It is currently Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:22 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 304 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:20 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20892
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Meadowchik wrote:
If it was just a simple history textbook, the editor might be easily forgiven for only selecting one version for its students. But this is not that. The gravity of standing as God's authority on earth should magnify the necessity for epistemological humility. Their process, then, deserves hyperactive scrutiny, especially their own. Anything, then, that is knowingly misleading about the basic facts of that process is highly problematic and at some point would be immoral.


Faith and epistemological humility is an interesting combination. For instance, how many people rise from the dead and are taken up to heaven before the eyes of witnesses? Perhaps we should discuss the statistical likelihood of that occurring every time communion is administered in Christian churches. Perhaps Christians should sing a hymn about how that never happens, one should honestly admit it, and then pick apart Gospel accounts as late, inaccurate accounts of Jesus’ life composed to make it look like Jesus was fulfilling misinterpretations of ancient Hebrew prophecies.

Jesus might have existed
But we don’t really know
We just love the symbolism
While we suffer here below
Suffer here below

People do not come to life
After they’ve been dead
But we still love the tale of Jesus
Soothing to the heart not head
Not, indeed, the head

They say there is no heaven
And they’re likely right
But we need this mythic crutch
To make us feel all right
To get us through the night

Let us drink the wine
Let us eat the bread
We do not know that Jesus did
Or exactly what he said
If anything he said

Anything lacking this acknowledgment of historical probabilities in Christian worship is arguably immoral by Dehlin’s standard.

_________________
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:39 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 1822
Can one make the case that the Mormon church came to a "crunch "point" when the question of whether the church narrative of foundational claims would be a faith promoting narrative or "let's tell the truth warts and all " narrative? And the decision (who made that decision by the way?) was to embark on a faith promoting highly correlated narrative of church history, theology,doctrine, the character of Joseph Smith etc. The highly correlated narrative still exists today, not withstanding some efforts by Jensen and Snow and others to have the church be "more transparent" , eg rock in the hat translation process.

Embarking on the faith promoting narrative led to a ton of work to keep the lid on issues popping up on the internet and just might be the point the church sold itself out to the adversary who was probably the leaders themselves!!

k


Last edited by kairos on Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:09 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 1113
Kishkumen wrote:
And here is how I see your meth doctor analogy falling apart. Most people openly agree that illicitly dealing highly addictive substances under the table is immoral. Most. And the doctor doing this is clearly violating the law. Many of the issues that we are taking the Church to task for are not clear cases on which there is near universal consensus.

I agree that this is an issue but I wouldn't say it makes the analogy fall apart. The analogy's point isn't that we have to lock up the Brethren. It's that doing some good in the world doesn't excuse one for also doing evil, if the evil could be removed without losing the good. Saving a life doesn't entitle the life-saver to a free murder.

Just how bad it is, what the Mormon leaders are doing, is certainly more debatable than murder or meth-dealing. And it may be that some of the harm they do is inextricably bound up with some of the good they do. If they could do less harm while still doing the good they are doing, however, and they simply choose not to stop doing that harm, then to me that's immoral.

The issue of innocent intent is not so straightforward to me for leaders, either. I'm sure there are Boeing executives who can honestly say they didn't know there was anything wrong with their 737 program. As executives, though, they should have made it their business to know that there was something wrong.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:06 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20892
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Physics Guy wrote:
I agree that this is an issue but I wouldn't say it makes the analogy fall apart. The analogy's point isn't that we have to lock up the Brethren. It's that doing some good in the world doesn't excuse one for also doing evil, if the evil could be removed without losing the good. Saving a life doesn't entitle the life-saver to a free murder.

Just how bad it is, what the Mormon leaders are doing, is certainly more debatable than murder or meth-dealing. And it may be that some of the harm they do is inextricably bound up with some of the good they do. If they could do less harm while still doing the good they are doing, however, and they simply choose not to stop doing that harm, then to me that's immoral.


