Elder Cook had a very interesting article in the September “Ensign.” You can read that article here.
Here is the highlight:
My challenge is that we join with people of all faiths who feel accountable to God in defending religious freedom so it can be a beacon for morality. We caution you to be civil and responsible as you defend religious liberty and moral values. We ask that you do this on the Internet and in your personal interactions in the neighborhoods and communities where you live. Be an active participant, not a silent observer.
So, the good news is that many people reading this have already taken the first step because they are on the internet looking at a faithful LDS blog that promotes religious liberty and moral values. So, congratulations to all readers.
But of course this talk also raises all kinds of questions, like what does Elder Cook mean by “morality.”
The is especially timely because M* permablogger Bruce Nielson has been writing like crazy about the whole issue of morality. You can read his latest ruminations here. I will probably summarize his posts very poorly, but nevertheless I feel I should try. His basic point seems to be to find out if there are commonalities of human morality that atheists and theists share. He ends actually quite optimistically by saying that yes there are.
This still creates some problems. Some people think they are being moral by promoting, just to use one random example that has nothing to do with recent politics (sarc), forcing all people to pay for other people’s birth control. Others like myself would point out that this is not moral at all. So, definitions of morality do indeed vary from person to person, although I agree with Bruce that there are some reasons for optimism.
So how does Elder Cook define morality? Well, if you read the piece in the “Ensign,” Elder Cook is not nearly as blunt as most people are. But he does provide some important clues.
Our joint effort should be to protect important civic values like honesty, morality, self-restraint, respect for law, and basic human rights.
OK, this is an excellent start. Hopefully we can all agree that these are good goals. What else?
Our challenge is to help people without religious faith understand that the protection of moral principles grounded in religion is a great benefit to society and that religious devotion is critical to public virtue.
Many U.S. founding fathers, including George Washington and James Madison, pointed out that shared moral values espoused by different religions with competing doctrines allow societies to be bound together. Unfortunately, religious influence has often been replaced by so-called secular religions. “For instance, humanism and atheism function as secular religions binding their adherents through common belief and ideology.”
Many philosophers have been at the forefront in promoting secularism and rejecting a moral view of the world based on Judeo-Christian values. In their view there is no “objective moral order” and no reason “to choose one goal over another.” They believe no preference should be given to moral goals. A British high court recently denied a Christian family the right to foster children because the children could be “‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs.” The ruling demonstrates just how radically things have shifted.
OK, now we are getting somewhere. Elder Cook is clearly saying that moral values rooted in religion are what we should promote. He points out that there is an objective morality, and that is based on Judeo-Christian values. What are Judeo-Christian values? Well, I hope we can all agree that they were summarized best by the Savior himself who listed the two most important commandments: love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.
We also probably should add the 10 commandments, which appear to be necessary rules because most people don’t fully obey the two most important commandments very well.
Elder Cook also mentions four foundational historical events to help us understand the importance of our moment in time. They are: the Tyndale and King James Bible; the establishment of English common law, which help lead to the Constitution; the scientific revolution of the last two centuries; and the “return to Judeo-Christian moral principles,” which helped create the conditions for the Restoration of the gospel.
If I may be so bold, it seems pretty clear that Elder Cook is saying that promoting morality means promoting the traditional meaning of the Constitution, promoting traditional Judeo-Christian morality, and promoting the importance of the scriptures. He is also pointing out that religious freedom is essential to maintaining a righteous and functional society.
Elder Cook asks us to be righteous examples in our behavior, emphasizing our willingness to perform personal service. He asks us to be civil in our discourse and respectful in our interactions (including, ahem, on-line interactions). He points out the common sense way of being respectful to others: treat them how you would like to be treated.
All in all, I found Elder Cook’s article to be enlightening and timely.
I will confess that reading this article, and then exploring the detailed footnotes, is what led me on a path of learning more about objective morality.
