The Mormon Dilemma

Pessimist here, and I'm not happy about it.

mormon here, would you like to get baptized?

/s

The Wiccan god isn’t really a god at all but rather the force of energy that breathes life into all things. It’s up to the individual to decide if we give this energy sapience, personally I believe in it as a force of nature that just is, and that when you die you become a part of it.

It’s the residual energy of the world around us. Maintaining the balance of life and death and fate. It sits in the air like a billion invisible strands connecting one thing to the next and to the next.

It’s even more complicated than that. Initially, Joseph Smith conceived of priesthood power the way recited in the Book of Mormon with Alma, who prays to gain power to baptize, feels the Holy Spirit come down, and self baptizes. This is most likely what Joseph himself did as well with his scribe, Oliver Cowdery. When they first form a church a few months later (1830), Joseph is the “first elder” and Oliver the “second elder,” with others then being ordained by one of the two as elders, priests, or teachers.

Later, Joseph Smith starts adding more offices to continue expanding the hierarchy. First deacons are added as the lowest group of men, then a “high priesthood” was added (which was initially above elder) to make an inner circle above the others (1831). Finally, as Joseph adds further pieces of the hierarchy, including a first presidency, a high council, and 12 apostles, he starts speaking in 1835 about the two priesthoods having been restored in 1829 by angelic visitation. John the Baptist was supposed to have restored the “Aaronic” priesthood, which now includes the deacons teachers, and priests. Peter, James, and John were supposed to have restored the “Melchizedek” priesthood, which now includes elder, high priest, apostle, and prophet.

I'm on the East Coast, so I'll drink my next beer in your honor.

​

I only bring up biblical morality to demonstrate that having god as the basis of a morality system does not resolve your own concerns. So this whole discussion is rather unproductive. All we have to do is turn each of your questions around. Can it be demonstrated that god's law is the universal, objectively true and binding standard? The answer is no. Even if we just accept that for argument's sake, take it one more step back. Why is god's law the standard? It turns into an infinite regression loop. So simply saying that god is the basis of morality gets you no further than saying morality is based on a hedgehog seeing its shadow. God is only necessary to your moral system because you say he is.

There is no intrinsic, universal imperative for anyone to care what god says. At the end of the day, you think I should listen to what god says to live a better life, or go to heaven, or avoid going to hell. But isn't that just a reimagination of wellbeing?

This is where we need to discuss "binding." I'm guessing that you position is that without assured punishment for my sins, the moral code is invalid. So if morality is based on wellbeing, and I rape someone then commit suicide, I never suffered; therefore my moral code was invalid. My issue is that the entire point of christian theology is that we need not be punished for our sins. I'm not sure where you stand on grace/works, but couldn't I rape someone, get saved, then die and avoid punishment? If so, then the moral pronouncement to not rape (which the bible doesn't contain by the way) is not binding. The very basis of christianity is that god's rules have a big exception. They are not binding.

There isn't a charge you have levied against secular morality that is resolved by appealing to divine command theory.

So, let's start instead with what we know. Let's start with the objective facts about the universe. Some things are beneficial to us and some are harmful. We can determine those things by observing reality. We can then make determinations of what we ought do or not do to increase wellbeing or to avoid diminishing wellbeing. Those determinations are objective in that they are not unique to any individual. They are universal in that they apply to everyone who lives in the same reality we do. Are they binding? This depends on what you mean. If you mean it the way I think you do that I addressed above, then it's irrelevant because nothing can be demonstrated to be binding in that sense.

Since we want to have discussions about morality, we have to lay some groundwork. We can choose as a basis anything we want. The basis we choose is kind of irrelevant, because we use the facts of the universe to judge our work. If we choose as a basis that death is preferable to life and sickness is preferable to health, the facts of reality will show that our system is not sustainable.

The only reason we even need a basis at all is to aid in conversation. Whether we believe something is moral or not, natural processes are going to dictate the results of our actions. And just because we all agree, doesn't mean we are right. The truth is independent of our system. This is another area where biblical morality fails. Biblical morality is the ultimate moral relativism in that each community of believers defines their own moral code and defends it by appealing to god. Even though the moral codes differ (sometimes materially), each community clings to their code because they believe it is from god when it is demonstrably man-made and enforced.

Long story short, the facts of reality are the basis for the best moral systems. Welbeing is simply a framework for discussion.

The explanation you linked to.

I'm glad I'm not your bishop too! I remember reading this (or something similar) at the beginning of my faith evolution. I can see the appeal to it, and I don't blame you for liking it.

I think this demonstrates my point very clearly. You want to be honest and you want to be Mormon. You're trying to find ways to make them both fit in your mind despite knowing the church is not what it claims to be. So you play word games with the truth and skate by on technicalities so you can feel ok about not believing what they are asking if you believe. They ask point blank if you have a testimony of the restoration. Your comments here indicate that you don't. But you find a way to justify saying yes. That is absolutely dishonest. That's the whole reason I made this gif is to highlight the fact that these three things can't coexist.

One of the things I love about this sub is that people here understand things I have gone through like no one else. I feel like I was at a point where I wanted the church to be true and was trying to make it work despite what I had learned. It was finally honesty that broke me. I realized that even if I only taught the young men things I actually believed, my presence and participation in church signaled implicit approval and belief of the doctrines. I couldn't know what I knew and be in the church, because doing so would be misrepresenting what I believe.

You may feel ok with your implicit dishonesty, but it's still dishonest.