John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_Meadowchik]

Good intentions has no bearing on whether their actions are immoral or not...

I find statements like this puzzling in the extreme. To say there is a huge disconnect between us is an understatement.

ETA: Perhaps Physics Guy can see why I am getting stuck on basic concepts that are not that interesting to discuss.

What is puzzling about it? Have you ever had a moment in your life when you are just going along doing a thing, and someone alerts you to danger and gosh darnit you realize you're in the process of doing something dangerous and harmful?

Your puzzlement puzzles me ;)

[_fetchface]

What is puzzling about it? Have you ever had a moment in your life when you are just going along doing a thing, and someone alerts you to danger and gosh darnit you realize you're in the process of doing something dangerous and harmful?

Your puzzlement puzzles me ;)

So....being mistaken is immoral? I don't agree with that either.

[_Stem]

At least in my understanding, Dehlin's complaint about the official Mormon story was not that it had supernatural elements, but that it was contradicted by available historical evidence, which Mormon leaders have sometimes concealed or distorted.

Butting back in and following along, I have to wonder still how this kind of generalization doesn't implicate all of humanity for being immoral?

Again this diverges for me from the theme of this thread. I don't mean to call the Mormon Brethren immoral just for teaching supernatural beliefs per se. The concern is that they failed to publicize evidence that they themselves either knew or should have known.

And if in their mind the evidence isn't evidence at all? That the evidence for any given bit of history is really found elsewhere? Again with the first vision. If they see the official version as the best rendition of history, then what's the point of the other stories other than they are incomplete or a little confused? Every parent fails this test, every professional...I mean everyone, on Dehlin's standard. It renders the whole concept of calling people immoral moot.

The problem is also, millions of people attest the paying of money and giving of time to the Church is best. If Dehlin thinks they are immoral on the basis that they are lying to convince people to give them money, then it'd make sense. But that is not what is happening. They aren't lying by favoring the official version of the first vision, or for thinking Joseph really was inspired by God to come up with the Book of Mormon. They think it's all true, and they think some people if not all people are benefitted best by the truths that they hold.

It doesn't seem like this discussion has gone anywhere, really. It's just people disagreeing about their disagreement.

[_Meadowchik]

What is puzzling about it? Have you ever had a moment in your life when you are just going along doing a thing, and someone alerts you to danger and gosh darnit you realize you're in the process of doing something dangerous and harmful?

Your puzzlement puzzles me ;)

So....being mistaken is immoral? I don't agree with that either.

I wasn't done, just setting up a hypothetical. It wasn't a trick question and I'm interested in your answer to both questions.

[_Meadowchik]

Every parent fails this test, every professional...I mean everyone, on Dehlin's standard. It renders the whole concept of calling people immoral moot.

How does every parent and professional fail this test? I think I asked you pages ago for a specific example, did you answer?

[_honorentheos]

They aren't lying by favoring the official version of the first vision, or for thinking Joseph really was inspired by God to come up with the Book of Mormon. They think it's all true, and they think some people if not all people are benefitted best by the truths that they hold.

The leadership cut pages out of Joseph Smith's letter book containing the 1832 account of the first vision and hid them in a safe, pretending they didn't exist. When the rumors about their existence came out and the Decker's presented what they had come to learn about it, they hid and denied it until they couldn't any long when pressure mounted to provide the original source for scrutiny, then returned them back into the journal and allowed a BYU graduate to review and write on the content of the letter. They then continued to portray the official version from the Wentworth letter and Joseph Smith's History as the only text in both faithful as well as supposed "textbooks" used for institute and seminary students.

That's not intentional deceit?

[Guest]

What is puzzling about it? Have you ever had a moment in your life when you are just going along doing a thing, and someone alerts you to danger and gosh darnit you realize you're in the process of doing something dangerous and harmful?

Your puzzlement puzzles me ;)

So....being mistaken is immoral? I don't agree with that either.

I like Jonathan Haidt. There are a number of threads on this board down in the Spirit Paradise forum on the book, The Righteous Mind, going back to 2013 I believe. I read his book The Happiness Hypothesis when transitioning out of Mormonism back in the mid-2000's and have a fair amount of respect for his popular writing and public presentations. They provide important perspective on breaking down the barriers and biases we apply to our own thinking and force us to question why we assume we are right and others are obviously wrong.

What Haidt doesn't do is provide an introduction into how to go about reasoning morally once one understands this. That requires going beyond Haidt and diving into ethics.

A person can act in good faith and be mistaken and do harm to others. How unethical a morally reasoning person might view their behavior would largely depend on what approach to ethics one favors. The need here being to form a consistent ethical view from which to reason morally.

[_Stem]

How does every parent and professional fail this test? I think I asked you pages ago for a specific example, did you answer?

Well I apologize. I've been in and out. I likely missed some.

no one's comprehensive enough in our daily lives to tell the whole story, to provide evidence for every possible counter argument. We just don't do that. If someone makes a decision based on a failure to give it all, and the results of that decision turns out bad for that decider, is it really the information provider's fault?

That's often the role of professionals in the world--decide what is the best way forward. If that decision is made and it turns out bad is the professional immoral for their bad predictions? I mean he/she might be bad and the job, but I don't know that it means they are immoral. The problem here is, of course, millions of people see the benefit of the Mormon leader's perspective. While it turns out bad for millions, there are tons of possible factors that may have little to do with whether the first vision is best represented by the official version or not.

If I teach my child a lesson based on my history and there are other pieces of evidence that might bring into question my own memory on that history I tell, is it immoral for me to use it without alerting my children of the other evidence (like my sister disagrees with a piece or two of the story I tell) if one of my children benefits and the other suffers as they base their life, at least in part, on the lesson?

[_Stem]

The leadership cut pages out of Joseph Smith's letter book containing the 1832 account of the first vision and hid them in a safe, pretending they didn't exist. When the rumors about their existence came out and the Decker's presented what they had come to learn about it, they hid and denied it until they couldn't any long when pressure mounted to provide the original source for scrutiny, then returned them back into the journal and allowed a BYU graduate to review and write on the content of the letter. They then continued to portray the official version from the Wentworth letter and Joseph Smith's History as the only text in both faithful as well as supposed "textbooks" used for institute and seminary students.

That's not intentional deceit?

Ok. 10 pages or so ago, I referenced this same story (like I how you mixed up Ed Decker with the Tanners) and said, yes, this to me is evidence of at least one person being culpable and showing at least one instance of immorality.

[_Physics Guy]

If a person is a Flat Earther, they genuinely think that there is some explanation for [the photo of Earth from space] being false. They may not know what it is, but they truly believe that it is false. If that is what they truly think, we cannot expect them to run around sharing the photo with everyone when they are trying to pitch their beliefs. To do so would not be moral from their point of view, it would be sharing disinformation.

Maybe we should not expect the rank and file Flat Earthers to be pulling out the Earth photo at the start of every conversation. But what if Flat Earthers look for guidance to the leaders of the Flat Earth Society, and these leaders have known about the space photos for years? What if they know the photos aren't simply fakes? What if the best they can say is that in their hearts they are somehow sure that what the pictures seem to show isn't real?

In that case I think they owe it to their followers to let them know that there is this seemingly impressive bit of counter-evidence and that all the leaders have against it is a feeling. The leaders can perfectly well then go on to testify as passionately as they want about how their feelings are right. The followers now have all the information the leaders have, and can make up their own minds. At least some of the followers may well choose to trust their leaders' feelings and join them in hoping that the photos will someday be explained.