Yeah, I get the point of your analogy in terms of its logic and how you intended it to be used. Rhetorically, however, the appropriateness of the parallel does impact its persuasiveness. A better parallel might be a doctor who prescribes outdated treatments despite being trained in more up-to-date methods. That also addresses the problem of how the harm and the good they do is inextricably bound up. People arguably find meaning, strength, and solace in faith, but what happens when the story of the faith consists of problematic history?

What the analogy leaves out is the fact that the leaders of the LDS Church are doing something to address the problems. It is not as though they do not know, do not care, and have not acted, however inadequately.

It is also not the case that their primary motivation for doing what they do is self-interest. I doubt a meth doctor is acting in anyone's interest but his or her own when that person sells meth.

_________________
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:51 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm
Posts: 1113
The doctor who prescribes outdated treatments is indeed a better analogy than my meth dealer doc. It expresses the point I wanted just as well, but as you say it also works in the issue of how entwined the good and harm may be. The way in which it works in this issue even fits the Mormon case nicely, since the main charge against the Mormon leaders is that they have stuck with outdated dogmas. If doctors do stick with outdated treatments it's likely in part for the sake of trust and comforting familiarity, and the reassurance that an experienced doctor gives to a frightened patient is a genuine part of the good that a good doctor does.

I also accept that your analogy is more rhetorically fair in that it breaks much less bad. So I'm happy to drop my analogy in favor of yours, which is just better all round.

I still think it leaves a significant charge against Mormon leaders, much as Dehlin expressed. The Mormon leaders may be guilty of the kind of immorality of a doctor who goes on offering familiar treatments when better ones are available—and the doctor either knows that they are available, or could and should know that they are.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:12 am 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20892
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Physics Guy wrote:
The doctor who prescribes outdated treatments is indeed a better analogy than my meth dealer doc. It expresses the point I wanted just as well, but as you say it also works in the issue of how entwined the good and harm may be. The way in which it works in this issue even fits the Mormon case nicely, since the main charge against the Mormon leaders is that they have stuck with outdated dogmas. If doctors do stick with outdated treatments it's likely in part for the sake of trust and comforting familiarity, and the reassurance that an experienced doctor gives to a frightened patient is a genuine part of the good that a good doctor does.

I also accept that your analogy is more rhetorically fair in that it breaks much less bad. So I'm happy to drop my analogy in favor of yours, which is just better all round.

I still think it leaves a significant charge against Mormon leaders, much as Dehlin expressed. The Mormon leaders may be guilty of the kind of immorality of a doctor who goes on offering familiar treatments when better ones are available—and the doctor either knows that they are available, or could and should know that they are.


One thing that I have unfortunately come to learn in the past two decades is that some people are seemingly impervious to new and better information. They honestly believe in the phony treatment or unsubstantiated cause of an illness. Some of these people are even doctors. They are sincere, and I think it is absolutely tragic that this should be the case. Unfortunately, the problem is so pervasive in humanity (manifesting, of course, in different forms) that one must conclude that it is endemic to the species.

In cases such as this I look at words like immoral as a strong rhetorical device that may overreach the mark. Now, it is always possible that these things are the result of cynical self-interest and callousness, but I have my strong doubts. I tend to think that this reflects the weakness of humanity and not its craven, callous, and selfish nature.

_________________
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:01 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:38 am
Posts: 1507
Physics Guy wrote:
As executives, though, they should have made it their business to know that there was something wrong.

That's the part that disappoints me the most about the LDS GAs. They don't seem particularly interested in really being proactive in figuring out where they are causing harm and doing better. Do they really not know how badly a lot of parents are behaving toward their children who wish to distance themselves from the church? My God, the temper tantrums that parents throw when their children stray from their foreordained life! Never once have I heard it addressed and condemned in General Conference. That's just one example of low-hanging fruit they could grab.

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:42 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 1822
fetchface wrote:
Physics Guy wrote:
As executives, though, they should have made it their business to know that there was something wrong.

