God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

Gadianton wrote: 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 wrote: Interesting stuff, gadianton. Yeah, I remember going towards stage four/five when I think back far enough to the time I was trying to pigeon hole myself into categories.

Now I can go from stage two to stage six on any given day or theological topic/doctrine.

More or less I hang loose and have a gravitational pull towards stage six with wiggle room for two through five.

My drawing of sky daddy wouldn't be a crayon drawing of a stick figure standing on a circle shape labeled Kolob.

That stage flexibility feels familiar—very hopscotch. But what you’ve said here seems to confirm what gad outlined about stunted growth.

[Gadianton]

It isn't always "bad".

That contradicts what you just said:

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

What you said stands on its own: the "structured scaffolding" of religion is necessary to convince a person that lying is bad and has real consequences.

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.

What you said stands on its own: lying is bad and has consequences, not only that, but this instilment, if you will, is the definition of a moral compass. Now you're stepping outside the system you just created and suggest that a moral compass has more to do with judicious, independent thought.

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'.

Well, if they are lying, then in MG 1.0 they are in the wrong. But in MG 2.0, they aren't necessarily wrong, you just said yourself that lying might be necessary, and a working moral compass should tell them when lying is right or wrong. You claim to know that they are lying, and doing so in a situation where it is wrong. But how is it you know that they are wrong to lie in this case? Perhaps it is necessary. Perhaps building trust with you isn't an objective they care about.

[malkie]

It isn't always "bad".

That contradicts what you just said:

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

What you said stands on its own: the "structured scaffolding" of religion is necessary to convince a person that lying is bad and has real consequences.

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.

What you said stands on its own: lying is bad and has consequences, not only that, but this instilment, if you will, is the definition of a moral compass. Now you're stepping outside the system you just created and suggest that a moral compass has more to do with judicious, independent thought.

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'.

Well, if they are lying, then in MG 1.0 they are in the wrong. But in MG 2.0, they aren't necessarily wrong, you just said yourself that lying might be necessary, and a working moral compass should tell them when lying is right or wrong. You claim to know that they are lying, and doing so in a situation where it is wrong. But how is it you know that they are wrong to lie in this case? Perhaps it is necessary. Perhaps building trust with you isn't an objective they care about.

Is it relevant to ask whether/when Person A's moral compass can be legitimately applied to the thoughts, speech, and actions of Person B? Does A have the right to judge B by A's moral compass, or only by B's moral compass?

[MG 2.0]

Perps should be nabbed and hung upside down until dead.

Regards,
MG

That’s half the question. How does your moral compass react to the institution that protected the perps and failed the victims?

Hoping that in a large institution such as the CofJCofLDS that changes can be made to get a better handle on it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Gadianton wrote: 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 wrote: Interesting stuff, gadianton. Yeah, I remember going towards stage four/five when I think back far enough to the time I was trying to pigeon hole myself into categories.

Now I can go from stage two to stage six on any given day or theological topic/doctrine.

More or less I hang loose and have a gravitational pull towards stage six with wiggle room for two through five.

My drawing of sky daddy wouldn't be a crayon drawing of a stick figure standing on a circle shape labeled Kolob.

That stage flexibility feels familiar—very hopscotch. But what you’ve said here seems to confirm what gad outlined about stunted growth.

From your perspective I will grant that this is what you might see/think.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

That contradicts what you just said:


What you said stands on its own: the "structured scaffolding" of religion is necessary to convince a person that lying is bad and has real consequences.


What you said stands on its own: lying is bad and has consequences, not only that, but this instilment, if you will, is the definition of a moral compass. Now you're stepping outside the system you just created and suggest that a moral compass has more to do with judicious, independent thought.


Well, if they are lying, then in MG 1.0 they are in the wrong. But in MG 2.0, they aren't necessarily wrong, you just said yourself that lying might be necessary, and a working moral compass should tell them when lying is right or wrong. You claim to know that they are lying, and doing so in a situation where it is wrong. But how is it you know that they are wrong to lie in this case? Perhaps it is necessary. Perhaps building trust with you isn't an objective they care about.

Is it relevant to ask whether/when Person A's moral compass can be legitimately applied to the thoughts, speech, and actions of Person B? Does A have the right to judge B by A's moral compass, or only by B's moral compass?

Excellent question. That lies at the root of a lot of confrontation.

Regards,
MH

[MG 2.0]

It isn't always "bad".

That contradicts what you just said:

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

What you said stands on its own: the "structured scaffolding" of religion is necessary to convince a person that lying is bad and has real consequences.

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.

What you said stands on its own: lying is bad and has consequences, not only that, but this instilment, if you will, is the definition of a moral compass. Now you're stepping outside the system you just created and suggest that a moral compass has more to do with judicious, independent thought.

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'.

