Is religion necessary for a sense of ethics or morality?

[_Gazelam]

This question must have been made to Paul. He talks on the subject in Romans, here is an excerpt from Chapter 2

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

The Laws of God apply to all things. Whether it is the Law of Gravity, or the Law of friction, or the Law of Chastity. A Law is a Law, and it effects the outcome and end result of all action, or inaction for that matter. It is cause and effect, Following the Laws of God simply gives you a road map to avoid the pitfalls and educate the observer.

Gaz

[_Jason Bourne]

In a number of his posts, Plutarch wonders what system of morality someone who did not follow any particular religion might have.

Not really. I think my posts are focused and to the point, yet you and others simply want to read in arguments I never make. I do not argue that one must be a Christian to have a sense of ethics or morality.

What "standard" or "rule of ethics" do you follow which tells you that polygamy in the 19th Century was wrong? That marrying teenage wives in the 19th century was wrong?

You say that it is wrong. But, you seem to make it an a priori judgment.

Why is it wrong? Should I look to the Bible for my answer? If not, where?

P

The immoral part of marrying teens for Joseph Smith were as follows:

1: He was already married.
2: He used his power and authority to convince those young women/girls that God had commanded him and made promises of eternal rewards if they would.


The morality of these things are simply common sense. It is immoral for a person to use duress and manipulation when they are in a position of power an authority over the other person to convince the person to do something that normally they would not. These women viewed Joseph as an Prophet, God's spokeperson, their leader in thick and thin. How could they rationally reconcile his propositions?

Jason

[_truth dancer]

Absolutely Jason!

In addition, I would suggest there is something disconcerting about any thirty six year old man, having an intimate relationship with a fourteen year old child. My understanding is that this was true even during the 19th century. (Obviously when women were sex slaves, concubines, and proprety, etc., it was acceptable but in the western world, humankind has evolved beyond that).

I do not believe any thirty six year old man (throughout history) who wants to marry/bed a fourteen year old girl is doing so to have a beautiful, healthy, emotionally mature relationship.

I find it interesting that Joseph Smith gets a "free pass," for his manipulative, illegal behavior when, any other man who behaved similarly would be condemned or in prison.

For those who suggest Joseph Smith gets a "free pass" because "God said," I would suggest a God who would command behavior that is considered reprehensible, repulsive, and cruel, in anyone else, is not a God I would care to worship.

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

In a number of his posts, Plutarch wonders what system of morality someone who did not follow any particular religion might have.

Not really. I think my posts are focused and to the point, yet you and others simply want to read in arguments I never make. I do not argue that one must be a Christian to have a sense of ethics or morality.

What "standard" or "rule of ethics" do you follow which tells you that polygamy in the 19th Century was wrong? That marrying teenage wives in the 19th century was wrong?

You say that it is wrong. But, you seem to make it an a priori judgment.

Why is it wrong? Should I look to the Bible for my answer? If not, where?

P

The immoral part of marrying teens for Joseph Smith were as follows:

1: He was already married.
2: He used his power and authority to convince those young women/girls that God had commanded him and made promises of eternal rewards if they would.


The morality of these things are simply common sense. It is immoral for a person to use duress and manipulation when they are in a position of power an authority over the other person to convince the person to do something that normally they would not. These women viewed Joseph as an Prophet, God's spokeperson, their leader in thick and thin. How could they rationally reconcile his propositions?

Jason

I think an interesting question would be whether Plutarch can think of any civilization anywhere, anytime, where the two behaviors you outlined would be acceptable. I can't think of any.

Polygamy and marrying young girls both have been acceptable in various cultures. Adultery and coercion have not.

[_Tal Bachman]

Ray, what kind of Mormon were you? If I remember right, you were the kind who walked away because, in addition to difficulties with doctrines, Mormon meetings were boring. Didn't you say something like that?

Guess what? Your psyche is not the psyche of other Mormons. For example, you may never have agreed to hand over your wife to a slavering control freak so he could sexually enjoy her - but Heber C. Kimball did, and he by all accounts deeply loved his wife. And who do you think more understood and bought into Mormonism as it itself explains itself - some guy like you, or Heber C. Kimball? Hint: it was Heber C. Kimball. Not you.

See, what I'm suggesting is it doesn't matter that you were a gospel doctrine teacher - there is a whole element of Mormonism that even now you do not understand. I applaud you for your desires to avoid rancour and all that; but a desire to avoid rancour is one thing, and a misapprehension of something is another. And I suggest to you that you have misapprehended a key - no...THE key - element of Mormonism, specifically, its nature as an authoritarian loyalty cult.

