Black and White

[Angela]

Um, betsy... I was obviously thanking Steve and Ian for the quotes they had provided. Sorry for the confusion.

[Betsy]

Well you are welcome just the same, Angela!

Innocent until proven guilty Ian!

[Ian]

Absolute truth exists in a world that increasingly disdains and dismisses absolutes.

Elder David A. Bednar, Come and See, General Conference, April 2014

[Steve]

Thanks, Ian.

We live in a world where more and more persons of influence are teaching and acting out a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. ...

On the foundation belief in right and wrong, there is an alarming contrast between the older and the younger generations. According to survey data of two decades ago, “79 percent of American adults [believed] that ‘there are clear guidelines about what’s good and evil that apply to everyone regardless of the situation.’” In contrast, a more recent poll of college seniors suggests that “three-quarters of [them] believe that the difference between right and wrong is relative.” ...

In this troubled circumstance, we who believe in God and the corollary truth of absolute right and wrong have the challenge of living in a godless and increasingly amoral world. In this circumstance, all of us—and especially you of the rising generation—have a duty to stand up and speak up to affirm that God exists and that there are absolute truths His commandments establish. ...

I have chosen to speak about truth because teachers in schools, colleges, and universities are teaching and practicing relative morality. This is shaping the attitudes of many young Americans who are taking their places as the teachers of our children and the shapers of public attitudes through the media and popular entertainment. This philosophy of moral relativism denies what millions of believing Christians, Jews, and Muslims consider fundamental, and this denial creates serious problems for all of us.

(Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Truth and Tolerance, September 11, 2011) ↗

[Steve]

The adversary has many cunning strategies for keeping mortals from the truth. He offers the belief that truth is relative; appealing to our sense of tolerance and fairness, he keeps the real truth hidden by claiming that one person’s “truth” is as valid as any other.

Some he entices to believe that there is an absolute truth out there somewhere but that it is impossible for anyone to know it.

For those who already embrace the truth, his primary strategy is to spread the seeds of doubt. For example, he has caused many members of the Church to stumble when they discover information about the Church that seems to contradict what they had learned previously.

If you experience such a moment, remember that in this age of information there are many who create doubt about anything and everything, at any time and every place. ...

And it is always good to keep in mind, just because something is printed on paper, appears on the Internet, is frequently repeated, or has a powerful group of followers doesn’t make it true.

Sometimes untrue claims or information are presented in such a way that they appear quite credible. However, when you are confronted with information that is in conflict with the revealed word of God, remember that the blind men in the parable of the elephant would never be able to accurately describe the full truth.

We simply don’t know all things—we can’t see everything. What may seem contradictory now may be perfectly understandable as we search for and receive more trustworthy information. Because we see through a glass darkly, we have to trust the Lord, who sees all things clearly.

Yes, our world is full of confusion. But eventually all of our questions will be answered. All of our doubts will be replaced by certainty. And that is because there is one source of truth that is complete, correct, and incorruptible. That source is our infinitely wise and all-knowing Heavenly Father. ...

Some, however, do not seek for truth so much as they strive for contention. They do not sincerely seek to learn; rather, they desire to dispute, to show off their supposed learning and thus cause contention. They ignore or reject the counsel of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: “Foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do [generate contention].”

(President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, What Is Truth?, January 2013) ↗

[Steve]

Sorry this is so long! This talk was custom-built for Betsy and any who share her philosophies, though. Elder Romney covers the answers to solving social ills, individualism versus giving heed to the prophets, the crucial acknowledgement of black and white, socialism, and violence as a solution in the defense of freedom, all in the same talk! Enjoy.

We know the cause of the world's ills and we know what the remedy is. Our knowledge was not borne of our own wisdom, but it is certain and the remedy sure because both have been revealed from heaven. They were given for the guidance of everyone; for when the Lord revealed them, he said, "... the voice of the Lord is unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear." And then he thus stated the cause: "... the inhabitants of the earth . . . seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own God .... " (D&C 1:11, 13, 16.)

President Tanner tells of an experience which emphasizes this point. At the end of a spirited conversation between a sectarian minister and a Mormon missionary, the minister said, "Well, anyway, we are both trying to serve the Lord." "Yes," replied the missionary, "you in your way and I in His."

It is precisely because the "wisest men among us" "seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but . . . walk . . . in [their] own [ways] and after the image of [their] own Gods . . ."(D&C 1:16) that they in their searching "have not found the answers." ...

