John Dehlin on the Immorality of Mormonism!

[_fetchface]

The BS comes in trying to muddy the context to make a case that has strayed from the subject presented in the OP.

I don't know. There wasn't much to discuss in the OP, and I guess I wasn't aware that we are not allowed to respond to subsequent ideas presented afterward.

I guess I thought I was trying to move the discussion forward since Dehlin's statement was only the first step toward an interesting discussion.

[_Meadowchik]

Though perhaps difficult to identify and pin down sometimes, there are definitely acts which are immoral.

I don't know. The more I think about it, the more I think that pretty much any act could be morally justified if the context were extreme enough.

I think this is the major flaw with having faith, or in other words believing in a complicated supernatural system on little to no evidence. It opens you to believing in extreme moral contexts that can steer your moral compass far astray.

I think that's two different things.

What I was talking about can be an evidence-based evaluation of morality based on the the circumstances. If, for example, a killer is on the loose and you try to imprison him but he keeps escaping and killing people, the most moral thing to do might be to kill him. However, if you have the means to stop him without killing, that could be the most moral response.

But that is different from basing morality on faith with little to no evidence. Morality can be anchored in evidence.

[_fetchface]

I think that's two different things.

I don't understand what the two things you are referring to are. What are the two things that are different? I don't see how any of the things you said are incompatible with what I said.

[_Meadowchik]

The ____ comes in trying to muddy the context to make a case that has strayed from the subject presented in the OP.

I don't know. There wasn't much to discuss in the OP, and I guess I wasn't aware that we are not allowed to respond to subsequent ideas presented afterward.

I guess I thought I was trying to move the discussion forward since Dehlin's statement was only the first step toward an interesting discussion.

Well the reason why they do it seems straightforward to me after all those years of being a faithful trusting member, being aware of enough problematic issues but calculating mightily the ways it might have been okay if God was in it. Believing "God said" changes the conditions of morality and creates murkiness. So in some ways, the quote in the OP is a declaration of clarity, free of the murky rationalisations of evidence-lacking dictates, and based on basic robust values, an epiphany.

[_Meadowchik]

I think that's two different things.

I don't understand what the two things you are referring to are. What are the two things that are different? I don't see how any of the things you said are incompatible with what I said.

Evidence-based morality vs faith-based morality.

[_fetchface]

Evidence-based morality vs faith-based morality.

Well, I'm not sure that anyone's moral reasoning fits neatly into either of those bins. I guess I reject the dichotomy in favor of a continuous spectrum.

Some people do a particularly bad job at verifying that there is a good reason to believe what they believe, but then again some people have an unjustified confidence that their moral reasoning is evidence-based. Both are mental pitfalls. I recommend studying Jonathan Haidt's research on the subject if you are interested in this.

[_Physics Guy]

Any one of [the Religions of the Book] could be called out for being based on history that could be called bawdlerized or outright bogus. ... If one accepts a Biblical or Q'uranic foundation to one's faith, then that is freighted with all of the historical problems that are present in Mormonism, if not necessarily to the same degree.

Sure, but the difference in degree may be big enough to matter.

Why would we not look more closely at accounts of Jesus being the bastard son of the Roman soldier Panthera? After all, we know that the virgin birth simply cannot be a thing. What do we do with the possibility that Mohammed married a nine-year-old child? I know how ex-Mormon critics would characterize this if Joseph Smith had done such a thing. What do we say to all of those Jews who insist that Abraham and Moses were real people? Look at the mythological elements of their lives! There is no way these can be real people.

I'm not going to call anyone immoral just for urging me to believe something weird. As long as they let me see all the evidence that they themselves know, I don't see anything morally wrong in them urging me to believe just as they do. I may call Flat Earthers fools, but I won't call them immoral, unless they know about the Big Blue Marble photo and are deliberately hiding it.

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. There is no story about Moses having sex with a swan recorded in a Dead Sea Scroll that the Pope locked away in a safe. Or if there is, I don't know about it. Maybe Dan Brown does.

Perhaps the disconnect is between the authority of facts as understood in a naturalist worldview versus the authority of spirit/divine power as understood in a mythological worldview. Ex-Mormons redefine the spirit in order to rob it of authority. It is nothing but chemicals, neurons, and bodily reactions producing emotions. If one truly believes in the reality of divine power or the Spirit, then that is the authority from which faith and obedience flow. One follows Christ out of a conviction that He is the Son of God, not because of the existence of a historical figure who was punished by Pontius Pilate. That conviction does not follow on the facts; it follows on the spiritual impact of the myth of the Christ.

