Moral Dilemma -- to keep something going even if wrong

[Linked]

Because they claim to speak for a "god"/Corporation who holds the "eternal salvation" of the entire human race in it's grubby paws.

They are the ones who have submitted themselves to be held to a higher standard. Why shouldn't we hold them to their "word"?

Yes, there is a huge difference between the old guy yelling at kids to stay off his lawn and the old guy who carries the authority of God himself telling anyone that walks on his lawn they are going to hell. To those here on NOM they are just old guys, to TBMs they are the source of their morality.

I disagree. The only difference is the deference we give them. You may reply, we are trained from birth and brainwashed to give them that deference. Thats true, so blame the cult that they are just as much brainwashed in as the person who is giving them that power over themselves.

Sometimes I'm just surprised at how some think it should be so obviously fraudulent to everyone. Or that leaders couldn't think anything else except the church is wrong and just keep it going out of fear or greed or something. It seems the human brain doesn't work like that.

True. I dont think we want to acknowledge the whole picture when we discuss the Bretheren because it is messy, and they sure act like a horses rear end.

Sure. They are just as brainwashed as I was when I was a missionary. But they are the ones in charge of the cult. If they can't be held responsible then who can? There's an argument that Joseph Smith really believed he was right. If that's the case then do we blame the revivalism in his time instead of him? And who's fault is that? The cultural momentum isn't developed out of thin air. It takes people doing and teaching.

And the current GAs are definitely responsible for letting people believe that they talk with Jesus directly when they don't. And the GAs at the time Ronald E. Poelman gave his talk and they tried to flush it down the memory hole are fully culpable for lying.

With that said, it is clearly not entirely anyone's fault that they are who they are. If a man murders someone else there was plenty in his environment that led him to do that. From one perspective it may be entirely reasonable. But he still goes to jail.

[moksha]

I was trying to picture a wholly imaginary scenario of some alternate reality in which faithful members are never admitted to the religious Politburo or Magisterium without some detectable presence of larceny and subterfuge. Don't want any at the top not in full compliance and support.

[Emower]

Yes, there is a huge difference between the old guy yelling at kids to stay off his lawn and the old guy who carries the authority of God himself telling anyone that walks on his lawn they are going to hell. To those here on NOM they are just old guys, to TBMs they are the source of their morality.

I disagree. The only difference is the deference we give them. You may reply, we are trained from birth and brainwashed to give them that deference. Thats true, so blame the cult that they are just as much brainwashed in as the person who is giving them that power over themselves.

Sometimes I'm just surprised at how some think it should be so obviously fraudulent to everyone. Or that leaders couldn't think anything else except the church is wrong and just keep it going out of fear or greed or something. It seems the human brain doesn't work like that.

True. I dont think we want to acknowledge the whole picture when we discuss the Bretheren because it is messy, and they sure act like a horses rear end.

Sure. They are just as brainwashed as I was when I was a missionary. But they are the ones in charge of the cult. If they can't be held responsible then who can? There's an argument that Joseph Smith really believed he was right. If that's the case then do we blame the revivalism in his time instead of him? And who's fault is that? The cultural momentum isn't developed out of thin air. It takes people doing and teaching.

And the current GAs are definitely responsible for letting people believe that they talk with Jesus directly when they don't. And the GAs at the time Ronald E. Poelman gave his talk and they tried to flush it down the memory hole are fully culpable for lying.

With that said, it is clearly not entirely anyone's fault that they are who they are. If a man murders someone else there was plenty in his environment that led him to do that. From one perspective it may be entirely reasonable. But he still goes to jail.

Thats all I was trying to communicate. When we say things like They have blood on their hands, I think we are being a little bit obtuse.

And again, we say they are the ones in charge of the cult and they have the power to change it, but that is 100% not how they see it.

[Newme]

Maybe the immediately practical moral dilemma is "what do I think, feel & do now that I see that many I know are in a helpful & harmful cult"?

Anger does have its place but generally is only helpful when it helps initiate positive change. And often anger is the product of "unrealistic expectations"- ie: expecting people
raised in a cult and subject to excessive mind control to snap out of it, even when the mind-control harmful lies are thoroughly blended with helpful truths and they have never had any sufficiently-motivating reason, for them personally, to question it.