To the extent we accept and follow the wisdom of the world in the things about which God has spoken, we impede rather than assist in the establishment of his righteousness. ...

Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. (DHC, V, 134-135.)

If we are to attain this objective, it is imperative that we always keep in mind that the doctrines and commandments of the gospel constitute the base from which we must always attack our problems and which we must never desert as we seek happiness. ...

One good way to avoid being deceived is to compare what the Lord has said concerning a matter with the action or theory proposed.

Sometimes it is thought that deceptions are confined to theological theory. This is by no means true. Many of them are dissembled in social and civic programs. To test procedures and concepts projected in these programs by the revealed word of God and act pursuant to his word is not always easy. To do so requires one to subordinate to the revealed word of the Lord his own learning and prejudices and the learning and wisdom of other men. This test really measures one's faith.

The perfect faith of Christ enabled him to always do the Father's will:

I do nothing of myself; . . . he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (John 8:28-29.)

How do you rate on this test? When required to make a decision, do you find out what the Lord has said on the subject and make your decision in harmony therewith? Or do you say, as the Israelites in effect said to Samuel, "We don't care what the Lord says. We will have a king over us." This they said and this they did, notwithstanding the Lord's warning that they were voting themselves into bondage. Read the full account in I Samuel, chapter 8, and see how they had three kings; then they had a division of the kingdom; then part of them went into slavery, and the rest were lost.

Let us now consider some current trends and compare them in theory and practice with what the Lord has said on the principles involved.

In the April, 1964, Reader's Digest is an article entitled, "The Thin Gray Line," which line is "becoming daily grayer and thinner-to the point almost of imperceptibility." From this article I quote the following: ...

When people of my age were young, the advantage we had morally was we knew right from wrong, even though we did not always act right. But we did not kid ourselves by trying to come up with the specious rationalization that black was white. Today lots of young people have only a big grey area, black having merged into white, the old clear-cut moral distinctions [have] gone by the board. (Deseret News, February 22, 1954.)

As to the Church's position on this question of right and wrong, President George Albert Smith frequently used to say that there is a well-defined line between the Lord's territory and the devil's territory-- that as long as one stays on the Lord's side of the line, he is safe; but when he crosses over the line, he is in the devil's power.

The Book of Mormon tells of one anti-Christ, Korihor, who taught this doctrine about there being no difference between right and wrong.

He taught that "... whatsoever a man did was no crime." (Alma 30:17.) This doctrine caused many "... to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms-- . . ." (Alma 30:18.)

Though he lived more than twenty centuries ago, Korihor was in this matter as modern as today. Were he living now, he might well be a leader among the modern intellectuals who contend that there is no absolute right as distinguished from wrong. This pernicious doctrine is today, of course, as it was in the days of Korihor, of Satan. It was conceived to deceive and destroy the souls of men. It is admirably accomplishing its purpose today as it did in the days of Korihor. ...

Another prevailing movement which has materially altered our society and changed our form of government in the last few decades is the transfer to the body politic of the responsibility the Lord put upon the individual to honor his parents and love his neighbor as himself. I do not have time to develop the thesis, but the scriptures are clear that "Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt. 19:19) denote voluntarily helping to provide temporal needs.

The latest official statement of which I am aware illustrating how far perversion of these divine commands has gone is the following:

We [obviously meaning the Federal Government] are going to take [by force of law, of course, backed up by the police power of the State] all of that money that we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it away from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots" that need it so much. (Congressional Record, January 15, 1964, p. 2227.)

I am informed that the other night, on a radio program similar to KSL's "Public Pulse," in a neighboring state, a woman telephoned in who had been greatly disturbed by a suggestion that she help support her parents. "What is the government for," she asked, "if not to support my parents?" Interestingly enough, several calls in rapid succession supported her contention.

Contrast the concepts behind these statements with Paul's statement:

But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house [or "kindred," as the footnote says], he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Tim. 5:8.)

In my view, a dole system, substituting the state-which obtains the means it distributes by force of law-for the individual whom Christ enjoined to give out of brotherly love and Christian charity, prostitutes the principle of Christ's "Good Samaritan" parable. It makes a mockery of his commands to "Honour thy father and thy mother: and . . . love thy neighbour as thyself." (Matt. 19:19.)

Note how such a system varies from Alma's teaching:

. . That the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; . . .

