Imposing Modern Morality on the Past

[Anonymous]

This touches so many hot topics that are on my mind lately. I’d like to see what you guys think and especially see if you can help find anything from GC talks, etc about this topic.

Do we have a responsibility to look at the past with our modern morality in place or do we have a responsibility to “shed” our bias when trying to understand the past?

Example 1: I believe I read somewhere (long ago) from a GA (?) that we DO need to impose our morality on past events when trying to understand them. This idea was used in reference to the practice of ritualistic human sacrifice. The complaint was that anthropologists and historians would have us not judge the sacrifices as satanic and evil. IOW, we should be able to look at human sacrifice and say “that is always evil and a sign of worshipping false gods.”

Example 2: Whenever polygamy comes up on other LDS sites it seems that anti-polygamists are blamed for “imposing modern morality” on past people. These apologists seem to be saying that we CANNOT impose our morality when trying to understand past events.

This is also done for pretty much every bad or ugly thing done in the OT times.

To me, it seems obvious that we cannot judge anyones eternal salvation or state based on our modern perceptions. HOWEVER, I believe it is imperative that we use our inner guide to tell us what events and behaviors ARE bad, wicked, evil, wrong, immoral and unethical.

Another thing that seems to be happening is that “we” (pretty much everyone) are happy to impose our personal morality on past people and present people when it conflicts with our personal theology and belief system. When it is part of our canon, theology or religion we will not question or impose our personal moral code.

So, what are your thoughts?

[Anonymous]

To a degree, I can see the logic in this. Especially as it relates to what was understood at the time. But I also have a bit of a problem when it is suggested to look at “presentism” only when it gives the justification for some of the weird early church leader events (polygamy, polyandry, etc); and not when looking at the seemingly miraculous, divine interventions during the same era. For example, the first vision reports are often mentioned by some church scholars to have really been a dream — as dreams were considered messages from God in those days. If that is true, then it seems the norms of the day should also be presented when discussing (or “selling”) the reality of the first vision, and all its implications.

Also, I tend to believe the possibility of entheogens (hallucinogenics) used sacramentally by Joseph to induce spiritual manifestations at various times (see http://mormonelixirs.org/). It seems very wrong today for him to have done that, but it appears that it was quite common in many religious traditions back then. But we tend to look at the reported events (eg, at the Kirtland Temple dedication) as being literal and actual, rather than drug-induced hallucinations.

Anyway, I just think that if we look at the era from a modern view to excuse what we believe today to be wrong, we should also give the same critical view of the historical truth claims.

(from a diagonal perspective….)

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

Also, I tend to believe the possibility of entheogens (hallucinogenics) used sacramentally by Joseph to induce spiritual manifestations at various times (see http://mormonelixirs.org/). It seems very wrong today for him to have done that, but it appears that it was quite common in many religious traditions back then. But we tend to look at the reported events (eg, at the Kirtland Temple dedication) as being literal and actual, rather than drug-induced hallucinations.

This actually makes a lot of sense, and would correlate to Hawkgrrl’s thesis that JS was trying to help others to attain his same mystical experiences.

Even if hallucinogenics were not used, “The Mysteries of Godliness” makes it clear that extreme physical circumstances could have contributed to the visions (sleep deprivation – people in the temple before Kirtland pentecost were required to stay awake all night, fasting while waiting in the temple – all night and the next day, isolation in separate rooms in small groups who were required to pray until something happened, liberal drinking of wine – told by JS that it was consecrated and so would not make them drunk, power of suggestion in this state of deprivation that they would experience something miraculous, etc.)

[Anonymous]

My personal belief is that we are judged by God according to how we live what we know / understand / believe – not what others know / understand / believe. I don’t want to construct a paradigm that is stricter or harsher on people than what I believe God uses, so I try intentionally – very hard – to err on the side of charity and compassion. I also want that from others, so I try to give it to others. In short, I believe Matthew 7:1-3 and try to follow it as fully as I possibly can.

I posted something on Monday on my personal blog that addresses exactly this issue:

(“Compassion vs. Judgment”) http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/10/compassion-vs-judgment.html

[Anonymous]

I actually have often thought about this. Many persons claim that Cain was an evil man for slaying his brother Able. May I say one thing in his defense. Ancient man romped about committing murder on a regular basis. What intrigued me so much about Cain, was that he is one of the very first human beings (homo sapiens) to acknowledge murdering his brother and give a motive.

Cain described his brothers blood as “crying from the ground”. Cain asked a question that had never before been asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Cain had a conscience, he thought about what he did.

As the human brain evolved, or frontal cortex (right behind our forward) suddenly became large. We began to experience feelings of sympathy, empathy and foresight. For the very first time, human beings (homo sapiens) began to comprehend the abstracts of life, death, good, evil, murder, sin and even God. Cain didn’t just murder Able, he actually sat and thought about it. Am I my brother’s keeper? That is one of the most profound questions in all of humanity. What is our relationship to our brothers and sisters or our fellow men? Cain actually realized that he was accountable to a higher power, God – you can’t just kill someone and expect that no one will notice.

