- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have been pondering integrity in recent days. For most of my life, I have generally defined integrity as adherence to a set of rules imposed by something/someone else. Now I’m realizing that integrity may also mean being true to yourself. While there may be much overlap in the two viewpoints, there may also be some incongruities. I see the value of having a set of time-tested rules. I also see that many of my viewpoints changing over time and that there is a real heroism in being able to hold to your principles in spite of popular opinion.
This could easily be illustrated by Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith (or any number of other reformers/revolutionaries) who fought convention. We value that independence, that going up against ‘duh man’, but it would seem to me that we value we treasure and cherish those traits in people, as long as they lived long ago and their challenge to convention has actually become convention. We are much less comfortable with people of our own era defying convention.
Anyway, just wondering your thoughts.
Excellent insight. For most people, rocking the boat is great – if it WAS“successful” and accomplished good in their eyes. Rocking the boat sucks for most people in real time, since most people get seasick and even fall overboard if the rocking is vigorous enough. (“Rock the boat; don’t rock the boat, baby. Rock the boat; don’t tip the boat over.”) To me, integrity is only about being true to yourself and what you believe to be the ultimate Truth / Good / whatever. I don’t believe for a moment someone has to be totally open about that process and all the nuances of that perspective to all those around them, since part of my view of “ultimate good” includes (to the highest degree possible) doing no harm.
So, to me, integrity is a constant balancing act that shifts at the practical level as one’s perspective shifts. Once the balancing act ceases, I believe integrity (at least for mortals) has died.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating extreme situational ethics, where nothing is constant and immutable. I believe in immutable principles and absolute Truth; I just believe I have to be open to a continually evolving understanding of what they are.
Nice thoughts Ray, thanks! For me, integrity is multi-facted. There is honesty — simply doing what is truthful and honest as far as circumstances allow (and I believe circumstasnces and sometimes propriety fully justify being less than brutally honest). It also means keeping one’s word. When I say I’m going to do something, I do it.
I think there is some merit in being true to oneself, and one’s own beliefs, but as I’ve said many times, this doesnt mean you have to grandstand your contrarion beliefs at Church. It may mean that you do things that you dont necessarily believe in or feel passionate about to further your interest in respecting the culture of whatever organization you’re working in, including the Church.
Old-Timer wrote:To me, integrity is only about being true to yourself and w
hat you believe to be the ultimate Truth / Good / whatever. I don’t believe for a moment someone has to be totally open about that process and all the nuances of that perspective to all those around them, since part of my view of “ultimate good” includes (to the highest degree possible) doing no harm.
I like this. It will work for me as an answer to the question today.
Doing what you say you will and sticking with it. Not being a fair weather friend, that’s another aspect of it. SamBee wrote:Doing what you say you will and sticking with it.Not being a fair weather friend, that’s another aspect of it. I’m not sure I like this definition to be honest, because I heard this from a church leader recently who said
that would that include “covenants” made in the temple and to get baptized and fulfulling church callings.I guess than I’m not an integritious (is that even a word?) person, but the poor SOBs who stuck it out with Jim Jones were? Yeah, I’m not sure how that all fits together.
BUT – I do like the second part of your definition Sam!
🙂 Hi Cwald, I think we’re on different wavelengths. I admit that DIDN’T strike me that way when I was writing it… Let me put it this way… covenants and callings are generally someone else’s words, rather than our own. We agree, or disagree with them.
I know a lot of lessons just equate integrity with honesty, and a few take it a step farther to being true to yourself, but I think the essence of it is self-consistency. This is like having structural integrity as opposed to being a “house divided against itself”. A person of integrity would constantly examine their views, opinions, and actions to make sure that they are totally self-consistent. And when there is a conflict, he or she makes the necessary changes (my interpretation of repentance) for it to be consistent. For some reason church lessons don’t talk as much about that aspect (maybe because it hits too close to home with some of the historical issues), but I think that is the definition that I like the best. I think it’s one of the most universal virtues. Speaking of integrity and staying true to yourself. I saw this today and this young man represented it well:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.