Sometimes - especially when I think of extreme poverty & church leaders" financial corruption - I am very angry! And I have spoken out against that a lot - & have gotten hurt because of it. But I have to remind myself that in anything- multiple (often thousands or
millions) of people are involved- not just one savior or scapegoat.

[Rob4Hope]

And the current GAs are definitely responsible for letting people believe that they talk with Jesus directly when they don't. And the GAs at the time Ronald E. Poelman gave his talk and they tried to flush it down the memory hole are fully culpable for lying.

The Poelman talk is a REALLY good example of bald-faced lie, with intent to deceive,...but the justification that the correction (that apparently someone higher up felt was needed) would justify the deception.

Again,...a lie is a lie. The problem is there are some who feel like they don't have to follow the same moral code.

EUREKA!...thats the answer!....the Moral Dilemma is that morality doesn't apply to some!

Oh wait,..then God is a respector of persons...right?...so the Bible is wrong now.

Oh crap. Now I have stress!

[LaMachina]

Again,...a lie is a lie. The problem is there are some who feel like they don't have to follow the same moral code.

EUREKA!...thats the answer!....the Moral Dilemma is that morality doesn't apply to some!

Can you come up with an example of a lie being a moral good? I would suggest it's really, really easy and anyone who claims otherwise is a bit too Pollyanna-ish IMO.

The moral dilemma is there is no absolute morality and anyone who claims there is seems to be fooling themselves, including the church when they claim it.
Although they don't actually claim something is right at any and all times. They claim it's right when God happens to say so...which seems to jive with biblical morality. Even something as universal as "Do the least harm to the least amount of individuals and maximize the happiness of the most individuals" is rife with complications and contradictions.

When does something damaging cross the line? Chemo is meant to heal but it does so by slowly killing the body. Vaccines are meant to protect but they do so by injecting disease. When does the refiners fire reduce everything to ash rather than purify and strengthen the ore? You feel the church leaders are reducing people to ash. They feel we are going through a necessary refining process which doesn't end in the here and now but has long ranging eternal consequences. Which is morally right or wrong? Depends on one's worldview.

[Newme]

Again,...a lie is a lie. The problem is there are some who feel like they don't have to follow the same moral code.

EUREKA!...thats the answer!....the Moral Dilemma is that morality doesn't apply to some!

Can you come up with an example of a lie being a moral good? I would suggest it's really, really easy and anyone who claims otherwise is a bit too Pollyanna-ish IMO.

The moral dilemma is there is no absolute morality and anyone who claims there is seems to be fooling themselves, including the church when they claim it.
Although they don't actually claim something is right at any and all times. They claim it's right when God happens to say so...which seems to jive with biblical morality. Even something as universal as "Do the least harm to the least amount of individuals and maximize the happiness of the most individuals" is rife with complications and contradictions.

When does something damaging cross the line? Chemo is meant to heal but it does so by slowly killing the body. Vaccines are meant to protect but they do so by injecting disease. When does the refiners fire reduce everything to ash rather than purify and strengthen the ore? You feel the church leaders are reducing people to ash. They feel we are going through a necessary refining process which doesn't end in the here and now but has long ranging eternal consequences. Which is morally right or wrong? Depends on one's worldview.

I agree.
I know that it doesn't make for good striking drama or sound bluntly cool - but if you're interested in truth - and what is truly good, then it requires considering multiple perspectives to often find that it really isn't all-or-nothing in most cases.

Also, "in each of us is a bit of all of us."
As much as I don't want to admit it, there have been times when I've cut some people more
slack than others maybe because they were in my tribe etc. It may not be to the extent that some lds leaders discriminate- but still.

Several times, the justification for not believing in God has been, "If there were a god, he wouldn't allow people to be so horrible to others." But again, who hasn't at one time or another been unkind to someone? What di they expect - God to strike lightning anytime anyone does anything at all bad to someone? If so, nobody would be left.

[alas]

Because they claim to speak for a "god"/Corporation who holds the "eternal salvation" of the entire human race in it's grubby paws.

They are the ones who have submitted themselves to be held to a higher standard. Why shouldn't we hold them to their "word"?

Yes, there is a huge difference between the old guy yelling at kids to stay off his lawn and the old guy who carries the authority of God himself telling anyone that walks on his lawn they are going to hell. To those here on NOM they are just old guys, to TBMs they are the source of their morality.

