"Follow the prophet, He knows the way…"

That’s a tough one. I don’t know your daughters mental comprehension skills. But I did find this little quote helpful in making wiggle room for prophetic infallibility. (though that is not what he intended.)

He said one of the great lessons of his 93-year life is that people are God’s children and he speaks to them.

“It’s no different for you than it is for me,” he said. “You can get personal revelation for your own circumstances, just as naturally as I can for my circumstances. You get it for your family and yourself, and I get it for the whole church.”

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900016023/dowry-is-not-the-lords-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle.html” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900016023/dowry-is-not-the-lords-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle.html

I would plan for the long game on this one. Taking small steps. I would even start with a simple, “Honey, for me, I look to Jesus Christ.” Maybe even share an example from Jesus that guides you. Then say a prophet in the bible was turning people to Jesus. Let her sit with that for a while. You can build on it over the years.

You can even hand her back the song, “I am trying to be like Jesus.”

My suggestion: You need to break the Black & White dichotemy.

“People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict.”

One of the dangers in that is that it leads to moral relativism. Yes, this is true up to a point, but there ARE people who are much more wicked or noble than each other. Both of us probably sit somewhere in the middle, but you can’t equate Father Damien who worked selflessly with the lepers in Molokai with Ted Bundy (although if you see some of the interviews with Bundy they are extremely interesting and he does explain part of how he was corrupted by violent pornography).

One of the dangers in that is that it leads to moral relativism.

How?

Because it ends up with shades of gray, when certain behavior puts you more firmly into one category or the other.

Two other very applicable examples I thought of, for people we might fundamentally disagree with, but where some level of goodness can still be found:

1. Genghis Khan: Bloodthirsty raider, killed his half brother… and was one of the strongest advocates for freedom of religion of his time. All religions were to be respected, none preferred, and both clergy and all other public servants received tax-exemption status.

2. Vikings: Bloodthirsty pagan raiders and slavers… who granted near-equal rights to women, including the ownership of property, fair inheritance, sue for divorce (and recoup dowry) with ease, and manage their own land, finances, and business. Also, violence against viking women was strictly forbidden, even in raids against rival Nords.

Because it ends up with shades of gray, when certain behavior puts you more firmly into one category or the other.

Moral relativism is refusing to label actions as good or bad. I’m refusing to label people. No matter how terrible a person’s actions, it doesn’t negate all the good in their life. And no matter how great a person’s actions, it doesn’t negate the bad.

I disagree. If you’re raising a child, and they have great fun with you one day and then you assault them the next, then the bad certainly does cancel out the good.

There is definitely a ripple effect in good and bad actions, much of but not all the time. They often lead and inspire you or others into other actions which are better and worse. The interplay of good and bad makes things complicated though.