quote in the OP shows that he was talking about immoral actions, not immoral people. I may be the one to blame for shifting the discussion from acts to people.

If I say "so-and-so is immoral", I don't anything more than, "so-and-so does immoral things". I think it's a concise way of saying that so-and-so didn't just screw up one occasion long ago, but is still making a regular practice of doing bad things. It's a somewhat inflammatory way to say that, I admit, but I think that sometimes it's appropriate to be a bit inflammatory. Downtrodden people may deserve gentle handling but powerful people get coddled enough, in my view.

I don't want "so-and-so is immoral" to mean, though, that immorality is a separate internal quality of so-and-so which causes so-and-so's acts, as if immorality were something like, say, syphilis. I'm also not keen on using labels as if they were causes. If my wording comes across that way then I should probably re-think my terminology. I'm open to suggestions.