Relativism is the death of our society, and Mormonism encourages it, by continually changing its doctrines. When someone says "Everyone's views are equally valid", they are telling one of the grossest lies imaginable. They are also telling a lie when they say "it's okay as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" - this is the contemporary equivalent of "lying for the Lord".

Thanks to this liberal relativism, we now have ideas like everyone's views on climate change are valid, even if they have no scientific qualifications or if someone feels something is true, then it is a fact. People with no qualifications in science are also able to give us definitive statements on human biology and nature.... Thanks to this relativism, where someone "knows it is true" through their feelings; so much junk has been piled on our society and we're just supposed to sit back and believe it all.

Mormonism encourages this through continual changes in leadership and doctrine. We are expected to believe that Rusty's doctrine is as valid as Smith's or that GBH was telling the truth when he said "I don't think we teach that." When GBH gave that interview to King he was pandering to the evil moral relativism of neoliberal society - the anything goes mentality. By tying his boat to nothing, he ended up letting it float into the swamp.

"If the Trumpet Give an Uncertain Sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?" (1 Cor. 14:28)

Moral Relativism is a fact. It not the Death of our society or any other. One society may thrive and another falter when their ideals and values are not in alignment with reality or the real harm they might cause to others; however, this is extremely rare as such societies tend to die out or change very quickly.

To suggest "Everyone's views are equally valid" is childish and stupid when it applies to morality. Almost no one believes such a thing and those who do are rarely taken seriously. Instead, most everyone's views are sufficiently similar that the group is generally able to arrive at a consensus of moral behavior. As individuals and groups vary from society to society and culture to culture, so also vary the moral rules governing such societies.

Liberal and progressive societies tend to change and thrive, whereas conservative and regressive societies tend to stagnate and even die out. Many conservatives, especially the religious, tend to be so resistant and opposed to change, that when scientific advancements occur, they refuse to believe them. Such individuals have great difficulty living in churches which are progressive and changing in the doctrines and practices over time. Some splinter off to form their own fundamentalist sects, whereas others go in search of a more stable, organization whose doctrine and policies have stagnated or hardened into stone.

By keeping their boat tied to the dock, they never go anywhere.

Gentle Giant of Perdition Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal and progressive societies tend to change
> and thrive, whereas conservative and regressive
> societies tend to stagnate and even die out. Many
> conservatives, especially the religious, tend to
> be so resistant and opposed to change, that when
> scientific advancements occur, they refuse to
> believe them.

This blanket opinion about conservatives and liberalism is an unbelievable and inflamatory stereotype. It's like saying that all balck people are lazy and that all white people are ambitious (a fully flawed prejudice). It is also an opinion about the results of these stereotypes as if they were true. It does not even discuss the actual platform (benefits or specific flaws) of either platform.

We do know that at least that the liberalism of today, is tied to socialism (basic income, health insurance as a human right, etc..). Too many of today's young adults can't even afford to leave their parent's homes (failure to thrive), because no one has ever taught them about how to sacrifice some short-term rewards for long-term gains, or how to start their own business, or let them know that abject poverty is absolutely the default lifestyle unless they choose to plan and take responsibility for their own lives instead of just waiting their turn for abundance to magically fall upon them.

Why can't progressivism include a new and novel belief (at least new to this generation), that entitlements have to be earned? Why can't they believe that their education is a gift to them from the previous generation, one that they need to pass-on to the next generation? How can they pass along anything when the re-distribution of wealth from a diminishing pot isn't going to help anyone in the long term?

I don't even know where to begin other than to say, you clearly have your understanding of what liberalism, progressivism, socialism, etc. are entirely from right-wing propagandists. Also, your characterization of millennials is inaccurate, inflammatory, and ironically hypocritical.

+1

especially the religious, tend to be so resistant and opposed to change, that when scientific advancements occur, they refuse to believe them.
I find this to be especially true when ancient records are translated and they conflict with modern concepts of reality.
As an example I point out translations of Sumerian cuneiform tablets

You seem to be confusing toleration with moral relativism. They are not the same thing. Toleration is an essential element of a republican society which limits the power of majority rule.

