God can write straight with crooked lines.

[bill4long]

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"?


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

You started this thread. It seems you're afraid to honestly respond to questions.

It seems as if you're some troll who doesn't believe a thing s/he says.

I think most people around here have figgered that out.

Why should anyone take you seriously?

Why are you here?

P.S. answer my honest questions. I predict you will not. Let's all keep pretending you're acting in good faith.

[Philo Sofee]

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

Actually, rather bland......

[I Have Questions]

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.

For example when you want to hide eye watering amounts of funds from the SEC and the membership you set up a nefarious shell company scheme to lie about your financial situation. If only the people that did that had some kind of religious scaffolding…

It’s also worth noting that MG’s suggestion that religious people are more moral than non religious people, is wrong. It’s been studied.

Religious and nonreligious people have more in common than generally thought when it comes to moral experiences in everyday life, according to a new study co-authored by a University of Illinois at Chicago psychologist.

The study, which appears in the Sept. 12 issue of Science, found no significant difference in the number or quality of moral and immoral deeds experienced by people in their everyday lives, whether they were religious or nonreligious.

Religion doesn’t improve morality. However there are some key differences in the approach to moral decisions between religious and non religious people. And the difference is dangerous and shows how religious people have been brainwashed into an easily manipulated state where they have abdicated personal decision making responsibilities.

Ståhl adds: "The most general take-home message from these studies is that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass. In fact, they share many of the same moral concerns that religious believers have, such as concerns about fairness, and about protecting vulnerable individuals from harm. However, disbelievers are less inclined than believers to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion, such as having respect for authorities, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity... It is possible that the negative stereotype of atheists as immoral may stem in part from the fact that they are less inclined than religious people to view respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as relevant for morality, and they are more likely to make moral judgments about harm on a consequentialist, case by case basis."

So non religious people make more informed, personally responsible, moral judgements, rather than operating like sheep. Presumably MG will now acknowledge the facts, acknowledge he has misspoken, and amend his view and opinion to take into account the new knowledge that he now has. I’m sure he will now start fact checking his opinions before baselessly asserting them as beyond doubt. Because he recognises that more information is always better.

[Gadianton]

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? 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.

[Morley]

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.

[Morley]

Okay. Then I must have misunderstood you when you said, “If that's all there was to it, it wouldn't be worth the time and sacrifice to express allegiance and faith to it.” I thought it was pretty clear that you were talking about, umm, sacrifices you had made to remain true.

What I’m reading now, is that there really has been no sacrifice that you’ve made. Right?

Wrong.

Regards,
MG

Tell me where.

[Morley]

MG. as you know from reading me, I left because it became apparent that I would have to sacrifice my own morality and integrity if I stayed. You've suggested elsewhere that you think that some leave so 'they can sin.' I'm genuinely interested in what you think that you've had to sacrifice to remain in the Church.

Being as that I don't know you personally I can't say why you left. What I can say is that various folks leave for various reasons.

This is disingenuous. I’ve been pretty detailed and specific about why I left, some of it in direct reply to you. You don’t have to know me personally to appreciate my story.

Like I said, I don’t know you personally. If I can be misjudged and/or be ascribed certain character flaws that have no basis in reality…my guess is that I am subject/prone to same error of not being able to see/determine the ‘full picture’ of any one person. I could even judge them as a truth teller when in actuality they are not.

What you're implying is that you don't trust my word as to why I left the Church.

If I told you that I had cornflakes for breakfast, you'd take me at my word. You wouldn't say, "I don't know whether or not you had cornflakes for breakfast, because I don't know you personally." Likewise, if you had typed that you, yourself, have a daily craving for French toast, I'd see no reason to offer push back that you might be lying. I wouldn't need to know you personally in order to believe you.

On this board, when you've suggested that you hold fast and stay in the Church for reasons of ethics--that you think staying is the one path that most closely hews to the values of integrity and morality--I take you at your word. Why would I doubt it? I believe that, at least in the long run, most of us try to act in what we think are the most moral and ethical ways possible.

However, when I say I left the Church for reasons of integrity and morality, you brush me aside and intimate that I might be lying. You've got to be kidding.

You are not engaging in a good faith discussion. More than that, you're being a disingenuous ass.

[Morley]

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.

[Limnor]

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

Actually, rather bland......

Fair. Bold gives the accusation a sense of daring sensationalism. Blandly unexamined self-awareness is probably more appropriate.

[Limnor]

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? 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?