That's the part that disappoints me the most about the LDS GAs. They don't seem particularly interested in really being proactive in figuring out where they are causing harm and doing better. Do they really not know how badly a lot of parents are behaving toward their children who wish to distance themselves from the church? My God, the temper tantrums that parents throw when their children stray from their foreordained life! Never once have I heard it addressed and condemned in General Conference. That's just one example of low-hanging fruit they could grab.



You make an excellent point! And add to this the personal lives of these GA's and mopologists whose family members have abandoned ship Zion. For example Terryl Givens has at least one child out, but he and his wife keep cranking out nuanced apologetic material. Wonder if Givens has talked with GA's or BYU scholars about the dropout of family? if so, this ignore the problem mindset cannot possibly last can it? Remember SWK had a son drop Mormonism and spencer would write long screeds to convince him to come home- later spencer would say he was way to harsh on his son who never came back-so much for SWK family is not forever situation.
i actually am waiting for apostles, GAs and Mormon scholars in a chorus will get to the point
where they "are mad as hell and will not take it anymore" regardless of the bribes or threats they receive.
k


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:53 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 1822
Does the quote below ring true to you?

"Mormon leaders know that maternal and familial influences are their most potent weapons in keeping their abusive corporate control of their members. " Elderberry on RFM

If true how do the non-local, local leaders use these weapons of familial relationships to keep Mormons in the fold? My thought is that RMN used his General Conference talk on celestial family relationships to guilt Mormons into keeping families in the Zion boat and called those out of the boat to repent and get back on the family forever track. Was he being shrewd or just weaponizing those deep family held feelings? Was his approach honest/"moral" and/or effective?

k


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:38 am
Posts: 1507
That's the thing. I don't think they purposely weaponize families. I think that they think that pressuring family members to get with the church program is a good thing, but I don't think they advocate for the types of hell that some parents create for their "wayward" children.

I just think that it is the GAs business to find these things out and think about them and consider ways to create better relationships in families in these situations. The fact that they don't seek great awareness and publicly express great concern for these problems is negligence on their part. The LDS religion is supposed to be expert at creating strong families. This is the business they are in. LDS children who are so miserable that they kill themselves should be much more rare than they are.

A doctrinal shift with regard to homosexuality could help a lot in this regard, since I think that is the source of a lot of the worst parent/child friction in LDS culture. But really the doctrine of eternal families creates very high stakes for parents to indoctrinate all children, and there is no real push from the leadership to teach parents that they need to respect the life decisions of children. The message is that you need to get your children on the covenant path. The stakes are high. Methods aren't really discussed but the natural inclination of too many parents is to go with extreme control measures when faced with a child who just honestly disagrees with the parent's religious vision.

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:03 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 1822
fetchface wrote:
That's the thing. I don't think they purposely weaponize families. I think that they think that pressuring family members to get with the church program is a good thing, but I don't think they advocate for the types of hell that some parents create for their "wayward" children.

I just think that it is the GAs business to find these things out and think about them and consider ways to create better relationships in families in these situations. The fact that they don't seek great awareness and publicly express great concern for these problems is negligence on their part. The LDS religion is supposed to be expert at creating strong families. This is the business they are in. LDS children who are so miserable that they kill themselves should be much more rare than they are.

A doctrinal shift with regard to homosexuality could help a lot in this regard, since I think that is the source of a lot of the worst parent/child friction in LDS culture. But really the doctrine of eternal families creates very high stakes for parents to indoctrinate all children, and there is no real push from the leadership to teach parents that they need to respect the life decisions of children. The message is that you need to get your children on the covenant path. The stakes are high. Methods aren't really discussed but the natural inclination of too many parents is to go with extreme control measures when faced with a child who just honestly disagrees with the parent's religious vision.


You nailed the essence of this issue!
thanx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:15 pm
Posts: 4498
The problem with Dehlin's claim (and the conversation that follows) is that the key point is whether or not the Church is "true."

