- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Why do some people get into hot water with their bishop over faith issues? Religions are communities with a shared set of beliefs and practices, but also a shared morality. Jonathan Haidt identified six foundations of morality that have varying levels of importance to people. Depending on your bishop, here’s why he might single you out, and what you can do about it: Care / Harm. If you bishop thinks you are a threat to the salvation of others in the flock, you might trigger this response. Some people have been warned not to talk to others about their doubts. That’s linked to the Care / Harm moral foundation. Cure: Keep your doubts confined to yourself, make it clear you aren’t seeking to de-convert others, and contribute positively to the ward community. Fairness / cheating. People who rate high on this moral foundation are on the lookout for free-riders and people who game the system for their own benefit (e.g. welfare cheats). Cure: Contribute more to the ward than you receive from the ward. Pay your tithing. Do callings. Clean the church. Bring food to pot lucks. Offer to assist with the Ward Christmas Party. Offer to organize charitable donations with the RS or PH. Help people move. Figure out what you feel you can do to contribute and offer that up. Liberty / oppression. This is probably unlikely to trigger a bishop to have a negative response. On the contrary, some people with a faith crisis may feel that the church is oppressive or restricts their personal freedom or identity. Nobody likes to be bullied. Cure: Just stay rational and composed if you face a bully. Loyalty / betrayal. A bishop might perceive your doubts as criticism of a beloved institution and by extension, criticism of him, his family, and his values. People who have a high level of loyalty foundation expect people to be loyal to the group and view any level of criticism or disloyalty as a betrayal. They may be prone to persecution complex. Cure: Make your allegiances to the group clear, on whatever level works for you (to people, to good works, whatever). Refrain from sounding overly negative and critical. Express positive statements that make it clear you see yourself as one of the group. Authority / subversion. This might manifest if the bishop sees you as challenging his authority, the brethren, or church traditions (in some cases). Cure: Be respectful, even deferential. As I have learned in Asia, if you look a male primate in the eyes, it will attack! Avert your gaze. Sanctity / degradation. This can be triggered by trampling on anything that the bishop might consider sacred: temple covenants, the body as a temple (WoW, chastity, and modesty concerns), wearing a white shirt at church, etc. Cure: For those with high sanctity moral foundations, just listen well. Avoid making light of things they personally see as sacred. That can differ from person to person. Once you know what they think of as sacred, pay special attention to how you talk about that particular topic. Are these practical suggestions? Have any of you encountered these things? Would these suggestions help? Do you have others to add?
I think this is phenomenal. As a priesthood leader, I was driven by the Free Frider and Cheater moral foundation. To the point of being overly harsh with non-contributors who were, as I silently labelled them — “net takers”. I now realize it was a highly judgmental stance to take. I have also seen the Authority moral foundation alive and well in our Church. In disciplinary councils, I’ve seen High Councilors say “Are you willing to accept willingly any penalty or discipline imposed by this council???”. And if people reply “If you excommunicate me, I will never come back” this on its own may well be the death knell of any mercy. In one instance, this was a key reason they excommunicated someone — the person was challenging priesthood authority in the eyes of the decision-makers when they said the embarassament of excommunication may well prevent them from returning for some time, or forever.
I wonder if that is a valid moral foundation when you have a sinner in front of you? To make them “eat crow” like that when really, what they need is compassion and love, and a bit of understanding of the natural anger or disillusionment that ensues when people are punished? To make them submit as a condition of receiving mercy?
Anyway, these foundations remind me of the Gallup Strength (kind of like Myers-Briggs) of Belief. People with belief have strong moral values that guide them. I have learned that when around people with belief, you have to be careful that you don’t frame proposed actions in such a way they sound dishonest. But your definitions above broaden the range of “belief” stances a person might take, showing other ways people with Belief might be offended beyond honesty/ethical issues.
I would add that simply Principle is another moral foundation — such as honesty, respect. This is different than sanctity as it’s a a moral Christian principle. I’m surprised these are not on the list. Or do you see them absorbed in one of the other moral foundations?
Honesty and Respect are housed within the other six moral foundations. Haidt would put Honesty in with Fairness. Respect would go in with Authority and at times Loyalty (depending on what we are respecting). It could also go in with Sanctity if it is an ideal we are to respect.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.