Ethics?

I also have a problem with the theocratic ethics. Prop 8 is a recent example that has disturbed a lot of people I know. I have found some peace by taking the cafeteria approach and ignoring those teachings that I find disturbing.

The notion of divine ethics is an interesting one, and when you look at examples in scripture, there are various conclusions you could make:

1 – God prefers one set of people above all others. Other people are disposable infidels subject to the wrath of God while the chosen people are preserved by God’s protection. That’s a pretty literal interpretation.

2 – God orders killing to achieve various aims (e.g. test a prophet, save future generations from unbelief, prevent intermarriage with infidels, etc.). That’s probably the one you are most likely to hear in Sunday School.

3 – Men convince themselves that God has commanded them to kill, then justify those decisions through rationalizations. That might be a psychological evaluation of the stories. If you add a religious angle to this, those who do evil deeds will receive a recompense for their deeds along the lines of King David, regardless of their station or office.

4 – These stories are based loosely on historical events (along the lines of the sacking of Troy) or even myths handed down over time but designed to teach a universal principle rather than be taken literally. This isn’t too far off #2, but it allows for a non-historical view of the stories (that they are not necessarily a 100% accurate reflection of what happened).

Ray’s right that every religion falls into the “divine ethics” camp, and I would argue that all “group ethics” are similarly problematic. In the case of divine ethics, can man truly know and understand the will of God or is it human frailty and human justification? In the case of group ethics, can a group really have a unified ethical code or will there be dissention, disagreement, and diversity of interpretation? I mention group ethics because it’s also a problem of all human organizations, including churches. You can’t get away from the problem by taking God’s will out of the equation. Either way, it’s a human problem: the potential for misunderstanding and self-justification.

Ray’s right that every religion falls into the “divine ethics” camp, and I would argue that all “group ethics” are similarly problematic. In the case of divine ethics, can man truly know and understand the will of God or is it human frailty and human justification? In the case of group ethics, can a group really have a unified ethical code or will there be dissention, disagreement, and diversity of interpretation? I mention group ethics because it’s also a problem of all human organizations, including churches. You can’t get away from the problem by taking God’s will out of the equation. Either way, it’s a human problem: the potential for misunderstanding and self-justification.

I haven’t read a ton of the threads here, but there seems to be a common response of “all organizations/churches/companies/families have the same human problems, so the LDS church is just another human institution with the same problems.” While this may be true in some cases, it seems a bit too easy to assume as much. Its like saying all cars will have problems and require maintenance therefore just deal with what you have because it gets you from point a to b. So yeah, I guess my Yugo is just as good as my neighbor’s Lexus because after all, they are both cars and will both require upkeep etc. I dunno if I can accept that, I want to see change in church, not just learn to accept my Yugo.

I think very few mainline religions actually ascribe to the “divine ethic.” Most often churches, including the Catholic church, see God working in nature and use natrual law ethics, or perhaps “group ethics” as you mention to arrive to a consensus or many times don’t arrive to a consensus and leave the issue open or unresolved until God through science or experience reveals more. Often churches don’t take “God’s will” out of the equation as you mention, rather they recognize that God’s will is experinced through conscience, not through a direct line of authority. Kind of the idea of being a collective Body of Christ, rather than God’s authority. I think deep down, this is the purpose of sustaining in our church, that has lost its meaning. On a local level, congregations in most mainline churches are free to discuss with, attempt to understand and even continue to love dissenting members. For instance, I have a friend that openy acknowledges that he wont recite the Nicene creed during his service, in addition to his dissenting views, yet he is one of the leading members of the congregation, sings in the choir etc. Is this possible in the LDS faith? My next door neighbor is another example. He reads the Talmud devoutly, yet can openly disagree with much of the OT in his temple and still be a leader of his congregation. I would love to see this type of reality in the LDS faith.

Of course I recognize that dissent will always be part of the dynamic nature of a theology, church etc., I’m not saying that we should all make our own Jefferson’s type bible. What I want is a way to work through the dilemmas within the LDS context. To recognize what is right and what is wrong. I believe scripture is a great place to practice working through challenging dilemmas, so that complicated challenges can be met in real life.

So I guess my problem isn’t scripture, rather lack of structure to learn from the deep lessons that are present in the scriptures. Further the expectation that simply accepting is superior.

What are your experiences with voicing concern over troubling concepts? How has it gone over? Is the best way to “stay LDS”?

Granted, it has to be done in the right tone, but I’ve never once been reprimanded in any way for doing what you describe. Of course, local wards and branches and stakes can be very different (so it absolutely is an issue), but it’s possible and actually done in more places than many assume.

