John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Lemmie]

PG:

It’s not about whether people are happy or not. It’s about whether they are being denied the chance to make their own choices based on honest information.

Excellent point.

PG:

So I have no idea how many Mormon women are happy. My worry is that fewer of them would be happy with the lives they have, if they knew what the leaders didn’t let them know. That situation is the immorality to which I think Dehlin was pointing.

Agreed. A much better way to consider the issue.

[_Kishkumen]

So the only people qualified to weigh in on if the Church manipulating their history is immoral are historians? The average member or former member is woefully unqualified and should instead take direction from an authority on the subject of history regarding ethics?

Huh.

Nope. I did not say that.

[_fetchface]

It's easy to say that withholding information and that denying the right of informed consent is morally wrong. Who wouldn't agree with that? That's a boring discussion to have. YAWN.

What is more interesting to me is to try to understand how it is that people who are brought up from childhood to highly value "agency" are so quick to strip it away in certain circumstances.

The answer isn't something simple like they are cartoon villains who want to maximize the evil that they can inflict. The answer is much more complex and if I try to understand it honestly I will see that there are lessons about human nature there that will help me be more effective at persuading Mormons to behave better and to recognize when I am falling into the same traps that they are. That last one is my chief interest in this exercise.

I miss out on all of that if I get stuck debating the inherent morality of a particular act, especially when practically any act can be made moral or immoral depending on context, which is even further complicated when you have a supernatural belief system with tons of fake crap as that context. It is a boring conversation with no clear resolution or point.

[_Kishkumen]

No I don’t. I would, however, like you to stop telling me what I am saying.

I think it is entirely fair to draw inferences based on what I am reading. Anyone is free to correct anyone else's reading of their posts.

and protest that I would dare say that it works for some,

Except you didn’t say that. You said

Some seem to be reasonably happy.

You are splitting hairs. "Works for some," "seem to be happy"--I intend to refer to the same thing. "Seem" is, contrary to your reading of it, my expression of epistemic humility. Instead of asserting that I know, I say, "it seems (from my point of view) to be the case that, etc."

Because you can tell by looking at an LDS women that the LDS church works for her. We are speaking of a church where women are raised to always cater to men because they hold the priesthood, to never disagree with men because they are called of God, and to always look happy and not talk too much, because men are in charge. The fact you take a superficial look at a woman and conclude the church works for her speaks exactly to that training. You are just on the other side of it. It’s a sexist and hurtful way to think of a group of people.

I distinguish between how I choose to live my life and how others choose to live theirs. Just because I do not insist that others who choose differently are unhappy does not mean that I or my friends would choose what they have chosen. The question, in my mind, is whether one is allowed to make a different choice, to see the world in a different way, and to lead a different sort of life.

I think that those who are happy to go with the LDS Church's program should be free to stick with it. Those who do not like it might come up with their own options. There has to be a better way than forcing our wills on each other. But that is what we see, people fighting to dictate how others should lead their lives. With the freedom and knowledge we have at our fingertips, saying this is the only way is an insult to us all.

Because some women seem happy is grossly insufficient in determining the moral implications of policy.

You are trying to draw me into a conversation that I was not engaging in. I will not cooperate with your attempt to equate the question of history and morality as defined in this thread with whatever other issue you are itching to talk about. The topic of the morality of church policy regarding women would be a great topic for another thread.

[_Kishkumen]

It's easy to say that withholding information and that denying the right of informed consent is morally wrong. Who wouldn't agree with that? That's a boring discussion to have. YAWN.

What is more interesting to me is to try to understand how it is that people who are brought up from childhood to highly value "agency" are so quick to strip it away in certain circumstances.

The answer isn't something simple like they are cartoon villains who want to maximize the evil that they can inflict. The answer is much more complex and if I try to understand it honestly I will see that there are lessons about human nature there that will help me be more effective at persuading Mormons to behave better and to recognize when I am falling into the same traps that they are. That last one is my chief interest in this exercise.

I miss out on all of that if I get stuck debating the inherent morality of a particular act, especially when practically any act can be made moral or immoral depending on context, which is even further complicated when you have a supernatural belief system with tons of fake crap as that context. It is a boring conversation with no clear resolution or point.

Yes, that is a more interesting way to think about the problem.

[Guest]

It's easy to say that withholding information and that denying the right of informed consent is morally wrong. Who wouldn't agree with that? That's a boring discussion to have. YAWN.

What is more interesting to me is to try to understand how it is that people who are brought up from childhood to highly value "agency" are so quick to strip it away in certain circumstances.

The answer isn't something simple like they are cartoon villains who want to maximize the evil that they can inflict. The answer is much more complex and if I try to understand it honestly I will see that there are lessons about human nature there that will help me be more effective at persuading Mormons to behave better and to recognize when I am falling into the same traps that they are. That last one is my chief interest in this exercise.

I miss out on all of that if I get stuck debating the inherent morality of a particular act, especially when practically any act can be made moral or immoral depending on context, which is even further complicated when you have a supernatural belief system with tons of fake ____ as that context. It is a boring conversation with no clear resolution or point.

