"Defenders" Conduct Consistent with Teachings of P

[_Mercury]

Do you expect internal consistency from anyone, let alone Mopologists?

I've come to the conclusion that most people construct moral arguments on the basis of convenience rather than true principle. True principle requires that either (1) we refrain from behavior inconsistent with our stated moral beliefs or (2) we are at least cognizant of the times when we violate our moral beliefs and we feel shame for it (nobody is perfect, right?). Convenience, in contrast, means that our apply our moral beliefs selectively depending on the extent to which they grant us some kind of advantage, all the while holding other people accountable for them regardless of the circumstances.

We are all (or most of us) masters of convenience and poor practitioners of principle.

Only the apparent hypocrisy of convenience appears magnified when practiced by self-righteous blowhards who claim to speak for God, or to be the sole possessors of God's true message, and who hold others accountable, either in this life or the next, for accepting the same beliefs.

In like manner, we can legitimate hold higher expectations for those who claim to be enfused with the light, knowledge, and love of Christ, and we rightly ridicule them when, at the same time, they are so unforgiving and intolerant of others persons' sins.

Do you believe the same behavior can be said of a personal code of ethics? Do ethics provide a better model for personal conduct than morals?

[_mms]

Can someone violate the Savior's counsel to "judging not", by condeming others for violating the Savior's counsel to "turning the other cheek"?

I believe so (though I am not suggesting that is what may have happened here). Seeming paradoxes such as this tend to inadvertantly rise up throughout life, as well as within the restored gospel, and it becomes a welcomed challenge to figure the best ways to resolve them. Oft times that requires becoming comfortable with some measure of unavoidable inconsistency. ;-)

Whatever the case, if one's primary intent is to affect positive change in other peoples' attitudes and behaviors, I am not sure that fingerpointing or gossiping about them is the most productive strategy. Do you?

If not, then what strategy do you think may be effective?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Seems like you have made some informed . . . errrrr . . . uhhh . . . . judgments regarding the issue and those involved, Wade.

I ask, can someone violate the Savior's counsel to "judge not", by judging whether someone has complied with the Savior's counsel to "judge not" when condemning others for violating the Savior's counsel to "turn the other cheek"?

I judge the situation to be one big ol' circle of judging in which my judgment is the correct one. ;-)

[_guy sajer]

I've come to the conclusion that most people construct moral arguments on the basis of convenience rather than true principle. True principle requires that either (1) we refrain from behavior inconsistent with our stated moral beliefs or (2) we are at least cognizant of the times when we violate our moral beliefs and we feel shame for it (nobody is perfect, right?). Convenience, in contrast, means that our apply our moral beliefs selectively depending on the extent to which they grant us some kind of advantage, all the while holding other people accountable for them regardless of the circumstances.

We are all (or most of us) masters of convenience and poor practitioners of principle.

That is an interesting way of looking at it. I see it as a circle within a circle. The inside circle represents the "real," and the outside represents the "ideal." To deal with cognitive dissonance, some people erase the outer circle, thus saying the "ideal" is not attainable, and those who try are fools, dupes, or even hypocrites.

Conversely, others erase the "real" and float along in a world where all must be right and good, and they look down on the people at the "real" line as fools and jerks, sinners, losers, evil, etc.

Yeah, I think this makes sense. Ultimately, however, a good share of those who have erased the circle will, to an extent, climb back in. True moral consistency is damned difficult in practice. Moreover, I am not sure it is even always a good trait. Sort of like the famous quote by Karl Maeser that one finds plastered about at BYU, about how if he drew a circle around himself and promised never to step out of it, no one and nothing could induce him to do so. (Most definitely NOT a standard practiced by today's Bretheren who are masters of instrumental reasoning--can you say "lying for the Lord?"). I see this as evidence of moral immaturity, not moral nobility. People who adhere to tightly to rigid moral codes are are not people I generally like to be around. Few things are THAT cut and dried. That said, neither is it morally noble or approprite to always compromise principle for practicality.

Humans are morally complex, something I'm willing to concede for which I'm willing to cut people slack; only I'm less willing to cut slack to pious morality whores or those who make grandiose claims for themselves, such as someone claiming to be God's one and only mouthpiece.

There is a large gap between the two lines, where the real and the ideal have not met. Are either lines really there? Do they represent the state we ought to be in? Interesting stuff.

Only the apparent hypocrisy of convenience appears magnified when practiced by self-righteous blowhards who claim to speak for God, or to be the sole possessors of God's true message, and who hold others accountable, either in this life or the next, for accepting the same beliefs.

I hadn't read this part before I finished typing above, oops! ;)

In like manner, we can legitimate hold higher expectations for those who claim to be enfused with the light, knowledge, and love of Christ, and we rightly ridicule them when, at the same time, they are so unforgiving and intolerant of others persons' sins.

I think you'd just be playing the same game as they are, by doing that.

Perhaps, but someone needs to play the very important social role of unmasking pious hypocrites. If you can't live up to the high standards, don't make such grandiose claims about yourself.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Yeah, I think this makes sense. Ultimately, however, a good share of those who have erased the circle will, to an extent, climb back in. True moral consistency is damned difficult in practice. Moreover, I am not sure it is even always a good trait. Sort of like the famous quote by Karl Maeser that one finds plastered about at BYU, about how if he drew a circle around himself and promised never to step out of it, no one and nothing could induce him to do so. (Most definitely NOT a standard practiced by today's Bretheren who are masters of instrumental reasoning--can you say "lying for the Lord?"). I see this as evidence of moral immaturity, not moral nobility. People who adhere to tightly to rigid moral codes are are not people I generally like to be around. Few things are THAT cut and dried. That said, neither is it morally noble or approprite to always compromise principle for practicality.

Truman Madsen talked about that quote in a lecture to which I recently listened. Obviously there is room for adjustment. Say there is a child being killed in the next room or something. There are higher laws than an obligation to stay within a circle. I think Bro. Maeser was including a little hyperbole.

Humans are morally complex, something I'm willing to concede for which I'm willing to cut people slack; only I'm less willing to cut slack to pious morality whores or those who make grandiose claims for themselves, such as someone claiming to be God's one and only mouthpiece.

You have assumed making that claim is always easy or comfortable?

There is a large gap between the two lines, where the real and the ideal have not met. Are either lines really there? Do they represent the state we ought to be in? Interesting stuff.

Agreed.

Perhaps, but someone needs to play the very important social role of unmasking pious hypocrites. If you can't live up to the high standards, don't make such grandiose claims about yourself.

Ah, but both sides cast stones. Truly, both ought to know better.