Moral relativism is having different standards for when certain ideas or actions are ethical. Mormonism, like all types of fundamentalist Abrahamic religion, is definitely morally relative.

Joseph Smith would routinely claim that actions commonly regarded as sins were ok for him to do such as sexually abusing children, marrying other women's wives. Moral relativism is also changing your truth standard in a morally convenient way.

The church that Smith built is founded on moral relativism but they just call it "continuing revelation." It's why they can reverse their doctrines, such as the black priesthood ban, and then claim that God is still consistent. They will not admit that it was sinful for early LDS leaders to urge capital punishment for interracial marriage. Nor will they admit that the Book of Mormon is racist, even though it repeatedly talks about dark skin as a curse.

Mormons and other Christians also routinely engage in moral relativism about the many monstrous Bible stories in which God orders genocides, murders people for trivial offenses, accepts human sacrifices, or kills all of humanity in a flood.

^^^^^

+Russell Mallard:
“Mormons and other Christians also routinely engage in moral relativism about the many monstrous Bible stories in which God orders genocides, murders people for trivial offenses, accepts human sacrifices, or kills all of humanity in a flood.”

==Christians call that objective morality.
In other words, there is a god and his rules are the only good rules. A christians always has to agree with the rules established by his god. You have to be a “yes-man”.

The god can do anything he wishes. He has a carte blanche. He can kill everybody by snapping his fingers. He can kill most humans with a global flood and label all of them as evil.
He can kill kids, he can kill good people. It doesn’t matter because he has a carte blanche.

Sometimes, christians ask me where I get my morals from and they also write in the same sentence that without a god, there are no moral rules.

Bizarre humans.

~~~~iceman9090

This thread looks for all the world like Jordan could no longer suppress the urge to lecture the usual suspects that he sees as a threat to the good order of society.

The Amish are pretty good examples of moral absolutists, though even there, there are about 50 shades of Amish. More if you include the Hutterites, Mennonites, and the like.

The nice thing about moral absolutists is that they are so busy excommunicating each other, that they never can grow very large and cause much damage in the larger world. It is a self-limiting infection.

Yes, Jordan was present in two different guises earlier today.

"Moral relativism," "liberals," "progressives," "liberal relativism. . ." The usual boogeymen. You can almost see the words "cultural Marxism" struggling to burst forth from Jordan's chest.

All morals are relative.

But not all relatives are moral.

+Dave the Atheist:
"All morals are relative."

==It depends on how you look at it.

For example, when it comes to slavery, is it ok for one human being to own another human being?
I would say no. I do not want to be treated as property nor do I want to treat another person as property.
I think all humans would agree that they don't want to be slaves.

If you include some other animals, let's say the cow, some would say it is wrong to enslave cows while others say they are inferior to humans and that makes it ok.

~~~~iceman9090

But slavery is OK for convicts ?

+Dave the Atheist:
“But slavery is OK for convicts ?”

==First, I’ll give my definition of morality.
If you aren’t harming others, then it is not a question of morality. For example, shaving your head is not immoral. Not worshiping a god is not immoral. Wearing a digital watch is not immoral.

Enslaving other people is taking away their freedom and so, I count it as immoral.