Cain was just smarter than the average Cro-Magnon. I don’t think that he ever killed again (at least I hope not). 6,000 years ago, that’s a long, long time ago.

[Anonymous]

A good topic. Thanks for bringing this up, Just Me.

I think this is a big part of why I get interested in the church history, but at some point let things go. Like Ray said, I think we are accountable for what we know and what we are faced with, and it is dangerous to take our current paradigms and knowledge and look backwards with 20/20 hindsight to apply what we think to groups or people who lived in different circumstances.

Using this same logic, it is interesting to take ancient biblical specific situations and apply to them today to modern morality, other than in a symbolic way that helps me apply the teachings to my circumstances, not apply the exact laws and actions, but the principles and teachings.

[Anonymous]

I have much agreement with JustMe’s position, as well as Ray’s. I think we need to try to charitably look at the past, but I think we can look at past actions and ultimately say, “if that happened today, it would be wrong.” For example, Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac is a great story that tells us to put our faith and trust in God. We need to put God first in our lives. But if God comes to me and tells me to kill my son, that’s just too far. If we limit our appreciation of Abraham’s story to putting God first in our lives, and being willing to do nearly anything, then I think it is a great story. But, I’m sorry, I’m not willing to worship a God who tells me human sacrifice is an ok thing to do. I’m not willing to kill my son, and I have to say that I’m really uncomfortable with this story.

Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi (Spain, early 14th century) wrote that Abraham’s “imagination” led him astray, making him believe that he had been commanded to sacrifice his son. Ibn Caspi writes “How could God command such a revolting thing?”

I agree with the Rabbi.

[Anonymous]

This is a great topic! Thanks just me!

I come down on the side of ethics. People use whatever they want to justify ideas, actions, deeds, misdeeds, etc. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to convince himself that there were sub-species of humans to justify his owning as slaves other humans. I think he knew better but the “flesh was weak”.

Unfortunately, the ignorance and prejudice of man has extended into religious practice and theology. “Curse of dark skin”. Eve as temptress. Justified genocide. And that was all in the last century.

I think the deeper issue is how humans have justified their self-aggrandizing enmity towards other humans. It’s not an accident that JS didn’t want to publicize his polygamy. Or, that Jefferson felt the need to use science to justify his slave-holding. They knew, at some level, that this was wrong.

I was watching “Citizen Kane” this week and thought it was funny that a character in the movie was trying to get a cigar from a reporter who was interviewing him in a hospital. His doctor didn’t want him to smoke because, according to the character, the doctor was trying to “keep him alive”. This was 1941. It took another fifty years for the tobacco companies to admit that smoking was hazardous to your health. Yet, even in 1941, it was common knowledge that this was the case. But tobacco companies were willing to kill millions of people in horrific ways for the bottom line. And, I’m sure, felt justified in this mass murder.

This may sound self-serving, but it’s happening right now. Congress is about to pass a bill that includes an amendment to add violence against homosexuals to the list of “hate crimes”. Right now, violence against gays is not a “hate crime”. And, those that are against passage of this legislation (and there are many and they are vociferous) are claiming that it could lead to religious leaders being charged with inciting crime if they preach against homosexuality and then someone in their congregation goes out and commits a crime against a homosexual.

It seems that humans, especially orthodox ideological humans, must always create the “other” to rail against. And, when it’s couched in the “will of God”, there’s no means off-limits to justify the ends.

I guess what I’m saying is that ethics don’t change, just people’s ability to have their justifications accepted by their community. Yes, ethics can be a moving target to some societies and there is lots of gray area, but if the goal is love, respect and equality for all humans, the means are felt in the heart. And, they’ve never changed. I mean, one of the ten commandments is “thou shalt not covet”. That’s a pretty nuanced position even by today’s standard yet it was a commandment thousands of years ago.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, there are a lot of things in the Old Testament that I take issue with because they’re part of the spiritual history of the church. It’s easier to excuse things I think are wrong if I don’t have the issue of, “My church believes God was involved in organizing this type of religion?”

On the one hand, I think there are things that are wrong (lack of personal responsibility and intentionally hurting self or others are really my only basic moral imperatives). Yet at the same time, I also believe that people are largely a product of their environment. I guess I really come down on issues in the past as, “That was wrong, but I understand why they did it;” that’s applicable to both imposing modern morality on the past and to imposing my current morality on others (in terms of what I believe is wrong, not in terms of actually trying to make everyone have the same morals I do). Guess this is kinda fence-sitting, but I’m a fairly moderate person.

I really like what Ray said here

My personal belief is that we are judged by God according to how we live what we know / understand / believe – not what others know / understand / believe. I don’t want to construct a paradigm that is stricter or harsher on people than what I believe God uses, so I try intentionally – very hard – to err on the side of charity and compassion. I also want that from others, so I try to give it to others. In short, I believe Matthew 7:1-3 and try to follow it as fully as I possibly can.

In the words of my good friend, “Most people are just doing the best they can.” So it doesn’t pay to be harsh on yourself or others. Love em all and let God sort it out.

[Author]

Posts