If you want to write up an argument from Taylor I’d love to read it. I’ll post it here on T&S as a guest post. I liked Taylor a great deal but I’m not sure I agree with him on some key points. In particular I think Catholics have problems due to the ubiquity of natural law arguments. That then conflicts with the type of naturalism common in modernism. I’d also say that while Taylor touches on the nominalist/realist debate that he doesn’t put enough focus on it. I think most problems are due to nominalist mistakes including in ethics. But one can be a realist about ethical structures without buying into the history of natural law theorizing that I think Taylor takes as a background.

I don’t think Mormonism “jettisons ordinary human desire” at all. Rather the common metaphor is circumscribing it. Which honestly is pretty common in all ethics. After all a lot of ordinary human desire is considered unethical. Indeed arguably civilization is all about regulating such desires.

My problem with the appeal to “ordinary human desire” is that typically it picks and chooses what is acceptable and not. That is there a hidden criteria as to what counts as ordinary because it’s certainly not the range of demonstrations of human desire which are often pretty horrific. (Seriously – what’s happening in Syria is well within the norms of human history)

Now Plato wants an other worldly criteria based pure reason and ideals. I don’t think that’s what Mormonism is doing because I think Mormon ethics are very much this world. That is I think within Mormonism a body isn’t something we have (as with Plato) but something we fundamentally are. But since a body and its comportments isn’t static, this means that Mormon thought essentially sees it as a process. (As opposed to many forms of Platonism that sees static pure intellectual ideals)

It’s fine to outline what you think is essential for humanness, but it’s not at all clear on what basis you make that judgment. (Or even why you think it’s some essence of humanness as opposed to some other criteria) I raise this going back to my earlier point simply because I am far from convinced what’s ‘essential’ to humanness is always good. You apparently are but it’s not at all clear why you’d say that. For instance anger and violence seem pretty intrinsic to human nature but you don’t want to be true to those. That suggests some other criteria that is an essence but not tied to human behavioral norms. Which seems pretty platonic to me. i.e. you want the pure human essence rather than the actual human behavior — but that’s precisely what Plato asserted.

Yes, I understand that’s your view. It’s a wrong view. What we are supposed to do is what it is, regardless of how hard it is. However how hard something is matters a great deal in terms of what we are overcoming. To assume that a person for whom what is asked is easy is doing the same thing as someone of whom what is asked is hard seems demonstrably false.

I wish I could find the link to the talk, as it’s one of my all time favorite talks. Elder Ashton gave it and it was about how what we perceive to be blessings or curses really is a limited view compared to God’s. A person who lives in a upper middle class Mormon community with few challenges may look like they are blessed but they may actually be cursed relative to the person who is given great trials.

We don’t know how much biology plays into our choices. I strongly feel this is why only God can judge. It may well be there is someone out there who’s brain developed as a sociopath with anger and impulse control issues. For that person to not be violent and hurt people may take tremendous effort from their spirit. I’d imagine they’d be rewarded far greater for that accomplishment by God than I would for the same behaviors. They’ve done far more than I have. Most of the world’s population really hasn’t been given the gospel in any strong way. Yet this life and its trials are as much for their development as it is ours. We’ve been given great blessings, but as Luke 12:48 says, where much is given much is required. God judges justly knowing all that a person if overcoming. One wishes everyone would seek to judge as God does.

Empathy does not require us to endorse sin. But when a person simply refuses to empathize and then condemns another, that is not a Christian act, and it is not a legitimate position in the church.

New research is showing that sexuality, attraction and gender identiry is fluid and not only can change but does change as we go from infancy into old age. The flesh is completely willing to be pleasured by almost anything. I think the church has made great stretches to accomodate the gay members. but, they are perhaps even stretching it over too far just to be nice.

And be aware that many great leaders of the Church failed on the test Zina passed including Orson Pratt who was excommunicated over it.

Now the reply might be that sometimes the Lord demands unfair things (in the sense of it not being demanded of everyone) One needn’t read much history of Joseph Smith to realize things were demanded of a few people that weren’t demanded of most saints. To take those demands and remain faithful is quite difficult. However while I look at someone like Zina Huntington as a praiseworthy hero I seek to emulate the world will look at her history as a deep example of injustice. That’s the point I’m getting at. It seems to me that those who simply don’t empathize with what is demanded (especially when it’s not something demanded of themselves) are missing something fundamental about what’s going on.

We can completely agree upon what’s demanded. It’s this other element that you seem to be refusing to even look at.