God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Rivendale]

This is the best you can do to explain religion and morality after being a member of the only true church on the face of the earth for as many decades as you have? Do you know what "scaffolding" is, MG? What does a temporary structure that takes no part in a finished building have to do with morality? Anyway, enlighten us, MG: 1) why is lying bad? 2) what are the consequences for lying? What does decades as a faithful Mormon teach you about this?

Now please, Limnor, Philo, IHAQ and others, no answering these questions yourselves until MG has at least attempted. My prediction is that if MG tries to answer at all, he will be forced to consult AI. That will be the final nail in the coffin in MG's defense of Mormonism as anything that anyone should ever pay attention to.

I’m with Gad in seeking clarity here, but would like to expand a bit by asking what role this “scaffolding” does that can’t be accomplished elsewhere. Is conscience only able to be formed by external authority? Is conscience allowed to critique external scaffolding if that scaffolding is found to be defective?

Maybe there is confusion here between (Dennet's) cranes in biological evolution that explain complex biological phenomena and sky hooks (Dennet) that outsource explanations to imaginary, magical or supernatural supports?

[Limnor]

I’m with Gad in seeking clarity here, but would like to expand a bit by asking what role this “scaffolding” does that can’t be accomplished elsewhere. Is conscience only able to be formed by external authority? Is conscience allowed to critique external scaffolding if that scaffolding is found to be defective?

Maybe there is confusion here between (Dennet's) cranes in biological evolution that explain complex biological phenomena and sky hooks (Dennet) that outsource explanations to imaginary, magical or supernatural supports?

Interesting, thank you. Let’s remove the church (any church or moral institution) from this—let’s assume internal conscience is formed inherently but also shaped by external influence— can (and should!) you later question those external forces and their influence?

[malkie]

Exhibit 1

1. Morley references his history as a poster here, and indicates that this history contains his reasons for leaving Mormonism
2. Morley, to remove any doubt, clearly explains why he left
3. MG cannot say why Morley left, as MG does not know Morley personally

Based on this conversation fragment, why should anyone believe anything MG says unless they know him personally?

Occasionally, I've had good faith discussions with him, and then he pulls this kind of bizarre bullshite. Malkie, there's obviously something wrong in me that always causes me to think that this time is going to be different.

I wouldn't say it's the result of something "wrong" in you - most of the time, most of us try to take others at their word, especially when talking about ideas and positions that are well established. You're extending grace, and suspending judgement - both good things, in my mind.

But this sort of insulting nonsense reminds me of why I'm reluctant to respond directly to MG: for me, it's a wasted effort. I had hoped, ever so briefly, that he might apologise to you, but his flippant reply to my "Exhibit" quickly quenched that little spark of hope.

[Rivendale]

Maybe there is confusion here between (Dennet's) cranes in biological evolution that explain complex biological phenomena and sky hooks (Dennet) that outsource explanations to imaginary, magical or supernatural supports?

Interesting, thank you. Let’s remove the church (any church or moral institution) from this—let’s assume internal conscience is formed inherently but also shaped by external influence— can (and should!) you later question those external forces and their influence?

This sounds like Mary's room. Does her internal conscience change because of the experience of seeing colors and does it cause her to question her previous analysis and conclusion of colors? Will she now distrust all external forces as only partially correct?

[Gadianton]

Maybe there is confusion here between (Dennet's) cranes in biological evolution that explain complex biological phenomena and sky hooks (Dennet) that outsource explanations to imaginary, magical or supernatural supports?

Well that's just it, "scaffolding" sounds a whole lot like mythic literalism in Fowlers stages of faith, which MG subscribes to, apparently without realizing that the higher stages equate to abandoning the kind of dogma that he hotly defends. Literalism in Bible stories is the scaffolding that builds to a mature understanding of principles that don't require the stories themselves to be true.

It would be a hell of a foot-shooting strategy but I seriously wouldn't put it past him to try it. The ultimate problem with the argument is what Morley explained, that church is a small part of our moral education as people who mostly live in secular society. Very little from scripture made an impression on my thinking about life as a kid when compared to Dr. Seuss, Looney Tunes cartoons, Charlie Brown, and a whole lot more. And the funny thing is I didn't have to believe any of those were real in order to get their point.

[Limnor]

Interesting, thank you. Let’s remove the church (any church or moral institution) from this—let’s assume internal conscience is formed inherently but also shaped by external influence— can (and should!) you later question those external forces and their influence?

This sounds like Mary's room. Does her internal conscience change because of the experience of seeing colors and does it cause her to question her previous analysis and conclusion of colors? Will she now distrust all external forces as only partially correct?

This is why I love this board—there is always something new to think about and discover. Yes, I think your comment is very relevant.

Briefly reading about Mary’s Room, my understanding is that the Mormon connection here is “new experience must be interpreted so it can never negate prior conclusions.”

The question, then, is “can, and maybe more importantly, should, new experience overturn prior conclusions?”

Relating it back to the original question, I think the relevance is: does conscience and integrity dictate that you revise your earlier conclusion or ignore or suppress the new information—or worse, lie about the new knowledge?

There are plenty of Sorites-style heaps to choose from as examples of when conscience should be setting off alarms well before any bright red heap marker lines on the wall are crossed.

The additional consideration—what to keep from those external experiences—is also relevant, and maybe just as sticky a problem. If not more.

[Limnor]

Well that's just it, "scaffolding" sounds a whole lot like mythic literalism in Fowlers stages of faith, which MG subscribes to, apparently without realizing that the higher stages equate to abandoning the kind of dogma that he hotly defends. Literalism in Bible stories is the scaffolding that builds to a mature understanding of principles that don't require the stories themselves to be true.

