Finding Your Moral Compass

[Anonymous]

Hawk hits a home run, again.

[Anonymous]

Interesting article and discussion.

This is something that has come up recently in discussion between my wife and I. It was mainly conjecturing, but we were discussion the moral boundaries we would give our son and daughter if we/I left the church. She seemed to think that it would be very difficult to teach him any since we lacked the moral foundation provided by the church. I strongly disagreed.

I need to think about this a little bit more so I really know where I stand and what I think.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn’t frame it as what I would teach my children if I was in or out of the Church. I would frame it as what I want to teach my children – no disclaimers. You can teach what you want to teach anywhere; it’s the reinforcement you get at church and/or the nuancing you have to do to mitigate what they get at church that is the key – and that is a balance you would have to find and construct regardless of where you worship.

There are other religions that actually have stricter sexual codes than we do and other religions that have looser sexual codes than we do. “Moral codes” get trickier, since morality is, by its very definition, more subjective. The moral codes children get in various denominations and religions vary radically, but, frankly, I wish we would loosen up a bit in some ways and ditch the Puritanical and Pharisaical aspects of our current (general) moral culture. I think the current leadership is trying to do that in many ways, but we aren’t yet where I would like to be. I love the “Restored Gospel” and Mormon theology, and I even love many things about Mormon culture, but I don’t love some things about Mormon culture in the area of sexual and moral codes.

[Anonymous]

Kristmace, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Some church advice is well worth sticking to, even if you’re out.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Also I beg to differ about Pres. Kimball and Packer seeing sex as black and white. More like black and dark black.

That’s really, really funny…and very true!

[Anonymous]

Plenty of people who have never been church members come up with a set of standards/boundaries that are not far off from what the church teaches, if not exactly that – and not for religious reasons. A minority to be sure, but nevertheless … IMO.

I’ll revisit this hypocritical statement, though, when I’m permanently caught in the throes of either homosexuality or pedophilia. It’s inevitable because of my porn addiction, according to the experts. :problem:

[Anonymous]

insomniac wrote:

Plenty of people who have never been church members come up with a set of standards/boundaries that are not far off from what the church teaches, if not exactly that – and not for religious reasons. A minority to be sure, but nevertheless … IMO.

do you really think it’s a minority? i find people to be generally good and moral.

insomniac wrote:

I’ll revisit this hypocritical statement, though, when I’m permanently caught in the throes of either homosexuality or pedophilia. It’s inevitable because of my porn addiction, according to the experts. :problem:

those aren’t experts, but rather, spiritual leaders expressing their opinions. I hearken to them: meaning, I “hear” them, and “ken” (old english for “understand”) their message, but when i need a professional opinion, I go to the professionals.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Also I beg to differ about Pres. Kimball and Packer seeing sex as black and white. More like black and dark black.

That’s really, really funny…and very true!

Hawkgrrrl is always hilarious…and insightful…

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

Kristmace, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Some church advice is well worth sticking to, even if you’re out.

Maybe I miswrote what I meant!

I think the moral guidelines of the church in general are very good, and I would still want most of them taught to my Son and Daughter should I leave the church. The disgreement between my wife and I was that she thought we would find it extremely difficult without the moral foundation of the church, and I thought that we could set morals and boudaries as we personally saw fit and teach them (almost) as effectively.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

insomniac wrote:

Plenty of people who have never been church members come up with a set of standards/boundaries that are not far off from what the church teaches, if not exactly that – and not for religious reasons. A minority to be sure, but nevertheless … IMO.

do you really think it’s a minority? i find people to be generally good and moral.

Yes, I do. When I hear sentiments expressed that cybersex or steamy chat doesn’t count, that makes me think lots of people are indulging – which is definitely off church standards. Talk of things like “friends with benefits” or certain types of rental arrangements makes me feel more that way. I know you can’t believe everything you see and hear, but this stuff persists long enough that I believe there’s something to it. People who embrace core principles solid enough to contain traditional moral standards are dwindling – and “traditional” doesn’t really include anything about secondary things like refraining from masturbation.

I’ll admit I’m a glass-is-half-empty kind of person, but I don’t think I’m just seeing things here. The church’s teachings and stands on issues are progressively being isolated.

And about “experts” – sarcasm is just as much a part of me as cynicism.

[Anonymous]

Spencer W. Kimball wrote:

…We live in a culture which venerates the orgasm…and similar crazes…How low can humans plunge!…..