Pretend the Church is "true" and re-read Dehlin's claim. If it's "true", then is it really a bad thing for Church leaders to do everything they can to present a narrative that will get people to the Celestial Kingdom? People should build their lives on it. There would be nothing more important. If you bought in to that narrative and it got you to the Celestial Kingdom, would you complain?

Conversely, pretend the Church isn't true and think about it. If it isn't true, then who cares about the "narrative"? If it isn't "true", then the stuff about Moroni, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and all the rest is more than enough to show you it isn't true (as any missionary can tell you, most people think that stuff isn't true when they hear it.)

Yes, if the Church isn't true, then what the leaders did with the narrative was a bad thing.

But if the Church isn't true, I'm not sure it would even make the Top 100 list of "bad" things that logically follow.

Dehlin's post is nothing more than a long way of saying "Hey, I really don't think Mormonism is true." The logical response would be "No kidding...?"

And anyone who gets surprised whenever LDS leaders act as if they really believe the Church is true is stupid.

_________________
Cinepro's Got a Blog


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 5:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 8771
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
cinepro wrote:
The problem with Dehlin's claim (and the conversation that follows) is that the key point is whether or not the Church is "true."

Pretend the Church is "true" and re-read Dehlin's claim. If it's "true", then is it really a bad thing for Church leaders to do everything they can to present a narrative that will get people to the Celestial Kingdom? People should build their lives on it. There would be nothing more important. If you bought in to that narrative and it got you to the Celestial Kingdom, would you complain?

Conversely, pretend the Church isn't true and think about it. If it isn't true, then who cares about the "narrative"? If it isn't "true", then the stuff about Moroni, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and all the rest is more than enough to show you it isn't true (as any missionary can tell you, most people think that stuff isn't true when they hear it.)

Yes, if the Church isn't true, then what the leaders did with the narrative was a bad thing.

But if the Church isn't true, I'm not sure it would even make the Top 100 list of "bad" things that logically follow.

Dehlin's post is nothing more than a long way of saying "Hey, I really don't think Mormonism is true." The logical response would be "No kidding...?"

And anyone who gets surprised whenever LDS leaders act as if they really believe the Church is true is stupid.


It's not that simple Cinepro.

The leaders can be judged by their own standards of morality.
We can ask if whether or not the Church leaders doing everything they can to present a narrative that will get people to the Celestial Kingdom is consistent within their own beliefs? I would argue that it is not. By purposely withholding critical information from members regarding the truth claims of the church, they are, by their own standards, limiting the free agency of that member to make a decision. In other words the leaders are following the plan they believed Satan proposed. So by their own standards they are acting immorally.

_________________
“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. Dark skin is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse”
LDS Church "Come Follow Me" manual in 2020, print version.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:15 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:38 am
Posts: 1507
Fence Sitter wrote:
The leaders can be judged by their own standards of morality.
We can ask if whether or not the Church leaders doing everything they can to present a narrative that will get people to the Celestial Kingdom is consistent within their own beliefs? I would argue that it is not. By purposely withholding critical information from members regarding the truth claims of the church, they are, by their own standards, limiting the free agency of that member to make a decision. In other words the leaders are following the plan they believed Satan proposed. So by their own standards they are acting immorally.

But it depends on where you are getting your "standards of morality" within Mormonism. I already pointed out D&C 19 where there is a clear example of God using deceptive language to motivate people to obey. Where in Mormon theology is it definitively settled that lying is always bad? I'm not making an argument that they should deceive, but I don't think that one can say that their own standards unambiguously settle this for them. An LDS leader who wants to justify dishonesty in their own mind, unfortunately, has material to work with (not to mention a 2nd anointing get out of jail free card).

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:15 pm
Posts: 4498
Fence Sitter wrote:
The leaders can be judged by their own standards of morality.
We can ask if whether or not the Church leaders doing everything they can to present a narrative that will get people to the Celestial Kingdom is consistent within their own beliefs? I would argue that it is not. By purposely withholding critical information from members regarding the truth claims of the church, they are, by their own standards, limiting the free agency of that member to make a decision. In other words the leaders are following the plan they believed Satan proposed. So by their own standards they are acting immorally.


fetchface already made my point for me, so I'll just ask what you read in the scriptures that makes you think the Mormon God has any problem with using a "crafted narrative" to get people to do what He wants?