His article is timely, cogent, and important for Latter Day Saints and for today’s world, particularly Western civilization. Or what’s left of it.
He has a footnote to a statement about Judeo-Christian heritage that says: “I recognize that the study of Western civilization has been under attack. “Some criticize its study as narrow, limiting, arrogant and discriminatory, asserting that it has little or no value for those of non-European origins” (Donald Kagan, “A Good Run,” New York Times, Nov. 27, 2011, BR27).” I’m glad that he recognizes this, but I wish he would have responded to it. I struggle to see how promoting “Judeo-Christian” morals is much different than how Protestants have at times marginalized Catholics and Mormons for not being real Christians. How are we supposed to encourage Judeo-Christian values without being unfair to Muslims, Hindus, and everyone else?
“How are we supposed to encourage Judeo-Christian values without being unfair to Muslims, Hindus, and everyone else?”
Some things don’t go out of style, like respect for life “thou shalt not kill”, property “thou shalt not steal”, sexual probity “thou shalt not commit adultery”, etc. We call them Judeo-Christian because we acknowledge the cultural source, but in actuality those values are eternal in nature.
One can champion Judeo-Christian values, by the way, and not be a threat to other cultures.
And I finish by saying something that is going to be extremely controversial: when other cultures produce something on par with Shakespeare, the Bible, Milton, Goethe, Dante, etc., then we can talk about being “fair”.
Yes, I’m an 8-track, in a .FLAC world.
CS Lewis’ “the Tao” (or the natural moral law) shows that objective morality is universal across cultures. Therefore, mapman, we don’t need to be “fair” to Muslims or Hindus by promoting objective morality — it is already part of their cultural tradition. More here:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm
Michael Towns wrote:
“And I finish by saying something that is going to be extremely controversial: when other cultures produce something on par with Shakespeare, the Bible, Milton, Goethe, Dante, etc., then we can talk about being ‘fair’.”
Do you read Arabic or Manderine, Michael? If not, then how are you qualified to make this statement?
Elder Cook stated:
“Our challenge is to help people without religious faith understand that the protection of moral principles grounded in religion is a great benefit to society and that religious devotion is critical to public virtue.”
Those of us who claim to be Christian need to make the distinction that moral principles are grounded in Jesus Christ rather than religion, which several denominations over the years have corrupted. Rather than “religious” devotion, we must return (repent) and give our devotion not to religion but truly and purely to Jesus Christ himself. Jesus is not the domain of “a religion” – He is the author and finisher of our faith. Yes, Jesus can be worshipped without the “one true church” because He gives authority to those who believe on His name to become sons of God. THAT is His only true church – all believers in Him.
Elder Cook went on to state:
“Many U.S. founding fathers, including George Washington and James Madison, pointed out that shared moral values espoused by different religions with competing doctrines allow societies to be bound together. Unfortunately, religious influence has often been replaced by so-called secular religions.”
There are competing doctrines when men use the authority they suppose they have to abstract and twist the pure gospel Jesus brought to the earth. There are so-called secular religions because of the departure from the source of this truth, who is Jesus Christ. That is our final answer, and our only hope for this nation; returning to Christ. The Holy Bible teaches us how.
“Do you read Arabic or Manderine, Michael? If not, then how are you qualified to make this statement?”
I am an Arabic linguist by trade, DavidF. I read, write, speak, and can listen in Arabic, as well as a couple of its dialects.
David F,
Goethe wrote in German and Dante in Italian. The issue is not what language people write in, but the general quality of the literature produced. There is plenty of non-Western literature that is of very high quality, so I don’t necessarily agree with Michael’s point, but I don’t see its relevance to this discussion. As I pointed out, other cultures have similar values to what we commonly call “Judeo-Christian values.” Nearly every civilization has certain moral rules, and many of these rules line up quite well with objective morality as described by Elder Cook.
True, and let me make a more on topic post.