Great! This is kind of where I was going in a non-directional fashion. Understanding the how-to-do-it part. Perhaps a greater part of my problem is that I approach scripture as deep resonating stories, as a reflection of God, but not actually God. It is difficult to hear so many literal interpretations in my ward and feel like I don’t have a place in the discussion.

How have you come to a point where you are comfortable delivering dissenting messages in a tone that is appropriate? The discussions in my ward are more often backslapping comments to whatever the message is, often an us vs. the world kind of speak. Perhaps just because it isn’t done in my ward, doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done, like you say. I just need to get the tone right. I think about how to do that……

Thank you for your comments about your experience.

Basic human psychology is such that one negative experience often outweighs up to 7-8 positive experiences – and that one negative experience is remembered over those positive experiences. Obviously, that has HUGE ramifications for those who struggle to fit in to a group, but it also has direct impact on how we should be commenting in church.

If we say something negative or contrary more than about 15% of the time, we will be viewed by many as a complainer – and what we say will be tuned out eventually or used as evidence that our position is just one that grumpy jerks take. Therefore, it is critical that the strong majority of things we say be positive and reinforcing – and there are LOTS of honest and sincere ways to do that.

Basic psychology also dictates that tone is every bit as important as content. Simply put, if my voice indicates superiority or condescension or anger, my words often will taken as negative – even if they really aren’t. Otoh, if my voice is calm and gentle and softly spoken, people naturally will not feel like they are being criticized or attacked – even if my words challenge what they have said. Sometimes, it’s important to make a challenge an obvious challenge, but I probably can count on both hands the times I’ve felt I needed to challenge something forcefully and bluntly in church over the last 25 years.

With that in mind, here are some suggestions:

1) Pick you battles carefully and sparingly. Not everything has to be challenged right away – or at all. If someone perpetuates former racist justifications for the Priesthood ban, I’m going to challenge that – but . . .

2) Address the words, not the person – and avoid characterizations that label either. Keep it concise and on point. Don’t say, “That’s stupid” – or anything like that phrasing. In the Priesthood ban case, I might say something like, “I like what Elder Holland said in the PBS documentary – that he never understood the reason for the ban, but that the key is not perpetuating the former justifications for it.”

3) Reference current apostles and Prophets whenever possible. With regard to the ban, you might add something like, “I have a friend [me] who has compiled a list of quotes from current and recent apostles and prophets about that question, and they all agree that the former explanations shouldn’t be repeated.” Generically, it really helps to be able to say, “I love what Elder Wirthlin said in his talk ‘Concern for the One’ . . .” – or something similar.

4) Don’t sound counter-dogmatic. Frame your comments, as Hawk suggested, in terms of thoughtful consideration or wonder. “I’ve really struggled to understand this, and it’s helped me to consider . . .” or “I wonder . . .” or “Someone I really respect used to say . . .” or “I know members who have found great peace by . . .” or anything else that doesn’t come across as an attempt to challenge and convert. Reflection works well; opposition, not so much.

5) Be active in your local congregation. Whatever issues you might have outside the meetinghouse, fellowship regularly within the walls of the meetinghouse. Due to our financial constraints right now, we only travel to our meetinghouse twice each week (Sunday for Sacrament Meeting and Wednesday night for youth activities). We don’t participate in all the other activities that occur throughout the week, including things like the Christmas dinner coming up or the fish fry that just happened. However, we are there every Sunday and Wednesday – so everyone sees us as “faithful attendees”. MUCH more latitude is given those with whom people associate regularly than those who show up only occasionally – largely because that gives you the chance to contribute positively enough to overcome the times when you feel compelled to challenge something.

6) Serve others. People will accept lots more things people say who are known as active helpers than they will from people who rarely, if ever, reach out and love them proactively and in deed.

7) Finally, be gentle, merciful, meek and non-judgmental. That generally takes conscious effort, but it is the ultimate key, imo. More often than not, it’s not what you say but rather who people believe you are that is the biggest determining factor in if your words will be accepted.

Thanks for all your replys, especially the insight into approach. I’m mostly trying to figure out how to be a mormon, believing in the spirit of mormonism, without having to believe in the mechanics of mormonism. It is encouraging to encounter the level of maturity that many of you have attained. Although I must say that the approach you’ve given is not easily applied in real life.

I’ll have to think about your responses and how I could make it work. I’m wondering for myself if I can still live the spirit of mormonism without getting dragged down into the mire of it. Whether it is better to do this in a mormon community or outside of a mormon community. I’ll get back to you all…..