Mormonism (and the Mormon ideal as presented by God and the Prophets in the scriptures) is that you believe and do what you are told based on faith. Faith means believing something without having all the information (or in spite of contradicting information).

You can certainly argue that Church leaders are violating "their own beliefs", but you haven't really presented much evidence for your argument. Heck, Elder Packer even spelled it out explicitly in his infamous talk, which is still on the Church website to this day:

Quote:
Someone told of the man who entitled his book "An Unbiased History of the Civil War from the Southern Point of View". While we chuckle at that, there is something to be said about presenting Church history from the viewpoint of those who have righteously lived it. The idea that we must be neutral and argue quite as much in favor of the adversary as we do in favor of righteousness is neither reasonable nor safe.

In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it.

_________________
Cinepro's Got a Blog


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:38 am
Posts: 1507
Now, the church leaders are certainly out of step with the Gospel Principles manual definition of honesty, but as we can now see, that also was just a God-approved lie to get us to do what they want! :lol:

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:06 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 9298
fetchface wrote:
Now, the church leaders are certainly out of step with the Gospel Principles manual definition of honesty, but as we can now see, that also was just a God-approved lie to get us to do what they want! :lol:

I don’t understand what it is that the LDS Gospel stands for anymore, I don’t think Church Leaders know either. It’s such a moveable feast from one Prophet to the next...

_________________
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:38 am
Posts: 1507
I have a question wrote:
I don’t understand what it is that the LDS Gospel stands for anymore, I don’t think Church Leaders know either. It’s such a moveable feast from one Prophet to the next...

I'll let you in on the secret:

The word "gospel" means "Good news! you get to obey the leaders!" Nothing more, nothing less. :lol:

_________________
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 8771
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
fetchface wrote:
But it depends on where you are getting your "standards of morality" within Mormonism. I already pointed out D&C 19 where there is a clear example of God using deceptive language to motivate people to obey. Where in Mormon theology is it definitively settled that lying is always bad? I'm not making an argument that they should deceive, but I don't think that one can say that their own standards unambiguously settle this for them. An LDS leader who wants to justify dishonesty in their own mind, unfortunately, has material to work with (not to mention a 2nd anointing get out of jail free card).

No one is claiming the Mormon theology is consistent. And scriptures can be used to justify any action any time. Perhaps one can find examples in "scripture" that appear to justify immoral actions though they still are immoral actions done in a "higher cause". I disagree that D&C 19 is analogous. What they were hiding and from who is not very clear since it was published for the world to see anyways, but even so, from an LDS point of view, I hardly think it justifies what we are looking at as far the nearly 200 years long institutional effort by the church to mislead and lie to their own members. This isn't a "milk before meat" issue, this is a forced IV that is never removed whose contents are a "secret" because it's better for the patient that way.

cinepro wrote:
fetchface already made my point for me, so I'll just ask what you read in the scriptures that makes you think the Mormon God has any problem with using a "crafted narrative" to get people to do what He wants?

I don't remember stating that there is a specific scriptural reference to my claim, but certainly you are familiar enough with the P.O.S. (plan of salvation) to know that we are here to be tested. Now if you want to argue that there is not specific reference to the immorality of purposefully withholding information from members to make sure they pass that test, I'd find that the kind of defense SMAC or Crocket at MADD would make, technically true but not a good look for religious leaders claiming to talk directly to God and preaching free will and honesty with your fellow man from the pulpit. And. of course, there is the 8th commandment.
cinepro wrote:
Mormonism (and the Mormon ideal as presented by God and the Prophets in the scriptures) is that you believe and do what you are told based on faith. Faith means believing something without having all the information (or in spite of contradicting information).