I disagree. The only difference is the deference we give them. You may reply, we are trained from birth and brainwashed to give them that deference. Thats true, so blame the cult that they are just as much brainwashed in as the person who is giving them that power over themselves.

Sometimes I'm just surprised at how some think it should be so obviously fraudulent to everyone. Or that leaders couldn't think anything else except the church is wrong and just keep it going out of fear or greed or something. It seems the human brain doesn't work like that.

True. I dont think we want to acknowledge the whole picture when we discuss the Bretheren because it is messy, and they sure act like a horses rear end.

No, there really is a difference between the power of an old man, who was nobody all his life, yelling at kids, and someone in a position of power and authority. The law recognizes this when we hold a school teacher more at fault for sexually abusing a student than we hold the next door neighbor. The school teacher is in a position of TRUST. That position of authority over another human being changes the responsibility. The school teacher has MORE responsibility to be a decent human being than the nobody next door.

So, the general authorities are in a position of trust and authority over others. So, they have more moral responsibility to make damn well sure that what they preach is true. The average member is not held to the same moral level of making sure their teachings "do no harm." This is why doctors are held to a different standard when delivering first aid. A doctor who comes on a car accident and screws up and causes a death of a person who could have been saved is different than the common person coming on a car accident and failing to administer the proper first aid. One knows and has a moral responsibility to aid. The other is a common Joe who may or may not know what is best to do. So, we as a society hold a medical doctor accountable but not a commone Joe.

This different standard is everywhere in society. So, those of us saying that the GAs are accountable because they know something is very wrong in the history, and yet they continue to preach as if they know nothing and have no moral responsibility to FIND OUT the whole truth and then teach that, we are correct in saying they are scum buckets for continuing to preach what they SHOULD know is false.

Because of their position of trust and authority, they have a responsibility to BE what they claim to be. Period.

[Rob4Hope]

Can you come up with an example of a lie being a moral good? I would suggest it's really, really easy and anyone who claims otherwise is a bit too Pollyanna-ish IMO.

Yes, I can and I agree with this. Craig Smith who once posted on a FAIR Apologetic site wrote a paper about this, and it had several examples which made it clear that sometimes telling a lie is on the higher ground. I agreed with is examples.

The moral dilemma is there is no absolute morality and anyone who claims there is seems to be fooling themselves, including the church when they claim it.

And that is part of the problem, because the church DOES claim it. But the way they claim it is troubling. For example, this Poleman talk--a recast of the talk, theatrics and all, to make it appear he said something different when he didn't?

The church has, according to Oaks, a type of policy that they will never say they are sorry--they will never apologize. This amazes me...totally. Rather than just have Elder Poleman make a correction and say: "I didn't say something quite right, and I want to make a correction"--rather than say that, there is this big elaborate lie?

A lie WASN'T NECESSARY IMHO. This is crazy, and WRONG.

And this comes from a church that teaches (several have) there is no relative morality--morality is universal and absolute?

The problem I have is the double-standard. Granting oneself a pass on breaking the rules, just to hold others accountable for breaking the same rules, is morally wrong, and I can't justify it in my mind, even when I look at it from the angle for "lying for the moral good".

[tryingtogetitright]

You could look at the statements of apostles during JS time who left the church on exactly the moral absolutes, most of whom returned to the church before their death.

Thomas B. Marsh's was typical

"About this time I got a beam in my eye and thought I could discover a mote in Joseph's eye, though it was nothing but a beam in my eye; I was so completely darkened that I did not think on the Savior's injunction: "Thou hypocrite, why beholdest thou the mote which is in thy brother's eye, when a beam is in thine own eye; first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, then thou shalt see clearly to get the mote out of thy brother's eye". (see wiki entry)

[Rob4Hope]

You could look at the statements of apostles during JS time who left the church on exactly the moral absolutes, most of whom returned to the church before their death.

Thomas B. Marsh's was typical

"About this time I got a beam in my eye and thought I could discover a mote in Joseph's eye, though it was nothing but a beam in my eye; I was so completely darkened that I did not think on the Savior's injunction: "Thou hypocrite, why beholdest thou the mote which is in thy brother's eye, when a beam is in thine own eye; first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, then thou shalt see clearly to get the mote out of thy brother's eye". (see wiki entry)

After the lashing that Thomas received by Brigham Young, I don't understand why Thomas stuck around. He must of been emotionally distraught because Brigham's welcome home speech was degrading and offensive. A real "act of love" from the Prophet of God, Brigham Young....

