Urstadt

Morals do exist objectively, the same as wave lengths do. But those morals only become sensible to us in the context of our relationships, the same as those wave lengths only become sensible to us when our eyes perceive them as colors.Imagine if Plato had posed this dilemma with God and colors instead of God and morals. Charles Taylor's book The Sources of the Self: Making of Modern Identity, and John Macmurray's book Persons in Relation speak to these issues very coherently and convincingly. Consider taking a gander at these sources.

Excellent. Yeah, that was the dilemma Plato philosophized about. But, it was still mythologically-laden and exclusive to Greek understanding of Gods, whom they had no relationships with. Plato assumes that morals are separate from being. But, they aren't. We participate in morality, which means they exist in, and because of, our relationships. So, the two options presented are not applicable because they don't assume a relational element. I like how Charles Taylor addresses morality. Colors do not exist before our eyes perceive them. They exist as wave lengths that are then translated/encoded/perceived by the brain as a particular color. So, colors exist only in relation to a human or animal that can perceive them and in relation to other colors. This is what we might call a relational context. It is the same with morals. Morals exist "out there" in the world (the same as wave lengths do) regardless. However, they only make sense to us in a particular context and in relation to other morals and other people. This invokes contextualism, or contextual truth, truth that is only true given a particular context. So, God does not just arbitrarily decide what is moral or not just because he wants to, per se. Rather, morals emerge on their own given the appropriate contexts and our relationship to them (the same as colors do). This is very different than the assumptions Plato is operating under when he proposes the Eurythmy Dilemma, which assume that morals are somehow separable from lived existence. A relational perspective asserts that this is impossible. Let me know if you have any questions about this or if I can say something a little more clear.

I don't know if anyone has said this yet or not, but I think there is a difference between doubt and critical thinking. To me, doubt is when you are skeptical about something and choose to do nothing about it whereas critical thinking to me is when 1) you constructively think about the implications and limitations about something and then 2) try to come up with plausible alternatives.I also think there is a difference between doubt and relating to something authentically (in continetal philosophy's sense of the word, not webster's). When I doubt that cognitive-behavioral therapy is a good therapy, I reject it outright. When I relate to it authentically, I still doubt many of its basic tenets, but I allow those tenets to challenge my own viewpoints/philosophy/horizon. I allow some of the tenets of CBT to fuse with my viewpoints to increase understanding. I still doubt that CBT is a good therapy, but I have allowed some of the good aspects of it to resonate with me, and I may even borrow them.

I just want to add one thought to the excellent comments also made here. It sounds like you got your question answered but I wanted to pointed out a piece of context here. Plato grew up in a politheistic culture laden with mythology as opposed to gospel and doctrine. So his philosophies were exclusive to his culture's beliefs and not so much the way our Heavenly Father is.

Well, I think you're on the right track. We can always do service, bring Christ-like love and compassion to others, and help out when we are needed/able to. That is the true purpose of religion anyway: fellowship; fellowship with service and other attributes of Christ. Without that, we are nothing. "If ye are not one, ye are not mine."

You're welcome. If you ever want to chat further, or want some references, feel free to reach out to me at any time. I'm also more than happy to continue discussing it here.

Virtue ethics is not so much about a righteous act coming from a righteous person. This is circular reasoning and Aristotle (the author of virtue ethics) wouldn't have surrendered his philosophy to that kind of relativism. Instead, virtue ethics is about being virtuous for virtue's sake. I am not honest in my dealings with my fellow man so that I may be admired by men or so that people give me their business. I am honest for honesty's sake. Because that is the virtuous thing to do, period. I'm with Aristotle on this to a certain point. Where I stop being a fan of virtue ethics is where Christ is removed from the equation. Glorifying Him is removed from the equation. Deontology is crap. Consequentialism isn't really morality, it's instrumental reasoning and pragmatism. However, I am not knocking it at all. There are times that I refrain from doing something merely because I don't want the consequences. E.g., I refrain from speeding on the road not because of some intrinsic moral stand I take, I just don't want the ticket. So, it definitely has its place, just not in morality. As for a moral philosophy that is closest to the gospel, I find relational ontology (as put forth by dialogism and ontological hermeneutics) to be the closest to the gospel. We are relational creatures, co-constituted by our relationships (e.g., I cannot be a therapist until I have a client I am working with in therapy). So, from a relational ontology perspective, the purpose of all morality is to serve others. The purpose of religion is to serve others. I am not Mormon because I want to go to Heaven. I am Mormon so I can serve others with compassion in a Christ-like way that glorifies Him. With virtue ethics, consequentialism, and deontology, the focus is inward. The focus is on the individual. With relational ontology, the focus of morality is on the other. Morality is something we participate in with others, not something we have or not, it's not something we are or not. We participate in morality with others. To me, relational ontology is the philosophy that most resembles morality in our church. (See the quote in my signature by John Macmurray.)

I really like a particular inscription in a video at the north visitor's center at Temple Square called God's Plan For Families. The inscription says something to the effect of: A successful family is one built on a foundation of Christ. So, I try to follow Christ's example of love, service, and raising my family on His principles. I also try to live the gospel as a counselor. I practice a type of therapy that enables me to follow Christ's example of love and compassion in a way that serves as a catalyst for healing. These are the two areas I focus on the most.