What I find interesting about Elder Cook’s comments is how they could be taken to mean that we should make laws according to our ethical beliefs, even if secular society would object.
Elder Holland gave a CES devotional last Sunday where he defended (implicitly) Prop 8 on the grounds that our laws should reflect our morality. Since we believe homosexual marriage is wrong, our nations laws should protect our belief.
Unfortunately, they haven’t posted the transcript yet, so you’ll have to take my word for it, for now. But given that context, when I read the quotations above from Elder Cook, I see the same kind of reasoning:
“Our challenge is to help people without religious faith understand that the protection of moral principles grounded in religion is a great benefit to society and that religious devotion is critical to public virtue.”
I think this is a very interesting statement on what morality might mean for Elder Cook, but certainly means for Elder Holland (when the transcript is posted, I’ll link to it. His statements were very blatant, without actually mentioning homosexual marriage, and were the first example of this kind of argument I have heard from a Church leader).
Really, Michael?
And you can’t see the rich poetic symbolism of sura al-nass, the enlightening social commentary of Naguib Mahfouz, or the spell-binding story telling of alf layla wa layla (okay, not technically Arabic)? Tell me these aren’t absolutely impressive literary works.
DavidF, if you are going to be a member of the Church you must face the fact that the Church leadership has made it abundantly clear that “traditional Judeo-Christian morality” includes the idea that homosexual sexual activity is a sin and therefore immoral and wrong. Note that leaders have made it clear that same-sex attraction is NOT a sin and therefore immoral and wrong. The Church has also made it abundantly clear that its understanding of this morality extends to opposing same-sex marriage.
The libertarian in me struggles mightily with this. I know every single argument in favor of SSM, and some of the arguments are quite good. BUT I have decided that this is one of those areas where I just have to accept on faith that the Church’s position is the correct one. This is not an easy position for me to take, but I feel strongly that following modern-day prophets on an issue where they have spoken out boldly and clearly is the only acceptable course.
I think it would be a mistake, however, to concentrate only on this issue. I really think the Brethren are more concerned about pornography, opposite-sex adultery, addictions, etc. These are the things that keep on getting mentioned at Conference.
DavidF,
I think you misunderstood my statement. I never said that any of those works were not impressive literary works. They are. There is no doubt as to their value, worth, or inspirational value. I love reading the Qur’an. There are several suras, for example, that I find enchanting on many levels. Every nation on earth has produced men and women of genius. Tagore from India, etc. There is much to value and appreciate.
Yet my point is that they do not rise to the realms where Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe, Cervantes, et alia., inhabit. Naguib Mahfouz cannot match Montaigne, for example.
Here is what I failed to make clear earlier. Western Civilization is disparaged today for one reason and one reason only: they were written by dead white Western men. It is not politically correct to suggest that the Great Books are….well…..Great. Harold Bloom’s The Western Canon completely shatters what he calls the School of Resentment. It’s worth reading.
And I apologize, Geoff, for this detour, but it’s necessary to point out that Western civilization is (was?) great precisely because of the ideas that come from the books written by these dead white men. We ignore their wisdom at our collective peril, and much of what they wrote informs Judeo-Christian morality. Brushing aside the foundations of Western civilization is precisely why we are in the moral morass of our times.
Sorry for the soapbox. This is just something I feel strongly about.
Michael, I did misunderstand you. I see where yoi are coming from. Do the eastern works not compare with western ones? that depends on what you mean when you judge their value. In some respects they do, in others perhaps not. This would take a deeper discussion than I think fits in the realm of this thread. I very much agree with the last couple paragraphs in your last post.
Geoff B.
I understand the Church’s position on homosexuality. I’m not criticizing that, so much as I wonder whether we should project ourmoral ideas on society. Of course we should be informed by them, but to what extent ought we to limit freedom for others on moral grounds they do not accept? This is where I hesitate to throw my full support behind what Elder Holland said, and what I believe Elder Cook is implying.