[LaMachina]

So, the general authorities are in a position of trust and authority over others. So, they have more moral responsibility to make damn well sure that what they preach is true ... So, those of us saying that the GAs are accountable because they know something is very wrong in the history, and yet they continue to preach as if they know nothing and have no moral responsibility to FIND OUT the whole truth and then teach that, we are correct in saying they are scum buckets for continuing to preach what they SHOULD know is false.

Because of their position of trust and authority, they have a responsibility to BE what they claim to be. Period.

A good point and a fair position to take. I wonder how much this position of trust and sense of responsibility actually CONTRIBUTE to the mindset to (in their mind) benevolently deceive?

Random church authority would say - 'We have to protect the flock!! There are things that can damage testimony and lead to eternally broken families!!"

We see this sort of thinking in business, politics, even sometimes with our medical practitioners. Honestly, someone motivated to do damaging things due to their unwavering belief in their righteous cause frighten me far more than someone motivated by greed.

And that is part of the problem, because the church DOES claim it (absolute morality). But the way they claim it is troubling.

I agree it is troubling. They claim anything God declares moral is absolutely moral.

Joseph was absolutely a sexual predator and liar but his morality was laid out thusly:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

Bruce R McConkie made a similar statement after the Priesthood ban was lifted:

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them

This sort of thinking is absolutely scary because of what it entails: Morality is whatever God says and whatever he says is dictated by an old, and quite likely senile, man.

It's too bad cuz in my most generous moments I think how much potential good such a position could generate. We are not bound to any one book or ancient idea but to what "god" says is right here and now. Racist, sexist and homophobic rhetoric could be denounced at the drop of a hat. It almost mirrors the scientific position that we don't have to believe anything the evidence doesn't dictate.

But alas...as we all know, reality hasn't borne out that way.

[Rob4Hope]

This sort of thinking is absolutely scary because of what it entails: Morality is whatever God says and whatever he says is dictated by an old, and quite likely senile, man.

I remember when Ezra Taft Benson was basically out for the count but alive and Hinckley and Monson ran the whole deal. And they would always say things like "we consult with President Benson on important matters."...

Steve Benson said this was total crap. It was a deceiving scenario. A coup-detat built into the system?

Hunh?...

[deacon blues]

I'm going to use a TBM perspective to try make a point. From this perspective we are all hearing about the plan and in the pre-existence. God is telling us "on earth you will have to walk by faith, except for a few chosen ones (Moses, Joseph Smith, etc. to whom I will reveal myself." One smart spirit raises her hand and asks, "God, we will be walking by faith and relying on the testimony of prophets. What should we do if one of the prophets tells us a carefully worded denial, and we later find out he was deceiving us? Will you allow prophets to deceive us in order to convince they are right? Are we still to believe everything else they tell us after we become aware that they sometimes deceive us?"
How would God answer that question?

[LSOF]

I'm going to use a TBM perspective to try make a point. From this perspective we are all hearing about the plan and in the pre-existence. God is telling us "on earth you will have to walk by faith, except for a few chosen ones (Moses, Joseph Smith, etc. to whom I will reveal myself." One smart spirit raises her hand and asks, " [...] Are we still to believe everything else they tell us after we become aware that they sometimes deceive us?"
How would God answer that question?

The Bible says no (Deut. xviii: 20-22). Wilford Woodruff also says no: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray." (Oct. 1890 General Conference)

In the same way as the Book of Mormon bolsters the Bible (vis-a-vis the line-and-points diagram shown a few General Conferences ago), Wilford Woodruff does also. We may safely (if we be TBM) conclude that the answer is no.

[Linked]

I'm going to use a TBM perspective to try make a point. From this perspective we are all hearing about the plan and in the pre-existence. God is telling us "on earth you will have to walk by faith, except for a few chosen ones (Moses, Joseph Smith, etc. to whom I will reveal myself." One smart spirit raises her hand and asks, " [...] Are we still to believe everything else they tell us after we become aware that they sometimes deceive us?"
How would God answer that question?