Can you people who are debating over scripture, suffering, divorce, commitment, etc, and demanding references and criticizing one another's advice please take it to another thread or private message each other? Thank you.

For me, I am pretty busy. So any free time I have is scarce and reserved for what I want to do most. If I don't find a thread on here, or on linuxforum.org, that is overly compelling, I typically will utilize my free time for other stuff. I mean no disrespect. I just have to prioritize to make the most optimal use of my free time. So, that's my excuse.

Shakespeare may have wrote that, but the original quote is from Epictetus in (I believe) 2nd century AD. His quote was about the horrible conditions society lived in back then (disease, famine, lack of sanitation, poverty). Epictetus was a stoic, which basic tenets advocate acceptance of your lot in life, emphasis on rationale, and minimizing all desire and emotion. So his quote was basically part of the stoic philosophy to just accept the horrible conditions they found themselves in. Just fyi.

I have read scholars that believe that Magog is in Russia. I haven't found anything in our literature to back this up. I do know that one of our US presidents (Ronald Reagan) believed Magog was Russia. But, who knows. ISIS is in Russia and the other countries that are south of Russia, which is significant. (I just bring this up as a point of interest that I read and was intrigued by, nothing else.) I agree that a lot of prophecies still need to transpire. At the same time, it's becoming more and more common for me to hear in stake and ward conferences that these last day prophecies would a) happen without many of us knowing it, or b ) that they would not happen on as grand a scale as we envisioned. For an example of A, we might not know that two prophets are killed in Israel and then resurrected on the third day. For an example of B, missionaries may not physically enter ever country, but the internet will bring the gospel to every nation, kindred, and tongue. Obviosuly, I am not claiming to be right. I honestly don't know. I put this post out there because I suspect that there may some merit to it and I want to hear everybody else's thoughts.

My answer has 2 parts:1) No, is it not morally right, but that isn't so much the issue. The issues are how informed do they need to be? And, when should they be informed of everything? A secondary issue is that being informed is not always the moral precedent of the study whereas harm to the participants is. Take two studies for example. The first, the Stanley Milgram experiements in the 60's about authority. All participants were being told they were shocking an individual. What they didn't know was that the person supposedly being shocked, in fact, wasn't. He was just acting. Participants made their own choice to continue shocking them or not. Many refused to. But, all participants were shown after the study that the person was just acting. There was no real harm here to the participants. The second example is the Phillip Zambardo prison experiments. Half the participants played the role of prison guards while the other half played the role of prisoners. But, all of them had full consent (even though this has been wrongfully contested). Despite their full informed consent the experiment ended horribly with physical and psychological damage to both parties. The guards became physically abusive to the prisoners and the prisoners developed learned helplessness, stockholm syndrome, and severe depression. When you take these two studies, it wasn't the informed consent that was the problem, it was how the studies were conducted from the ground up. 2) What really concerns me are ethics of how research results are presented in the behavioral sciences. They are presented as evidenced-based, empirical studies. So the results are taken as scientific fact. But, this is a questionable assertion at best. Take Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for example. This is currently the leading therapy in our field. It is also one of the worst ones. But, it is considered evidenced-based and empirically "proven" to be more effective than any other therapy. But, these waters are beyond muddied, which the researchers know that. The truth is, CBT is not empirical supported. All one has to do is look at the research methods, outcome measurements, and statistical analysis to see that. So, even though those research participants of CBT studies are fully informed, I believe the real immoral precedent here is that counselors, clients, insurance companies and courts, and the general public are misled entirely about the "scientific" basis of CBT, causing them to pursue it, pay money for it, try to live by it, just to find out afterward that they didn't get the results they were led to believe. Thank you for asking. Does this answer your question?

Mimetic Theory, by Rene Girard, may shed some light on this. Desire is merely copied, mimicked. It's mimetic in that once a person sees something someone wants (say an iPhone or S5), now that person wants it too. Ontological Hermeneutics (not exactly the same as regular hermeneutics) describes what's referred to as a background and a foreground in our minds. Charles Taylor has written quite a bit about these. When thoughts, emotions, impressions, etc occur in the background, they are typically not articulated enough for us to respond to and think deeply, or authentically, about. This causes us to be acted upon by these inarticulate, background thoughts, emotions, etc. Once we do bring something out of the background, into the foreground, it is articulated and we are more apt to act, rather than be acted upon. Mimetic theory purports that if our desire is merely mimicked, copied, it is because we do not bring that mimicked desire out of the background, and into the foreground for examination. This is what creates the "herd" mentality that causes us to forfeit, or under utilize our agency. My overall point is that regardless of what manipulations marketing uses, they are only successful when people fail to bring their mimetic desires out of the background and into the foreground where they can (among other things) think honestly and openly about who they are, what they want, what they need, and how they are using their agency.