And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, . . . having been commanded of God .... .(Mosiah 18:27-29; italics added.)

Imparting of one 's substance of his own free will and good desires toward God-the Lord's way-does not promote resentment on the part of the giver. It develops love and charity. It does not promote idleness, selfishness or greed on the part of the receiver. Nor does it encourage illegitimacy nor breed generations of welfarees to be pawns in the hands of corrupt politicians.

The way one feels about the Lord's way to care for the needy is a good test of his faith and determination to "seek . . . the Lord to establish his righteousness." ...

One of the many other areas of current interest in which we can easily test our thinking by what the Lord has said about it, is the concept that communism is a theory of government to which we should accommodate ourselves, with the anticipation that it will so change that we can safely live with it. Here is what the Presidency of the Church, whom we sustain as God's spokesmen, has said about it:

We again warn our people in America of the constantly increasing threat against our inspired Constitution and our free institutions set up under it. The same political tenets and philosophies that have brought war and terror in other parts of the world are at work amongst us in America. The proponents thereof are seeking to undermine our own form of government .... These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race,-a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery, and then enslave them.

They suit their approaches to the particular group they seek to deceive. Among the Latter-day Saints they speak of their philosophy and their plans under it, as an ushering in of the United Order.

Recently a missionary was heard to say that here at B.Y.U. she had been told that pure communism-as if there were such a thing (That sounds to me like "Liberty Jail. ")-was the United Order. But to go on with the statement of the Presidency:

Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the Gospel plan .... The United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies .... ("Message of the First Presidency," 112th Annual Conference, April 6, 1942.)

It seems to me that all the hazards involved in accommodating ourselves to communism are implicit in this statement of the First presidency. If you will study it carefully, you will discover them. A hallmark to the works of Satan is the use of force. Communism promises peace, one of the fruits of the gospel, but it undertakes to establish and maintain peace by force. Force has always been the governing principle with Satan. His substitute for the gospel plan presented in the spirit world was to be implemented by force. Force is still his governing principle, while with Christ, the governing principle is self-discipline. For a Latter-day Saint to act upon the expectation that Satan will change is, to say the least, unrealistic. To believe that the fruits of the gospel can be obtained through any program depending on force for its success is a great delusion-a delusion which is very common in our society today.

I had in mind mentioning another matter which springs from a want of moral conviction. It is the doctrine that there is nothing worth fighting for. It expresses sort of a "better-red-than-dead" attitude.

This "no-win" doctrine has resulted in the imprisonment behind the Iron Curtain of millions of people. What is worse, so far as you and I are concerned, is that it carries over into the realm of individual personal conduct. It is another doctrine of Satan. We had better not adopt it. We can win, and we had better do so. If we do not win in the battle of life, we will lose eternal life.. Do not be deceived-there are many things worth fighting for and worth dying for.

Liberty and free agency are worth fighting for. Patrick Henry's cry, "Give me liberty or give me death," ought to find an echo in the heart of every true Latter-day Saint. ...

Remember that the "wisest men among us are still searching for, but have not found, the answers." They have not found them by building up a paternalistic government to relieve us of our independence, thrift and self-respect, and to which we have transferred our divinely imposed responsibility to honor our parents and love our fellow men.

They have not found them by removing the distinction between right and wrong and relieving the individual of responsibility for his own sins. Neither are they moving toward a solution with the attitude that there is nothing worth fighting for. Nor will they find the answers so long as every man ". . . walketh in his own way," after the image of his own worldly God. They will only be found by men who humble themselves and "seek . . . the Lord to establish his righteousness."

(Elder Marion G. Romney, Seek the Lord to Establish His Righteousness, November 10, 1964)

[Betsy]

This talk was custom-built for Betsy and any who share her philosophies, though.

Oh, it was custom built for prophets who share my philosophies? Interesting.

I like how I have become public enemy no. 1 on the forum! Awesome.

Oh, and by the way, this talk never says we should have black and white thinking. It does, however say that there is a distinct right, and a distinct wrong. How true this is, although what is distinctly right for one, might be distinctly wrong for another. So maybe we can look at "black and white" in that way

[Lily]

I like how I have become public enemy no. 1 on the forum! Awesome.

Betsy, we love you! We have real enemies, and you are not one of them. As family, we are on the same team. We obviously disagree on this matter of absolute vs. relative truth, among other issues, but to quash that false dichotomy mentioned elsewhere: we still love you and desire the very best for you.