You see, Ray, the fact that some folks decided not to drink Rev. Jones' Kool-Aid, says exactly NOTHING about Jones' gospel itself, in exactly the same way that Mormons who disobey Mormon commandments tell us NOTHING about the Mormon gospel, but just things about themselves. The decisions of any particular individual don't necessarily tell us anything about the actual rules of some organization he belongs to, do they? How could you confuse the two? It's almost like saying that because some baseball players used steroids in violation of league policy, that league policy didn't oppose the use of steroids. That is a very silly argument, and yet, I think it is identically analogous to the one you make above.

Like I said, I appreciate your desire to "look on the bright side"; but what you really are asking is that the rest of us begin misapprehending important aspects of Mormonism
just like you do. My question is: why? Is there some virtue in deliberate misapprehension? Are we morally required to make the same mistake someone else does? You're not really looking at "the bright side" at all - you're only demonstrating a misunderstanding of what Mormonism at its core is all about, but calling it something nice.

This is "looking at the bright side": "I learned Spanish on my mission; my wife and I were virgins when we married; I didn't get mixed up with drugs and alcohol", etc. This is NOT "looking at the bright side":

1.) "Tal claims that Mormonism on its own terms requires the subsuming of individual conscience into a meta-conscience controlled in the end by one man;
2.) "Some Mormons do not full subsume their consciences into that meta-conscience;
3.) "Therefore, Tal is wrong, and Mormonism does not require any such thing.

That isn't "looking at the bright side" - it's really bad logic, and a betrayal of ignorance about the only doctrine in Mormonism (almost without exaggeration) that has never changed: that the apotheosis of righteousness is total submission to "the prophet", no matter what.

[_Ray A]

Ray, what kind of Mormon were you? If I remember right, you were the kind who walked away because, in addition to difficulties with doctrines, Mormon meetings were boring. Didn't you say something like that?

I'm glad we're having this discussion, Tal, because I'm getting many insights into your thinking. I was a TBM until about 1983. Yes, I walked because of a number of factors, but this was 1987, four years after I ceased being a TBM.

Guess what? Your psyche is not the psyche of other Mormons. For example, you may never have agreed to hand over your wife to a slavering control freak so he could sexually enjoy her - but Heber C. Kimball did, and he by all accounts deeply loved his wife. And who do you think more understood and bought into Mormonism as it itself explains itself - some guy like you, or Heber C. Kimball? Hint: it was Heber C. Kimball. Not you.

At one stage I would have. After 1983, no. I had a very strong belief in the prophets, and I believed every word they spoke came from God. I used to shake at the knees in the presence of GAs.

See, what I'm suggesting is it doesn't matter that you were a gospel doctrine teacher - there is a whole element of Mormonism that even now you do not understand. I applaud you for your desires to avoid rancour and all that; but a desire to avoid rancour is one thing, and a misapprehension of something is another. And I suggest to you that you have misapprehended a key - no...THE key - element of Mormonism, specifically, its nature as an authoritarian loyalty cult.

I don't accept the definition of Mormonism as a "cult". I would agree that it has "cultic strains", but an integral part of Mormonism is agency and accountability, for example Brigham Young:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.
( Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1954], 135.)

Are you aware of the long history of dissent in Mormonism? How much have you read on Mormonism, Tal? I know you obviously read "approved books" until you left, but have you really studied the history of Mormonism? For example, have you read some, or all of the Journal of Discourses? The seven volume History of the Church? The six volume Comprehensive History of the Church? My library on Mormonism goes back to 1975, including eight years of purely TBM orthodox works. From 1983 to the present it consisted of Signature-type books. Unfortunately most of my library has vanished because of divorce, and moving five times in six years. But it's still "up there" (pointing to head), Tal. And I can access much of it on the net now. So what I'm asking is how much you really know. What I suspect I don't understand is your interpretation of Mormonism. Did you know there was an apostle in the 19th century who didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus? Yet remained an apostle for several years while not believing that? Have you read Orson Pratt's stubborn resistance of the Adam-God doctrine? His debates and arguments with Brigham Young, which led to him forfeiting the presidency of the church? Is this a cult? I think you need to do some more reading, Tal.

You see, Ray, the fact that some folks decided not to drink Rev. Jones' Kool-Aid, says exactly NOTHING about Jones' gospel itself, in exactly the same way that Mormons who disobey Mormon commandments tell us NOTHING about the Mormon gospel, but just things about themselves. The decisions of any particular individual don't necessarily tell us anything about the actual rules of some organization he belongs to, do they? How could you confuse the two? It's almost like saying that because some baseball players used steroids in violation of league policy, that league policy didn't oppose the use of steroids. That is a very silly argument, and yet, I think it is identically analogous to the one you make above.