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.

Pursuing the digression at least a short way, however, I don't think I can accept a "mythological worldview" as a valid alternative today, where by "alternative" I mean that one ignores or even rejects the scientific understanding of nature, in favor of accepting myths which are genuinely incompatible with science. I don't think one can sustain that kind of worldview today except by shirking due diligence, which does start to become immoral for me.

I think there is less genuine conflict between science and religion than either atheists or fundamentalists often suppose. Many of the really important questions for religious people, whether fundamentalist or not, are actually about what something means rather than about how it works. Some believers don't seem to realize that, and so they hold fast to particular theories about how the world works that their religion does not actually need to assume.

The jurisdictions of the two Magisteria do have some overlap, however, I think. Merely being convinced that Jesus lived and was crucified is certainly not sufficient to persuade one that he was God. That persuasion would indeed have to come from some source other than history. I think that history really could undermine belief in Christ's deity, though, if for example one somehow found strong evidence that Pilate actually let Jesus off with a fine of 30 denarii and Jesus then quit preaching and retired to a farm. And if this evidence had been lying in the Vatican archives for centuries, well known to all Cardinals, then I would certainly call those Cardinals immoral for not sharing the evidence.

[_Meadowchik]

Evidence-based morality vs faith-based morality.

Well, I'm not sure that anyone's moral reasoning fits neatly into either of those bins. I guess I reject the dichotomy in favor of a continuous spectrum.

Some people do a particularly bad job at verifying that there is a good reason to believe what they believe, but then again some people have an unjustified confidence that their moral reasoning is evidence-based. Both are mental pitfalls. I recommend studying Jonathan Haidt's research on the subject if you are interested in this.

I agree, no one fits in both, and I have read Haidt's work, as I have already indicated.

[_Meadowchik]

The jurisdictions of the two Magisteria do have some overlap, however, I think. Merely being convinced that Jesus lived and was crucified is certainly not sufficient to persuade one that he was God. That persuasion would indeed have to come from some source other than history. I think that history really could undermine belief in Christ's deity, though, if for example one somehow found strong evidence that Pilate actually let Jesus off with a fine of 30 denarii and Jesus then quit preaching and retired to a farm. And if this evidence had been lying in the Vatican archives for centuries, well known to all Cardinals, then I would certainly call those Cardinals immoral for not sharing the evidence.

And essentially, consistently withholding vital information to the entire membership betrays the meaning of purpose of God in the first place. Anthroprologically, I think you could say that, whether God exists or not, the idea of God was a way for human beings to talk about and understand the world. For a very long time, the relationship with God was also the key to science, art, and government. Over time that has changed, and people have found ways to pursue science, government and human expression independent of theism, but God still remains a way to describe Answers.

It's not unreasonable to posit that those who hold that the Word is God, that God is Truth, have a moral (also intellectual, spiritual, logical) obligation to seek answers, and especially to not subvert them, especially not intentionally.

Calling it immoral when they betray that pursuit is important.

The LDS Church has a truth problem, and when actions are scrutinised, like with the recent handbook and racist teachings, the truth problem seems to flow directly from its authority problem. The church cannot possess the truth and have the authority it claims. It must choose one, and it seems to be choosing the latter.

[_Physics Guy]

Though perhaps difficult to identify and pin down sometimes, there are definitely acts which are immoral.

I don't know. The more I think about it, the more I think that pretty much any act could be morally justified if the context were extreme enough.

Are you perhaps getting bogged in a merely semantic difference? People can differ on what they count as "the act" and what they count as "the context", without necessarily disagreeing on anything substantial.

If I define "cutting with a knife" as the act then the difference between murder and surgery is context. And if I consistently draw the line between act and context at that low a level then, sure, probably no individual act can ever be inherently moral or immoral.

Okay, even if I define "acts" at a higher level than knife cuts there can still be extenuating circumstances in context. It's still a matter of language to say what part of the total situation is context and what part is "the act". You might say that even the act of murder can be justified if it is the only way to save innocent lives, while I might say that killing an attacker to save innocents is not an act of murder. Debating that is what I would call boring.

If I look at some particular event, and include all of its context when I refer to it as an act, then I think that act can absolutely be immoral. So if Meadowchik is using "act" in a way that includes context like that then I think she can be right, too.