[Betsy]

I thanks and love you, Lily, and everyone on the forum, and know that in real life, there are no enemies within the family. I guess I am just a poster child (that could be good or bad or both) for the moderate mindset now.

[Steve]

Betsy: I like how I have become public enemy no. 1 on the forum! Awesome.

You're not our enemy. Thanks, Lily. My feelings exactly.

I wouldn't waste my time with these particular discussions if we didn't love you. It's one thing to debate the merits of gun control. I never imagined a day when I'd have to try to convince my own family that there are absolute truths and that moral relativism is a satanic device. Or that only a prophet can reveal Church doctrine. These are some of the most basic tenets of LDS belief. Still, I'll take the time to review them if it might help someone I care about.

EDIT: And I realize that comes off as a little haughty/arrogant, ie "I wouldn't condescend to discuss such simple things..." I don't mean it like that. I know we're all at different places, and we all have our weaknesses and things we need to work on. The Lord loves us where we are and continues to invite each of us to draw closer to Him. I'm sure my flaws could be considered similarly shocking to those who readily manage the things I find to be difficult. All the more reason, I think, why it's important to get the basics in order as soon as possible so our foundations are strong.

[Steve]

The saddest feature of manmade religions is their lack of security. One man constructs one theology; another a different one, and men flock hither and thither, accepting the one that appears, for the moment, to be the best, without the deep feeling that the one finally accepted is absolutely the one and only correct system of thought. Yet, this is logically absurd, for a house is either red or not red; a stick is straight or not straight; a man has truth or only the semblance of truth. Two different truths can not be parallel with respect to the same thing. The final philosophy of life must be based on irrevocable truth. That which is true must always remain true, though the applications may change greatly from generation to generation. It is the absence of such fundamental certainties, no doubt, that leads men into a new search for a satisfying religion, or that drives them away from their old theology.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is obviously a system founded on unvarying certainties. Its doctrines rest on demonstrated truths that lie at the foundation of all sound, acceptable thinking.

(Elder John A. Widtsoe, A Rational Theology As Taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) ↗

The "new morality" denies distinctions between right or wrong, good or evil, substituting a code that decides the right or wrong of behavior according to human need, regardless of what that need is distorted to be.

If we accept the teachings of this concept, it could lead to a society burdened with mass control based upon principles of unrighteous dominion over the individual. It is well known that a communistic philosophy would like to see this succeed in America and throughout the world.

(President Alvin R. Dyer, Conference Report, April 1969)

[Ian]

I have been thinking recently about choices. It has been said that the door of history turns on small hinges, and so do people’s lives. The choices we make determine our destiny.

When we left our premortal existence and entered mortality, we brought with us the gift of agency. Our goal is to obtain celestial glory, and the choices we make will, in large part, determine whether or not we reach our goal.

Most of you are familiar with Alice in Lewis Carroll’s classic novel Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. You will remember that she comes to a crossroads with two paths before her, each stretching onward but in opposite directions. As she contemplates which way to turn, she is confronted by the Cheshire Cat, of whom Alice asks, “Which path shall I follow?”

The cat answers, “That depends where you want to go. If you do not know where you want to go, it doesn’t matter which path you take.”

Unlike Alice, we know where we want to go, and it does matter which way we go, for the path we follow in this life leads to our destination in the next life.

May we choose to build up within ourselves a great and powerful faith which will be our most effective defense against the designs of the adversary—a real faith, the kind of faith which will sustain us and will bolster our desire to choose the right. Without such faith, we go nowhere. With it, we can accomplish our goals.

Although it is imperative that we choose wisely, there are times when we will make foolish choices. The gift of repentance, provided by our Savior, enables us to correct our course settings, that we might return to the path which will lead us to that celestial glory we seek.

May we maintain the courage to defy the consensus. May we ever choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong.

As we contemplate the decisions we make in our lives each day—whether to make this choice or that choice—if we choose Christ, we will have made the correct choice.

President Thomas S. Monson, Choices, April 2016 General Conference

[John]

Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, taught (previously quoted in this thread) “The simple fact is this: anything that does not draw us closer to God takes us away from Him. We have no middle ground, no foggy gray area where we can sin a little without suffering spiritual decline. That is why we must repent and come to Christ daily on submissive knees so that we can prevent our bonfires of testimony from being snuffed out by sin”.