I'm not confusing anything. I think you may not understand the nature of the organisation. For example, do you know of any cult that makes a provision for the removal of its leader if the majority feel he has gone astray? Turning your argument back to you, if what you say above is true, then nothing exmos say has any value, because as you say: "The decisions of any particular individual don't necessarily tell us anything about the actual rules of some organization he belongs to, do they?" You're talking about dissenters, aren't you? People who "break the rules". And how do you know there's not a strong case building for the legalisation of drugs in sport? What these "dissenters" are telling us could be the future reality, including the case of exmos who dissent because they feel "something is wrong". Maybe, like you, they don't understand historical Mormonism. Do you agree that the LDS church is one that accommodates? In other words that it sometimes changes to suit social mores. Do cults change to suit social mores? I'd like an answer to these questions, please Tal.

Like I said, I appreciate your desire to "look on the bright side"; but what you really are asking is that the rest of us begin misapprehending important aspects of Mormonism
just like you do. My question is: why? Is there some virtue in deliberate misapprehension? Are we morally required to make the same mistake someone else does? You're not really looking at "the bright side" at all - you're only demonstrating a misunderstanding of what Mormonism at its core is all about, but calling it something nice.

I think your literal, TBM beliefs, ingrained into you from the time you could think, have had an enormous impact on your current views. That's why I said I'm glad we are having these discussions, because I'm getting more insights. What your parents taught you was not holistic Mormonism, it was late 20th century TBM Mormonism. Before 1950, Sterling McMurrin recalled, the church was much more open and even liberal. Have you heard of the "swearing Elders"? This is a group McMurrin belonged to which was trying, partially, to retain traditional Mormonism. When leaders like Joseph Fielding Smith began to influence the church in the 50s with books like Man, His Origin and Destiny, the church took a turn to a stringent orthodoxy which was unknown in Mormonism. Bruce McConkie continued the work of his father-in-law, and Philip Barlow outlined how McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine heavily influenced members. Do you remember the days people brought Mormon Doctrine to church along with their scriptures? In other words, late 20th century Mormonism became an almost rabidly orthodox version of historical Mormonism, which had a long tradition of intellectual rigour and openness. Did you know that the Word of Wisdom was not enforced until the late 1920s? Did you know that Brigham Young used to counsel bishops not to drink too much on Saturday nights because of church on Sunday? Did you know that Young chewed tobacco even when he was president of the church? Did you know that Heber J. Grant in his youth was an alcoholic who drank six pints of beer a day, and that's why he later he became such a strong advocate of the WoW? This is a cult, Tal?

This is "looking at the bright side": "I learned Spanish on my mission; my wife and I were virgins when we married; I didn't get mixed up with drugs and alcohol", etc. This is NOT "looking at the bright side":

Because your parents were creatures of late 20th century Mormonism. But did they understand historical Mormonism? Mormonism underwent an orthodox paradigm shift from the 1950s. And your parents would not have taught you all this.

1.) "Tal claims that Mormonism on its own terms requires the subsuming of individual conscience into a meta-conscience controlled in the end by one man;
2.) "Some Mormons do not full subsume their consciences into that meta-conscience;
3.) "Therefore, Tal is wrong, and Mormonism does not require any such thing.

No, Tal is not wrong, Tal just does not fully understand historical Mormonism, and the rich and diverse historical tradition that it really is. In fact most Mormons and ex-Mormons do not understand it.

That isn't "looking at the bright side" - it's really bad logic, and a betrayal of ignorance about the only doctrine in Mormonism (almost without exaggeration) that has never changed: that the apotheosis of righteousness is total submission to "the prophet", no matter what.

The problem is that you are seeing one view of Mormonism, the either/or view. And that's where you're making artificial judgements based on orthodox reform, I'll even say hijacking. This is what you may need to understand, Tal, Joseph Smith was no simpleton, and he had a progressive theology, and sometimes this contradicted his early revelations. To put Joseph Smith down to a charlatan "cult figure" is to do him a grave injustice. Remember, even Josiah Quincy couldn't work him out, yet said he may yet turn out to be the most influential American who ever lived. Now that will bring screams of protest and howls from some on this forum, who see Smith in the same category of Jim Jones. So let me be clear, Tal, I reject the modern church, and I think it is only a shadow of the genius of Joseph Smith. His mind is far too complex to both TBMs and exmos. One exalts him, almost makes him a God, the other thinks he was a two penny charlatan. I reject both views.