Both are interesting and important. Though perhaps difficult to identify and pin down sometimes, there are definitely acts which are immoral. Understanding how context changes the level of morality or immorality can be instructive. Why people do things is also very instructive, and I find it is sensible to let go of binary viewpoints about a person's character. In fact, it is vital for health and safety to be aware that a person who appears kind can still be cruel, a person who has very intelligent thoughts can still do very stupid things.

[_Kishkumen]

It’s not about whether people are happy or not. It’s about whether they are being denied the chance to make their own choices based on honest information. If a child in a rich family sees something on TV about starving children, the parents could make the child happier by saying that it was only pretend and that really every kid in the world has a comfortable home and a full plate just like theirs. In most cases, though, that’s not the right thing to tell the child. In no case, it seems to me, is it right to deceive responsible adults just to make them happy.

I see your point, but the problem you are describing could equally apply to any "Religion of the Book." Look at the foundations of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the related sub-sects. Any one of them could be called out for being based on history that could be called bawdlerized or outright bogus. If the choice is "live a fantasy religious life or a life of real facts," which is essentially how Dehlin is framing things (albeit in a much gentler way because he does recognize that some will find a religious life healthy and worthwhile), then, sure, Mormonism more or less has the same problems and can be criticized in the same way.

But it all depends on one's starting assumptions. If one accepts a Biblical or Q'uranic foundation to one's faith, then that is freighted with all of the historical problems that are present in Mormonism, if not necessarily to the same degree. More people were once happy enough with that foundation and it was assumed to be solid. In the age of New Atheism, this has definitely changed. But I don't think it is fair for the people who adopt New Atheist-style assumptions to point fingers at the religionists as "People of the Lie" when what we are looking at is in no small part an incompatibility of worldviews.

Why would we not look more closely at accounts of Jesus being the bastard son of the Roman soldier Panthera? After all, we know that the virgin birth simply cannot be a thing. What do we do with the possibility that Mohammed married a nine-year-old child? I know how ex-Mormon critics would characterize this if Joseph Smith had done such a thing. What do we say to all of those Jews who insist that Abraham and Moses were real people? Look at the mythological elements of their lives! There is no way these can be real people.

We are happy to draw attention to these problems, but then we tend only to consider the morality of Mormon religious authority being based on its problematic narratives.

Perhaps the disconnect is between the authority of facts as understood in a naturalist worldview versus the authority of spirit/divine power as understood in a mythological worldview. Ex-Mormons redefine the spirit in order to rob it of authority. It is nothing but chemicals, neurons, and bodily reactions producing emotions. If one truly believes in the reality of divine power or the Spirit, then that is the authority from which faith and obedience flow. One follows Christ out of a conviction that He is the Son of God, not because of the existence of a historical figure who was punished by Pontius Pilate. That conviction does not follow on the facts; it follows on the spiritual impact of the myth of the Christ.

The same goes for Joseph Smith. The historical details are, from a believer's perspective, much less than the spiritual power of the narratives as they were canonized by the community of the faithful under the authority of his successors.

[_honorentheos]

So the only people qualified to weigh in on if the Church manipulating their history is immoral are historians? The average member or former member is woefully unqualified and should instead take direction from an authority on the subject of history regarding ethics?

Huh.

Nope. I did not say that.

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."

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.

[_honorentheos]

Who wouldn't agree with that? That's a boring discussion to have.

Essentially what I thought when I read the OP. Turns out, it wasn't so straight forward and boring for some people.

What is more interesting to me is to try to understand how it is that people who are brought up from childhood to highly value "agency" are so quick to strip it away in certain circumstances.

Mormons use the word, "agency" to mean something different from it's philosophical meaning. As described in the second article of faith, in the Mormon worldview people make their own choices and therefore are justly subject to the consequences of those choices. Agency isn't a philosophical concept describing a right inherent to human beings that a just society commits to and seeks to preserve. Obedience is essential, and far more critical in Mormonism than a commitment to any idea like agency as more widely understood. Obedience is what matters in that sense, and as such places a conflict between Mormon societal views and those of a traditional liberal democracy. Keep in mind to the Mormon, theocracy under a prophet is the ideal form of government. I don't think how Mormons misuse the term and constrain agency is that mysterious given they aren't actually taught to value it. It's quite the opposite. They just use the term in an Orwellien manner that is opposite it's usual meaning. In short, agency in Mormonism means you knew the rules, so take the punishment.

I miss out on all of that if I get stuck debating the inherent morality of a particular act, especially when practically any act can be made moral or immoral depending on context, which is even further complicated when you have a supernatural belief system with tons of fake crap as that context. It is a boring conversation with no clear resolution or point.

Boring? Perhaps. Should it be necessary? I didn't think so but apparently these are the times in which we live. The facts are, we know the context is one of authority manipulating information to control the membership. It's not like we are posing questions about lying to Nazis or telling someone things are good when we going through a tough patch but putting it on that person wouldn't be helpful. We can define the context. We can evaluate the ethics involved. That's how it works. The BS comes in trying to muddy the context to make a case that has strayed from the subject presented in the OP.

[_fetchface]

Though perhaps difficult to identify and pin down sometimes, there are definitely acts which are immoral.

I don't know. The more I think about it, the more I think that pretty much any act could be morally justified if the context were extreme enough.

I think this is the major flaw with having faith, or in other words believing in a complicated supernatural system on little to no evidence. It opens you to believing in extreme moral contexts that can steer your moral compass far astray.