God can write straight with crooked lines.

[MG 2.0]

…why should anyone believe anything MG says unless they know him personally?

You make a good point. We’re all caught in and/or subject to the same dilemma. Incomplete information.

Hey, church history is kinda like that.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Accusing others of lacking a moral compass while relegating conscience to prophetic authority is a bold move.

Well, not if you consider that the prophetic/authoritative compass you are told to accept is perfect, and that is why you are subjugating your own imperfect one to its dictates.

[Limnor]

Accusing others of lacking a moral compass while relegating conscience to prophetic authority is a bold move.

Well, not if you consider that the prophetic/authoritative compass you are told to accept is perfect, and that is why you are subjugating your own imperfect one to its dictates.

Yep. That’s a big “if.”

[MG 2.0]

By the way, this question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseum in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

Given the somewhat broad nature of the OP topic, I'm curious what you think about two other churches...

1. The Church of Christ (Bickertonites). Descended from Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer, who determined that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet.

2. The Church of Christ (Temple Lot.) Descendend from former Nauvoo apostle John E. Page.

Both groups hold the priesthood, have apostles, and believe in the Book of Mormon, but reject Joseph Smith's later revelations that made it in the Book of Commandments / Doctrine and Covenants. Both groups practice "spiritual gifts" such as speaking in tongues, prophetic utterances in the church, and (unlike the Brighamites) adhere to 3 Nephi 11:39,40.

Also have you ever been "visited with fire" from "the Father"?

By the way, this [OP] question can be used in conjunction with so many questions and issues that are brought up ad nauseum in regard to Mormonism, the apostasy, blacks and priesthood, current cultural battles, etc.

Also curious, why would a devout Brighamite LDS gentle-person such as yourself be so inclined to discuss religion and spiritual matters with a bunch of, well, "apostates"?

I’ve expressed my reasons for participating on this board many times over the years. I might ask the same of you? Why do you participate on this board?

Of the restoration churches the CofJCofLDS seems to be fulfilling prophecy in much greater measure than the other restoration branches. I give it a ten out of ten.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Accusing others of lacking a moral compass while relegating conscience to prophetic authority is a bold move.

Let me be clear in case I have been misunderstood. Wouldn’t be the first time. I’m saying that when a person leaves the LDS Church and belief in God they create/find their own moral compass. Whatever it might be.

That’s about as far as I went with it.

In my opinion it is not an unwise move to hearken to those that have prophetic authority if they indeed have that authority.

Yep, it always comes down to that, doesn’t it?

Obviously I’m not saying you have to believe it.

Regards
MG

[Gadianton]

Let me be clear in case I have been misunderstood. Wouldn’t be the first time. I’m saying that when a person leaves the LDS Church and belief in God they create/find their own moral compass. Whatever it might be.

That’s about as far as I went with it.

Not true. You went on to say:

One decides, for example, whether they feel that it's OK to lie or not anytime that it may be convenient

So your flagship example of finding one's own moral compass is lying anytime that it might be convenient.

[Limnor]

Let me be clear in case I have been misunderstood. Wouldn’t be the first time. I’m saying that when a person leaves the LDS Church and belief in God they create/find their own moral compass. Whatever it might be.

I’d agree that leaving an authoritative institution means taking ownership of one’s moral commitments. I wouldn’t say that “creates” a moral compass from scratch—conscience was already there, and in fact may have been part of the removal process. Deciding whether prophetic authority is genuine seems like it should require conscience rather than a need to relinquish or ignore it.

[Gadianton]

Also have you ever been "visited with fire" from "the Father"?

A fair question.

[MG 2.0]

Let me be clear in case I have been misunderstood. Wouldn’t be the first time. I’m saying that when a person leaves the LDS Church and belief in God they create/find their own moral compass. Whatever it might be.

That’s about as far as I went with it.

Not true. You went on to say:

One decides, for example, whether they feel that it's OK to lie or not anytime that it may be convenient

So your flagship example of finding one's own moral compass is lying anytime that it might be convenient.

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.

I’m not saying that some people will not determine that making one moral decision/choice or another will make a choice that either ends up hurting themselves or another. I think many if not most people are going to decide, religion/philosophy or not, that certain moral principles are just right or wrong.

Just obvious.

But that’s not always going to be the case. Too many examples of folks having little or no moral compunction to do what the majority of people would say is right. But then again, you’re going to have radical fundamentalists of one stripe or another that might as well not have a moral compass for the harm they do.

My experience even on this board is that there are some folks I just plain don’t trust. I guess that might say something about where I think their moral compass has taken them.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Not true. You went on to say:


So your flagship example of finding one's own moral compass is lying anytime that it might be convenient.

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.

I’m not saying that some people will not determine that making one moral decision/choice or another will make a choice that either ends up hurting themselves or another. I think many if not most people are going to decide, religion/philosophy or not, that certain moral principles are just right or wrong.

Just obvious.

But that’s not always going to be the case. Too many examples of folks having little or no moral compunction to do what the majority of people would say is right. But then again, you’re going to have radical fundamentalists of one stripe or another that might as well not have a moral compass for the harm they do.

My experience even on this board is that there are some folks I just plain don’t trust. I guess that might say something about where I think their moral compass has taken them.

Regards,
Fibber

It seems Fibber is suggesting that without a religious scaffolding, everyone is just wandering around in a moral wilderness, which is a fascinating take from someone whose own moral compass stopped working decades ago.