We are not just talking about making decisions based on a lack of information, we are talking about making decisions based on a long history of false, purposefully withheld, and/or misleading information. I think even LDS leaders would agree that faith in a false narrative is a false faith. In Mormonism, Satan's plan was one of blind obedience.
cinepro wrote:
You can certainly argue that Church leaders are violating "their own beliefs", but you haven't really presented much evidence for your argument. Heck, Elder Packer even spelled it out explicitly in his infamous talk, which is still on the Church website to this day:
Boyd K. Packer once told me directly "you don't need to know that" when I asked him about the second anointing. He is hardly the poster boy of ethical behavior when it comes to his actions as a LDS leader. His actions and teachings regarding gays led directly to church sponsored physically and psychologically damaging efforts to "cure" gay people. If his actions don't rise to the level of immoral behavior even by church standards, nothing does I suppose. Another evidence of not following LDS teachings would be the lack of apology or even public recognition on his part that he was wrong about Gay people. "The church does not apologize" sort of thing.

Quote:
Someone told of the man who entitled his book "An Unbiased History of the Civil War from the Southern Point of View". While we chuckle at that, there is something to be said about presenting Church history from the viewpoint of those who have righteously lived it. The idea that we must be neutral and argue quite as much in favor of the adversary as we do in favor of righteousness is neither reasonable nor safe.

In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it. It is the war between good and evil, and we are belligerents defending the good. We are therefore obliged to give preference to and protect all that is represented in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we have made covenants to do it.


I get that the church wants to protect itself, but if the standard of comparison is pointing to a book on the Civil war from a Southern point of view, morality no longer seems to be part of the discussion. It should act like a religious organization purporting to follow basic moral beliefs like not lying to it's own members, not a government bent on winning a war by any means or justifying the war afterwards through hagiography.. Honestly I can't point to a line in the sand and say up to this point their actions are probably still moral and beyond that they are acting contrary to their own beliefs, but certainly the excommunication and shunning of members who publicly point out the flaws in our past and present, crosses it.

In the end you and Fetch may be right. It may really be that the whole point of today's Church is just to teach obedience, that we are here to learn how many earnings to wear, what the difference is between hot and cold caffeine, and to ignore the man behind the curtain. Get them all back to a God who now seems to value blind obedience over all. Pay. Pray and Obey may be all that is necessary for salvation.That may be what the church is right now, but it certainly does not represent anything that could be labeled a restoration of the message Christ was teaching or doing as it claims to be.

_________________
“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord. Dark skin is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse”
LDS Church "Come Follow Me" manual in 2020, print version.


Last edited by Fence Sitter on Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm
Posts: 10180
Whether or not the leadership believes the Church is true is irrelevant to the decision to hide facts. If it's true, they ought to believe there is some higher truth that can be made manifest to support the truth claims.

Dehlin's statement doesn't resonate with me because of anything having to do with the Church itself. It aligns with a principle I believe in. When Mormon, I thought the Church shared that belief. When the facts proved they didn't, it played a role in my recognizing the church as not being a moral authority nor sharing my moral views.

It's that simple. The Church treated the manipulation of truth in a way incongruous with what I believe to be moral authority, and as such the leadership that enacted or supported those actions acted immorally. Are they themselves immoral, as in they are either moral or immoral people? Please. That's childish and turns the world into black-and-white oversimplified B.S.

_________________
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:02 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 20892
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Religious narratives are basically myths. The LDS Church is in the unfortunate position of having turned a version of its history into a myth. Historical understanding changes fairly constantly, but, in the Judea-Christian tradition, which is fixed by the Biblical canon, constantly shifting myths can be more problematic. Wrestling with these problems, as the LDS Church must do, is not easy, and calling the process of wrestling with it "immoral" when it fails to meet poorly understood criteria is unproductive.

Moral condemnation is a poor device for dealing with complex problems. It is a shortcut.

_________________
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 304 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aussieguy55, cacheman, Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group