NOM

Dallin Oaks has talked about moral relativism: it is one of his favorite topics. He likes to say that truth is not relative, and I agree.
OK, If an Evangelical has faith in the bible, a Catholic has faith in their Church, a Muslim has faith in the Koran, an orthodox Jew has faith in their religion, doesn't that mean that faith is RELATIVE, Pres. Oaks?
And if Faith is relative, can it be relied upon to find truth?

Yes, I've already heard the argument that LDS have a special (Magical) faith. How well does that stand up?

deacon blues wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:46 am Dallin Oaks has talked about moral relativism: it is one of his favorite topics. He likes to say that truth is not relative, and I agree.
OK, If an Evangelical has faith in the bible, a Catholic has faith in their Church, a Muslim has faith in the Koran, an orthodox Jew has faith in their religion, doesn't that mean that faith is RELATIVE, Pres. Oaks?
And if Faith is relative, can it be relied upon to find truth?

Yes, I've already heard the argument that LDS have a special (Magical) faith. How well does that stand up?

It holds up exactly as well as any other form of the No True Scotsman fallacy: well enough for those invested in it, and poorly for everyone else.

Faith is equal parts belief and blinders. It doesn't even have to be religious faith to have this quality. I have faith in doing good: cooperating, sharing, egalitarianism. I understand that this will lead me to ignore, excuse, or explain away examples where acting in avarice, narcissism, or psychopathy is favorable. And anyone who believes in those things is wrong. (Aren't they?)

I suppose one difference between me and Pres. Oaks is that I know very well that my faith is relative, arbitrary, and to some extent chosen for me.

Is faith relative? Being a relative is a sure way to get lucrative contracts in the LDS faith!

If you were to pick a topic in the LDS Church such as polygamy and ask certain questions, such as "was it right to marry underage teen girls?" you would get a variety of answers, such as times were different back then. All involving relativistic values and claims: It was required since God wanted it, but He has since changed His mind and thinks monogamy is now okay.

God wanted the Policy of Exclusion for children of same-sex couples in 2015 but changed his mind four years later when members started leaving in droves.

God wanted blacks banned from the priesthood and Temples, but changed his mind when external appeals for justice became overwhelming.

On a local level, look at the bishops you've had. Was the Church always uniform in how it displayed God's love and caring? Seems to me it could run from Bishop Snow of Manti (who had a young man castrated when Snow had a hankering for his GF) to our own Bishop Graey.

"Faith" is definitely relative to where a human is born on this Pale Blue Dot.

(See comment in OP relative to Catholics, Muslims, etc. )

wtfluff wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:31 am "Faith" is definitely relative to where a human is born on this Pale Blue Dot.

(See comment in OP relative to Catholics, Muslims, etc. )

Agree. I’ve seen some memes that basically say how amazing it is that the local religion where we are born always happens to be the one true religion. That is relativism.

Faith is my relative, my granddaughter to be specific. [End snark]

Is faith relative to how far we are willing to go outside of our comfort zone?

It is not supposed to be faith in any church, only faith in God. I'm happy to have an optimist outlook on life, to forgive people, work for the best - I think that is all "faith in God" means - just do what you are able to do, be happy, and put the rest in God's hands.

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 12:38 am Is faith relative? Being a relative is a sure way to get lucrative contracts in the LDS faith!

If you were to pick a topic in the LDS Church such as polygamy and ask certain questions, such as "was it right to marry underage teen girls?" you would get a variety of answers, such as times were different back then. All involving relativistic values and claims: It was required since God wanted it, but He has since changed His mind and thinks monogamy is now okay.

God wanted the Policy of Exclusion for children of same-sex couples in 2015 but changed his mind four years later when members started leaving in droves.

God wanted blacks banned from the priesthood and Temples, but changed his mind when external appeals for justice became overwhelming.

So God is like the politician that bends to what constituents want? I thought He was better than that. Funny how God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and yet, changes with the trends of what society demands (legally, not morally).