Yes—when does scaffolding become a cage? The irony, for me, is what Fowler describes is more “milk before meat” than any of the doctrinal innovation found in Mormonism, and that scaffold can serve as a cage to keep you from the meat.

[Gadianton]

Yes—when does scaffolding become a cage? The irony, for me, is what Fowler describes is more “milk before meat” than any of the doctrinal innovation found in Mormonism, and that scaffold can serve as a cage to keep you from the meat.

Well, precisely in the case of MG, for instance. It is a cage. MG is a stage 2 mythic literalist. I don't mean that as an insult, as I do know that MG considers himself as having achieved a high stage. He's read quite widely outside of typical TBM confines. So how does this happen?

I think there are a couple big concepts here and unfortunately I need to explain both. The first involves an econ term I'll borrow, rational expectations, and the second is making careless and untenable divisions between ontology and epistemology.

Rational expectations says that exposure to the model changes the model. When Jesus rewarded the widow for her mite, she hadn't been first exposed to the story of the widow's mite. Once we know the story about the mite, we can't give the mite in the same purity that the widow did. This is a huge problem for psychologists or psychiatrists who come to understand the science behind mind and relationships and the magic is eliminated. I saw a humorous graphic that showed a percentage breakdown of personality types on Facebook, which inverted the actual distribution such that the least common types were the most common. The humor was that people of Facebook learn about personality types, become interested in the ones most rare, and then answer personality test questions in such a way as to make themselves as special as possible rather than to understand who they really are. And that's what's going on when apologists get a hold of something like Fowler. Becoming an apologist for one's own assumed high station in life is the most confining cage that there is.

For the second: ontology is about what's really out there. Epistemology is about what we can know. Apologists become postmodernists to obfuscate what we can know in order to protect what they personally wish to believe is real. Perhaps that's even the whole point of straight/vs. crooked, apologists are epistemically crooked in order to preserve ontology as straight. In other words, MG believes quite literally in God as a man who lives on a planet with his wive(s) near the star Kolob. This is mythic literalism -- stage 2. Yet at the same time, he a vast interest in Sorites paradox and all things skepticism, such that no human could ever make the empirical case that God isn't a man who lives on a planet near Kolob. We can see how apologists have stunted their growth by pursuing knowledge, or in this case the study of the impossibility of knowledge, as a way to protect the sanctity of their favorite crayon drawing of sky daddy.

[MG 2.0]

As I mentioned earlier, when one leaves the church and God, they are left in a situation by which they must determine what their moral compass is going to be.

Why would this be true? Where do you get this gibberish?

Why is it gibberish?

This is gibberish because you know better. You're just echoing a trope that you've heard mouthed in church--without really thinking about what you're saying.

We get our moral compasses from the culture around us. I'll grant that a piece of that culture includes any religious training we might have, but there are so many other moving parts, it's incredible.

Take one small piece that you're familiar with: the schools. As an elementary teacher in Utah's public schools, you taught ethics and moral behavior every day. Some of this was done explicitly, in lessons about obeying rules, what we should do to respect each other, and not getting into fights. Other lessons were implicit, like standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, demanding fair play in sports, and "Johnny, stop looking up Betty's dress."

Parents teach values, norms and morals--again, both explicitly and implicitly--by word and by example. Even if they don't realize it, they're doing it constantly. Television teaches values. The various communities we live in hammer us with them. None of these institutions teaches morals perfectly--we had God-sanctioned slavery and sexual subjugation of women, for Pete's sake--but, nonetheless, all of our institutions teach them.

Every child, in every society on Earth, gets the same basics about lying, stealing, adultly, and stop-teasing-your-sister. The cultural transmission of norms, mores, and values that shape every person's moral compass is inescapable. When I leave Islam or move away from my secret, atheistic, secular humanist compound, I don't have to struggle to find out how I should act. The larger society has these morals and values plastered all over the walls, vibrating through the airways, and inscribed into sacred law for me. Yes, some cultures use the threat of God to reinforce these moral guidelines, but an individual's moral compass does not depend on any kind of belief in any one of the thousand versions of God that exists.

But you already know all of this. That you would claim otherwise is--again--what makes your statement complete and utter gibberish.

My statement, as it stands, was/is as of a matter of fact, the truth. In addition, your recent post is essentially in line with my own thinking. I don't think there is a contradiction to see here.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

One has to make that moral decision, yes. If there is not a structured scaffolding of some kind that is convincing enough (including philosophical arguments) to cause one to then determine that lying is bad and that there are no real consequences, then one is truly ‘on their own’ to determine if there is rightness or wrongness in telling lies or partial truths.

This is the best you can do to explain religion and morality after being a member of the only true church on the face of the earth for as many decades as you have?

I think my statement stands on its own and don't see any need for further explanation or elaboration.

1) why is lying bad?

It isn't always "bad". Sometimes it's necessary. Knowing the difference between bad and necessary is where the rubber meets the road. This is where one's own internal moral compass comes into play.

2) what are the consequences for lying?

Sometimes there are none. Other times there are. My comments have to do with how an individual is responding internally to the fact that they are lying. And again, granted, there would be times in which one might feel/determine that they've done the 'right' thing by lying.

My concern in the here and now is that I believe some posters are not to be trusted because they are twisting the truth or out right lying...and they have no moral compass/compunction...internally...telling them that it is 'wrong'.

That's a problem. Trust goes out the window.

Unfortunately, if one's moral compass is compromised or maladjusted, they may consider good as evil and evil as good.

This, of course, is where it gets messy.

What does decades as a faithful Mormon teach you about this?

My meanderings of thought in regards to this subject and many others is more or less a combination of many things. The teachings of the church/gospel are part of that network of learning and understanding, but not all.

Regards,
MG