The Bible says no (Deut. xviii: 20-22). Wilford Woodruff also says no: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray." (Oct. 1890 General Conference)

In the same way as the Book of Mormon bolsters the Bible (vis-a-vis the line-and-points diagram shown a few General Conferences ago), Wilford Woodruff does also. We may safely (if we be TBM) conclude that the answer is no.

That is too straight-forward. I need some mental gymnastics in there if you really want me to believe it.

[deacon blues]

The point I'm trying to make is that God keeps evidence at a minimum, at least from a TBM perspective, so that we must exercise "faith." However, because evidence is kept at a minimum, some prophets and apostles (Joseph Smith and Paul Dunn for example) have obviously enhanced the evidence, even to the point of saying things that aren't true in order encourage belief. What is God's expectation for prophets and apostles? Are they supposed to do this, or does God just want them to give a balanced presentation of the facts, and let the chips fall where they may? This is so important because without correct information, one can't have true agency. One is instead stuck with biased perspectives.

[LaMachina]

The point I'm trying to make is that God keeps evidence at a minimum, at least from a TBM perspective, so that we must exercise "faith." However, because evidence is kept at a minimum, some prophets and apostles (Joseph Smith and Paul Dunn for example) have obviously enhanced the evidence, even to the point of saying things that aren't true in order encourage belief. What is God's expectation for prophets and apostles? Are they supposed to do this, or does God just want them to give a balanced presentation of the facts, and let the chips fall where they may? This is so important because without correct information, one can't have true agency. One is instead stuck with biased perspectives.

Great question. It's interesting how this seems to tie into the Holland backlash.

While there does not appear to be anything biblical that sanctions prophets being dishonest for the sake of faith promotion there are stories of God using prophetic lies to further his plans. For example the story of King Ahab:

And when he had come to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?”

And he answered him, “Go up and triumph; the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.”

But the king said to him, “How many times shall I make you swear that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?”

And he said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.’”

And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?”

And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left;

and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’

And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’

And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’

And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.”

Of course this doesn't have much to do with faith promotion but it seems instead to be a ploy to get Ahab to put himself in harms way?

There are many other examples of God using deception to apparently teach us a lesson or determine our faithfulness:

The very first interaction between God and humans has him being deceitful to Adam & Eve. It has always bothered me that the serpent was more honest with them then God was.

God demanding things he apparently did not actually require except as tests of faith like demanding Abraham MURDER his son or laying bets with Satan as to whether Job would talk bad about him if he destroyed his life have all struck me as very deceitful.

Jesus telling people to keep his good news on the downlow or describing his method of teaching as a way to confuse people has always struck me as a little weird for the guy who's message was supposed to literally save the world.

We now know that the bible has many of it's own faith promoting rumors. Some of it's most famous interactions, like the woman caught in adultery, are known to be much later additions to the text. Why haven't these stories been removed from bibles knowing what we now know?

So, while I don't think they are any examples of exactly what you outline (God asking prophets to tell lies in order to increase faith) it seems clear to me that God is quite comfortable with deception as a tool to further his interests. But I welcome challenges to my position as I could be misreading what I'm seeing.

[Rob4Hope]

LaMachina,...

I also have struggled with the Bible, as much as any scripture (if there is such a thing as scripture). The BoM says that God will do nothing save for the benefit of the people (or something like that...Maybe its in the D&C?) Anyway, when that info comes across, and then I see things attributed to this merciful God, I wonder.

This incredible being didn't have any other options save killing Laban?

This incredible being didn't have any other options save telling the Israelites to "borrow" from the Egyptions, knowing full well they were plundering them? (thus God was commanding the people to lie)

This incredible being didn't have any other options save wagering with Satan if Job would crack?

This incredible being didn't have any other options save threatening JS with a flaming sword, and commanding him to send men on missions, while taking their wives from them? (this is a TBM perspective of doubt)...

The list could become quite long...

[Corsair]

I also have struggled with the Bible, as much as any scripture (if there is such a thing as scripture). The BoM says that God will do nothing save for the benefit of the people (or something like that...Maybe its in the D&C?) Anyway, when that info comes across, and then I see things attributed to this merciful God, I wonder.

Are you thinking of Amos 3:7?

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

This is a seminary mastery scripture meant to assure us that prophets are definitely there for us. But it is not trotted out whenever we have unfortunate incidents like plural marriage, the priesthood ban, the November 2017 policy, and the Hoffmann forgeries.