Well, if they are lying, then in MG 1.0 they are in the wrong. But in MG 2.0, they aren't necessarily wrong, you just said yourself that lying might be necessary, and a working moral compass should tell them when lying is right or wrong. You claim to know that they are lying, and doing so in a situation where it is wrong. But how is it you know that they are wrong to lie in this case? Perhaps it is necessary. Perhaps building trust with you isn't an objective they care about.

Again, let me be clear, I am not claiming that people have no compass without religion, but I am proposing that religious scaffolding can train and reinforce the moral compass in a way that makes norms like ‘lying is bad and consequential’ more salient and stable over time.

It's ingrained

Many people that leave religion or God behind take the moral compass, the external moral code/teachings they had, with them unless they find something that has a better fit.

Mix and match.

LGBTQ folks are going to be more than likely to do this.

Two things can be true at the same time. There may be a moral compass (external) that acts as scaffolding for one's construction of their own moral compass. Some folks are going to take that external moral code and follow/ingrain it to the letter. Others will 'hearken' to that moral code and then integrate it into their own view of the world and their place in it.

The two can co-exist.

Regards,
MH

[Limnor]

Again, let me be clear, I am not claiming that people have no compass without religion, but I am proposing that religious scaffolding can train and reinforce the moral compass in a way that makes norms like ‘lying is bad and consequential’ more salient and stable over time.

It's ingrained

Many people that leave religion or God behind take the moral compass, the external moral code/teachings they had, with them unless they find something that has a better fit.

Mix and match.

LGBTQ folks are going to be more than likely to do this.

Two things can be true at the same time. There may be a moral compass (external) that acts as scaffolding for one's construction of their own moral compass. Some folks are going to take that external moral code and follow/ingrain it to the letter. Others will 'hearken' to that moral code and then integrate it into their own view of the world and their place in it.

The two can co-exist.

Regards,
MH

This is an interesting acknowledgment. With all of that written, then, and an assumption that internal conscience can be shaped by external influence—can and should you be alert and question those external forces and their influence?

[malkie]

OK - some people who leave religion may retain some part of the moral teachings of that religion.

Now, how to account for the huge numbers of people who have never been "religious", but manage to go about their lives at peace with their neighbours, not raping, pillaging, and murdering?

I would question the statement about LGBTQ people being more likely to - "do this"? Whatever "do this" means (mix & match?).

I expect that, like non-LGBTQ people, it would depend on which religion they left. Leaving a religion that has one suppress their own conscience or self worth would likely be different from leaving a religion that supports personal conscience and self worth fully. Nothing to do with being or not being LGBTQ, and more to do with how the religion has impinged on the person leaving. LGBTQ people are people!

[MG 2.0]

OK - some people who leave religion may retain some part of the moral teachings of that religion.

Now, how to account for the huge numbers of people who have never been "religious", but manage to go about their lives at peace with their neighbours, not raping, pillaging, and murdering?

I would question the statement about LGBTQ people being more likely to - "do this"? Whatever "do this" means (mix & match?).

I expect that, like non-LGBTQ people, it would depend on which religion they left. Leaving a religion that has one suppress their own conscience or self worth would likely be different from leaving a religion that supports personal conscience and self worth fully. Nothing to do with being or not being LGBTQ, and more to do with how the religion has impinged on the person leaving. LGBTQ people are people!

malkie, that goes without saying as far as I'm concerned. We have four kids. One of them is gay and married to a same sex partner. That 'child' (yep, your children are always your children!) and their partner/spouse have taken with them much of what they learned and practiced in their years growing up as they took on with them on many of the 'external' elements of the moral code/compass that was their 'chart' on the wall, so to speak.

Obviously, their life track does not sit right on/exactly on top of the 'external track' they internalized as they went through their formative years and many years into their adult lives. But they've made the best of it as they have taken what mattered to them and added/subtracted what doesn't, and they have moved on in joy and happiness.

I think that critics, well some critics, need to be a bit careful as they 'judge' those that are active and believing members of the church. It is not a 'one size fits all' as some are wont to paint it to be. I've said this many times...God is a LOT BIGGER than any one institution essentially run by humans. Even if one believes that divine influence/authority is part and parcel of that restored institution/church.

I've also said in the past that it is my belief that many of those that have left the church were/are fundamentalists at heart. Not a lot of wiggle room for exploring and looking at the world 'as it is' and trying to make some sense out of it all. They took their bags and ran.

Now, I'm not saying that this description applies to each and every person who leaves the church, or those on this board in particular, but I think there may be some merit to the argument. Why? Because there has been a good deal of conversation on this board over the years that, at least to me, seems to come from persons that have had a somewhat black and white view of the world before they left the church. Either/or. This or that.

The world, in my opinion, was painted in much larger strokes on a larger canvas than some critics would seemingly want to paint it or can see it. Perspective matters.

Regards,
MG