From the same address, comes:
"Unfortunately, some in the Church may believe sincerely that their testimony is a raging bonfire when it really is little more than the faint flickering of a candle. Their faithfulness has more to do with habit than holiness, and their pursuit of personal righteousness almost always takes a back seat to their pursuit of personal interests and pleasure."

and:
"Some people are weak in their faith and testimonies but are not even aware of how precarious their situation is. Many of them likely would be offended at the suggestion. They raise their right hand to sustain Church leaders and then murmur and complain when a decision does not square with their way of thinking."

further:
"We often hear of members who have separated themselves from the Church because some leader, teacher, or member has said or done something to offend them. Others have had their faith shaken when the Brethren have taken a stand with which they disagree. In such cases, I wonder about the faith of those people and whether it was grounded securely in a testimony of the Lord, Jesus Christ, or merely based on their own ideas and social perceptions of what the Church and its members should be."

I endorse a careful reading of the whole of this talk. I know that I myself was healthily chastened by it.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1 ... y?lang=eng

[Ian]

The blessings that flow from welcoming God’s rule in our lives are so enticing, and the alternative so appalling, that if we see things in their true light, we cannot be kept from walking in wisdom’s paths. Among the greatest of the blessings that come from yielding to His will, though it seems ironic to some, is freedom. Let me explain.

First, we must recognize that there are only two options available to us, two paths. Alma put it this way:

Behold, I say unto you, that the good shepherd doth call you; yea, and in his own name he doth call you, which is the name of Christ; and if ye will not hearken unto the voice of the good shepherd, to the name by which ye are called, behold, ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd.

And now if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are ye? Behold, I say unto you, that the devil is your shepherd, and ye are of his fold; and now, who can deny this? [Alma 5:38–39]

Other prophets have stated the same truth. Elijah said simply, “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him” (1 Kings 18:21). I particularly appreciate Lehi’s statement:

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. [2 Nephi 2:27]

There is no third or neutral way. Our choice in this life is not whether we will or will not be subject to any power. We will be. Our choice is to which authority will we yield obedience: God’s or Satan’s? As Lehi stated, it is a choice between liberty and captivity. If it is not one, it is necessarily the other.

It is important that we understand this choice because not knowing the truth could lead us into serious error. As I noted at the outset, there is a philosophy abroad in the world that, in essence, places man in the role of supreme being. This philosophy argues that there is no higher law than one’s own preferences or feelings, one’s own desires and opinions. Each person becomes a law unto himself or herself and should not be subject to any other authority. By this reasoning, whatever one feels is right for him is necessarily right, and the rest of the universe must acknowledge and accept that judgment. In Korihor’s phrase, “whatsoever a man [does is] no crime” (Alma 30:17). No one can judge the right or wrong of another’s choices.

People are not yet willing to accept the end result of this sophistry that would, for example, preclude punishment of a man who commits murder if he felt it was right for him to do it. We still want to define some actions as crimes and prohibit them because of their effects on others. But society has already moved a significant distance down the road toward nonjudgmental acceptance of any and all behavior. Adultery is no longer considered a crime in many jurisdictions despite its devastating impact on others, especially innocent parties. It is preached that such conduct is a personal choice, and the participants decide whether it is right or wrong for them. I have read of students who in their own minds cannot condemn the Nazi Holocaust because to do so would be imposing their values on others—something strictly forbidden by this code of moral relativism. Presumably such persons would not oppose any future genocide. The philosophy that makes each man or woman his or her own lawgiver clearly leads to a lawless and dismal end.

The Lord has said:

That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still. [D&C 88:35]

License is not liberty. Self-absorption and self-indulgence are not freedom. It is yielding to the discipline of God’s will and His love that brings true freedom—the freedom to excel, to create, to bless. The gospel, said President Gordon B. Hinckley, “is a plan of freedom that gives discipline to appetite and direction to behavior” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “A Principle with Promise,” Improvement Era, June 1965, 521). This path is one of increasing knowledge and capacity, increasing grace and light. It is the freedom to become what you can and ought to be. But for your freedom to be complete, you must be willing to give away all your sins (see Alma 22:18), your willfulness, your cherished but unsound habits, perhaps even some good things that interfere with what God sees is essential for you.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson, Allegiance to God, BYU Devotional Address, October 19, 1999

[Steve]

Great talk, Ian, and pretty much draws this thread to a solid conclusion. There are only two options: right and wrong. Life really is black and white.