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

For those that value their freedom they will also value their abilty to remain free they will not do anything against anyone that will jeopardize their freedom.
Everyone else will be free to remain free because they no longer fear that their freedom's will be taken away

Rule by free choice----not religion it will work and does work try it you may like

[NorthboundZax]

Ray, my friend, you deserve some good old-fashioned ex-Mormon sarcasm! You are privileged! Not even Wade has on my interview thread with him. I think Wade's been very reasonable over all.

I don't have time to answer your whole post right now, but you seem to have left entirely unconsidered the most important points in my post. That certain Mormon apostles or members chose to dissent does not mean that Mormonism allows for "righteous dissent against the Lord's anointed". Could anything be more obvious? You've never heard of Oliver Cowdery, obviously, or David Whitmer, or John Boynton, or...(yawn).

What is surprising about so many of your examples is that they stand against your arguments. For example, Amasa Lyman was KICKED OUT, Ray. Did your encyclopedic knowledge of Mormon history extend that far? He was KICKED OUT. Case closed. How ridiculous of you to cite an excommunication for apostacy as an example that Mormonism has a theological allowance for "righteous" disagreement with a sitting prophet speaking as such. How ignorant.

And Orson Pratt was ALSO kicked out, at least from the Quorum of the Twelve, during the brouhaha surrounding Joseph Smith's (likely) attempted seduction of Sarah, his wife. And he was only reinstated once he declared his loyalty for Joseph Smith over his own wife! Ray, please do Australia's criminals a favour, and never go into defense law, okay? You'd have them all hanging in no time! "Your honour, as proof that my client is innocent, I present to the jury a perfect DNA match positively linking my client to the murder victim!".

And not only that, but Brigham Young forced Orson Pratt to make public confession of the "errors" in his doctrinal teachings on the nature of God, on penalty of being KICKED OUT of his position! Come ON. You must be joking! OPEN YOUR EYES. What good is reading Mormon history, if you don't understand any of it?

And these examples, as well as so many others, show why the BY quote you present doesn't have the meaning you wish for it, but I have to run at the moment.

Open your eyes, Ray.

[_Runtu]

Ray, my friend, you deserve some good old-fashioned ex-Mormon sarcasm! You are privileged! Not even Wade has on my interview thread with him. I think Wade's been very reasonable over all.

I don't have time to answer your whole post right now, but you seem to have left entirely unconsidered the most important points in my post. That certain Mormon apostles or members chose to dissent does not mean that Mormonism allows for "righteous dissent against the Lord's anointed". Could anything be more obvious? You've never heard of Oliver Cowdery, obviously, or David Whitmer, or John Boynton, or...(yawn).

What is surprising about so many of your examples is that they stand against your arguments. For example, Amasa Lyman was KICKED OUT, Ray. Did your encyclopedic knowledge of Mormon history extend that far? He was KICKED OUT. Case closed. How ridiculous of you to cite an excommunication for apostacy as an example that Mormonism has a theological allowance for "righteous" disagreement with a sitting prophet speaking as such. How ignorant.

And Orson Pratt was ALSO kicked out, at least from the Quorum of the Twelve, during the brouhaha surrounding Joseph Smith's (likely) attempted seduction of Sarah, his wife. And he was only reinstated once he declared his loyalty for Joseph Smith over his own wife! Ray, please do Australia's criminals a favour, and never go into defense law, okay? You'd have them all hanging in no time! "Your honour, as proof that my client is innocent, I present to the jury a perfect DNA match between my client and the murder victim!".

And not only that, but Brigham Young forced Orson Pratt to make public confession of the "errors" in his doctrinal teachings on the nature of God, on penalty of being KICKED OUT of his position! Come ON. You must be joking! OPEN YOUR EYES. What good is reading Mormon history, if you don't understand any of it?

And these examples, as well as so many others, show why the BY quote you present doesn't have the meaning you wish for it, but I have to run at the moment.

Open your eyes, Ray.

I can't believe anyone is seriously arguing that dissent is tolerated in the church or has ever been. When I worked at the COB, we had a list of prohibited authors who were not to be quoted in any way, ever. And if any existing publications were found to have quotes from them, they were to be excised. These included folks like Lowell Bennion (I believe he was one of the aforementioned "swearing elders"), Lavina Anderson, Carol Lynn Pearson, and many others.

I guess things have loosened up since the 19th century. Back then, they might have been "used up."

[_Tal Bachman]

Uh, yeah, Runtu. This is embarrassing...