By convict, do you mean people who have committed a major crime like murder?
I suppose the jail system can give him a job to do but if they refuse, that is up to him. He can return to his jail cell.

~~~~iceman9090

I believe this was earlier called 'situation ethics'

"If you never do anything wrong, you're not doing it right."


"Morally Relative and Relatively Moral sound as if one might be the reverse of the other, but if there were ever a truth to tell, neither would be it."

--Judic West, out of both sides of his mouth



In the sodden spring of 1735, whilst traveling to market, the coach of the Earl of Ladenwell become stuck in the mire of Olde Markete Roade. The rain was pouring down and the Earl soon became very wroth.

Within a few minutes, the Duke of McDonalds, his arch enemy, happened by and began to make sport of the Earl. Because the Earl was indeed an heir (quite distant, of course) to the throne, he could and did begin to curse the Duke royally!

This ired the Duke and his wroth was bigger than the Earl's wroth! But both quieted down as Count David Roth rode by, on his way to be waxed, languidly twiddling his fingers at his two peers of the realm. The Count was famous for his being a waxed Roth...

During that quiet interlude, the Earl decided that letting the Duke provoke him was silly, so he climbed back into this coach and began to play gin rummy with his mistress, Lady Shawna Hanks. When the Duke tried to reignite their 'discussion', the Earl ignored him.

The Duke of McDonalds was sore angry and called the Earl a filet of fish, which in truth wasn't much of cat-call. The Earl's brief response, words that have rung down through the centuries as well as wrung out through the wringers, was "Whiner whiner, chicken diner!"

Now totally mispronounced, the Earl's response continues to haunt us.

I say this in Even Jesus name, aw mehn.

Moral relativism has another name. Try hypocrisy.

+Captain Bell:
“Mormonism encourages this through continual changes in leadership and doctrine. We are expected to believe that Rusty's doctrine is as valid as Smith's or that GBH was telling the truth when he said "I don't think we teach that." “

==Who is GBH and what is he saying exactly?
I am a nevermo, so I don’t know every little detail that you are talking about.

Isn’t a change in leadership normal? Humans die. Another guy replaces him.

What doctrines have changed? I have heard about the polygamy being canceled in the LDS sect. Black can’t hold the priesthood. Something about killing a whitey that marries a blacky.
Anything else?

~~~~iceman9090

None of my relatives are moral.

Mormonism has an Uncertain Sound, NO RHYTHM, an unfair and wishy-washy quality, and a terrible smell and stain.

It's neither moral nor relative to everlasting life.

I never heard the (trumpet) call. Obstacles and stumbling blocks I never liked. I am the one making the calls. This is MY LIFE.

I think that the shift of beliefs in mormonism that we have seen in just the past few years is a good example of moral relativism. When I was young, the prophet and the general authorities spoke and whatever they said, that was how it was. Mormon church beliefs were often difficult to accept and those beliefs were non-negotiable. Dissention was met with excommunication. Back then, many of the things that the church has lightened-up on recently were different than they are today, and were set in stone.

Then just a few years ago (maybe 2010 or 2012?), the essays started showing up on the mormon church's official web-site. By this time, mormonism was taking quite a beating in public opinions and had basically lost the war of what is moral to believe and what was immoral to believe. The internet prevented dissenting voices from being silenced as they once were. The church had a choice of either changing its beliefs or being abandoned by many of its members and being stuck maintaining bad beliefs forever as they declined from public acceptance and the rest of civilization went a different direction away from them. So the Mormon church adapted and their beliefs changed. Suddenly the Prophet and the General authorities sat silently and did nothing, as anonymous authors taught new and different mormon church beliefs on the church's official web-site. Those church leaders of the church's recent past are all laying low for now as new church policies and beliefs are being installed in to mormonism by nameless voices who have no official ecclesiastical authority. Eventually, new mormon prophets and general authoriries will emerge, teaching the same things that those anonymous authors are now teaching, but by that time it will be called revelation. They will also claim that these new beliefs were always true, without admitting that the prophets and apostles and other general authorities of previous generations did lead us astray.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2020 04:48AM by azsteve.

LDS version:

Polygamy, anyone?

It was OK for Joey & Briggy to tolerate ( for Briggy to invoke, promote) slavery, because that was the normal for those days.

Trouble is that this persisted down to the GA (Peterson?) statement 'Negroes can have a Cadillac if they can afford one' (paraphrase, not a direct, exact quote). So yesterday's 'normal' becomes today's embarrassment...

That was from the 70's or 80's, correct?

The most prominent aspect of Mormonism is that it's slippery; what works in one decade may not in the next;

'If there's anything that's permanent, it's change'