Quote
The study of ethics and moral reasoning is making logical or rational decisions about things we prioritize or value when they involve decisions or people where the morality of the action is not entirely clear. We do not often discuss moral reasoning in the church, but it is there in the scriptures. Jesus prioritized saving the ox, feeding the apostles, and healing the sick over honoring the Sabbath. These are all ethical dilemmas, where doing a morally good action comes at the cost of doing a conflicting morally bad action. His choices showed that he valued the Sabbath (since he observed the Sabbath most of the time), but it was subordinate to promoting the welfare of others (since he chose to do that, even if it 'broke' the Sabbath).
What do we value in the church? Since moral reasoning is typically unspoken at church, reasonable people can come to different conclusions about what values the church prioritizes, but these are the conclusions that I have drawn.
1) We often place personal purity and righteousness over other good actions. At least up until 2016, personal righteousness/purity was often discussed and promoted in church as a characteristic that we should seek to uphold among those in public office. In this regard, Gina's statement above-while shockingly frank-reflects a common value judgement espoused in the church where a person's fidelity to marriage commitments overrides any other action they may perform.
2) Loyalty to other members of the church will often trump other good actions. Serving other members in need is often more highly valued that serving others who are needy. We are also encouraged to overlook personal sins (like sexual infidelity) when the sinner has shown a commitment to repenting and staying in the church community-and so I would argue that loyalty to the group often overrides other moral failures in the church (though clearly, Gina would disagree).
3) Respecting the authority of the prophet and other church leaders often trumps all. How many times have we had lessons on the value of a living prophet versus the scriptures? Common sayings in the church like 'follow the prophet [or substitute other leaders], and you'll be blessed for obedience even if the thing they ask is not right? and 'when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done' suggest to me that upholding and honoring the prophet is often the highest moral action that we can perform in the church. I would argue that following the prophet takes precedence over loyalty to other church members, since those who voice views that conflict with the prophet are typically tossed out of the group of members pretty quickly for being disloyal. [As an aside, it is only this value of honoring the prophet that could make early church polygamy acceptable to the membership, who otherwise highly valued personal purity just as Gina does-though I cannot say whether Gina views polygamy as morally acceptable or not].
It is clear the OP, however, is promoting a very different morality-one that promotes the equality of all human beings. The author-s argument is prioritizing equality (both in the church and outside of it) to such a high degree that he is willing to eliminate a narrative strand of the Book of Mormon (which is a disloyal suggestion) and say that past and current leaders are not committed enough to equality (which disrespects their authority).
Here's my personal take-if we accept the author's view of morality, we can no longer stay Mormon (at least in the typical sense-since Mormon values will conflict to some degree). But is the current Mormon sense of morality worth defending?
Advocating for the prophet to change and fix this is the only way one can accept the author's morality and stay Mormon-because once the prophet changes, that becomes the new Mormon morality. But this is a catch-22, since agitating for change in the church also gets you ousted from the church.— Harry B.
Share
Sign In to comment on this quote