In my humble understanding, I really believe that if all of us could go up to the Savior and ask Him whether or not the Great Apostasy occurred, or which church is correct, He would simply ask:

Amen to that! And, I'm born and raised LDS. My mission president taught me that the Catholic Church saved Christianity and the Holy Bible. Those two things in them of themselves are enough for me to forever be grateful to the Catholic church. I have personally never "taken hits" at the Catholic church. I really love and respect that religion.

And, to piggyback off of PrinsonChaplin's questions: we also have to consider the possibility that these people are doing the media thing for their 15 minutes of fame. It could also be because there is spite and animosity there and this is a form of payback for them: you hurt me so I'm going to try to hurt you back. As a counselor I know how polyphonic (multi-voiced) humans can be. they rarely doing anything, especially something big, for just one reason. I think PrisonChaplin has provided one of the potential critical reasons, though. As Blackmarch said, it is a good question.

Matthew, kuddos to you for working through them. Many people would just throw in the towel or just ignore their inner struggles causing their testimony to go dormant. I want you to know that I believe you are doing the right thing searching these things out for yourself (D&C 9:8). Alma the younger prayed and fasted many days for his answers and his testimony (Alma 5:46). I encourage you, as a brother in the faith, to continue to pray and fast for your answers (James 1:5). Know that there are many of us on here who you can count on for answers to questions you have. I for one may not always be able to agree with a particular understanding you may have about a certain scripture or church history event. But, I would definitely listen with a sincere heart and if I couldn't provide the answer you sought, I would continue to encourage your journey. When Nephi was asked if he knew of the condescension of God, he replied, "I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things" (1 Nephi 11:16-17). There are many answers we may not get in this lifetime. Heaven knows I have several myself. But, I do know He loves His children and will bless them for diligently seeking Him (Hebrews 11:6; James 1:5; 13th Article of Faith).

I hear that. Even the angels already plead with Heavenly Father for the wheat to be separated from the tares.

2 Peter 2:21

This is so sad.... I mean, it's just foolish to do this. I mean, yeah, I feel pain when someone is ex-communicated, and yes I was vocal about Kate Kelly. But, I got over it and moved on. I would never hand in my "resignation" or temple recommend over it. Plus, they can repent and return, as many of you on this site have accurately pointed out. As sad as it is, and as much as I disagree with what they're doing, I had wondered if this would happen. Sadly, it has. http://fox13now.com/2014/07/24/mormon-group-plans-mass-resignation-to-protest-excommunications/

Yes, it does.

Freedom.

Here's an idea you could try.... but it would require some effort on your part. Less headaches though. I run anywhere from 4-11 group therapy sessions a week. These are open groups (meaning any therapeutic topic is welcomed) with a wide variety of clients. We get people in these groups (we call them monopolizers in the clinical literautre) who have to dominate (hijack) the entire session. A couple ideas I've used have already been presented, so here's one I've had success with: I take a monopolizer aside before the group starts and I say something like, "I really appreciate all your participation. You seem to have some valuable insight (I just don't mention who the insight is or is not valuable to) and I do want to hear some of your thoughts. So, I was wondering, would you be willing to listen to the responses of others in group today, think about the overall discussion as you listen, and then come talk to me after group for 4 or 5 minutes to give me a brief synopsis of your thoughts and impressions of how you feel the discussion went and the topics we talked about." But then I have to follow at the end of the session or I undermine my credibility. And I be sure to say it in a way that is genuine and authentic. ("When it is given in a spirit of love it is received in a spirit of love.") 1) I've validated the person. 2) they are being asked a favor (in psychology, we call this "the helper's high"). 3) they know they are going to get 1-on-1 time, even if it is just for a few minutes. 4) others have been provided opportunities to participate. 5) I've avoided contention with the monopolizer. 6) I've created new possibilities for the monopolizer to choose from. The clinical literature is very adamant, and I've seen this myself, that after some time (not a week or a month, but not a year either), the monopolizer begins to modify their own behavior. I realize this is church, which is very different from therapy. Obviously, as with anything else, feel free to modify as appropriate. Hopefully this is something that might work for your situation. Good luck. Monopolizers are tasking, that's for sure.

That was an excellent read. I was thinking about where I work (analogous to the church). My boss, (analogous to the prophet) constantly supervises our site and is always making suggestions, adjusting policy, amending paperwork procedures, and (he'd be the first to admit it) making mistakes. Much of the changes made in the past two years have been corrections and adjustments to previous policies/procedures laid out by previous supervisors (analogous to church history). Sometimes my boss says, "This is how it is," and then comes back a month or two later and says, "After talking with the legal department, it actually needs to be this way." (Analogous to fallibility of the prophets and "thus saith the Lord." Having said all that, my current boss is the best boss I've ever worked for and is still very good at what he does despite being human. I would not just up and leave my place of employment merely because fallible bosses make changes, sometimes make mistakes, and set rules above me that I can't control. I understand that my institution is run by good leaders who, although fallible, receive instruction from those above them and execute the authority necessary to keep the institution running at it's best possible capacity, and I contribute my part. If we all quit everything just because of the imperfections of all people and institutions within society, nobody would stick to anything. Why would any of that be different for the church? :)