Wow…a bit graphic 😳

[Anonymous]

Who needs p*rn when you can go to conference?

[Anonymous]

kristmace wrote:

SamBee wrote:

Kristmace, be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Some church advice is well worth sticking to, even if you’re out.

Maybe I miswrote what I meant!

I think the moral guidelines of the church in general are very good, and I would still want most of them taught to my Son and Daughter should I leave the church. The disagreement between my wife and I was that she thought we would find it extremely difficult without the moral foundation of the church, and I thought that we could set morals and boundaries as we personally saw fit and teach them (almost) as effectively.

Your authority as parents only goes so far. Soon enough kids will discover that “because I said so” doesn’t hold water. Teaching kids to think about consequences and make good decisions is good but is not absolute – sometimes two good choices are competing etc. For example suppose that you child is in college and wants to move in with their girlfriend/boyfriend as a trial marriage. There are benefits to such an arrangement and it seems that the two love each other – yet there are also potential pitfall and drawbacks. Your child may consider your advice, determine that they can manage and mitigate the drawbacks and choose to move forward. In the church you can rely on divine authority to bolster your own, it is no longer “because I said so” but also “because the Prophet (and God) said so.”

While we might be willing to accept the consequences of having college kids move in together, what happens if the decision is whether or not to do drugs or strip for extra cash in a night club. Letting kids make their own choices can be scary. OTOH, that is how they grow up…

Back to the OP

Quote:

At the very least, I would want any institution (whether it is family, church, school, military, work, etc.,) to teach people that a basis of our morality is harm/care — moral questions are questions about harm being caused to others, or a responsibility to care for others.)

I agree that this is probably the better way, but it also allows the individual to interpret and define “harm” and allows for them to make choices based upon their personal definition that I might not agree with. Sometimes Satan’s plan sounds appealing. Coercion??? Control??? Do I get to be the one doing the coercing?

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Your authority as parents only goes so far. Soon enough kids will discover that “because I said so” doesn’t hold water. Teaching kids to think about consequences and make good decisions is good but is not absolute – sometimes two good choices are competing etc. For example suppose that you child is in college and wants to move in with their girlfriend/boyfriend as a trial marriage. There are benefits to such an arrangement and it seems that the two love each other – yet there are also potential pitfall and drawbacks. Your child may consider your advice, determine that they can manage and mitigate the drawbacks and choose to move forward. In the church you can rely on divine authority to bolster your own, it is no longer “because I said so” but also “because the Prophet (and God) said so.”

While we might be willing to accept the consequences of having college kids move in together, what happens if the decision is whether or not to do drugs or strip for extra cash in a night club. Letting kids make their own choices can be scary. OTOH, that is how they grow up…

Note that by the time your kids are in that position (e.g., college), you shouldn’t be using *either* parental or church/God authority. In other words, if the only way to communicate to your children is “because x said so,” that’s precisely the deficit in moral reasoning that I’m referring to.

Believe it or not, but you can make a case against doing drugs, stripping at a night club, etc., that doesn’t ever rely upon “because x said so”.

Roy wrote:

Back to the OP

Quote:

At the very least, I would want any institution (whether it is family, church, school, military, work, etc.,) to teach people that a basis of our morality is harm/care — moral questions are questions about harm being caused to others, or a responsibility to care for others.)

I agree that this is probably the better way, but it also allows the individual to interpret and define “harm” and allows for them to make choices based upon their personal definition that I might not agree with. Sometimes Satan’s plan sounds appealing. Coercion??? Control??? Do I get to be the one doing the coercing?

This is entirely part of the process, though. The thing though is that a harm/care morality relies upon a cultivation of empathy. At this point, i kinda get scared, but I suspect that some people may just not have a minimal sense of empathy (which is why the concept of basing morality around it seems to them like folly.)

Like, if my decision affects another person, then all of a sudden it’s not just my personal definition of harm that matters…it’s my understanding of the other person‘s definition.

It seems to me that if you’re struggling with temptations that you will say are from Satan, you are going to struggle with those regardless of if you have a rule that claims to be “from God” or you have principles about treating people with care and fairness. I would suggest that if the locus of morality is external for you (e.g., “because God said so”) rather than internal (e.g., “because I personally feel pained to see someone else hurt, especially by my hands”), then you’re probably going to be more at risk of making immoral, insensitive choices, because you don’t have anything personal behind your choice (whereas the internally driven person has to live with *themselves*)

[Anonymous]

subversiveasset wrote:

Like, if my decision affects another person, then all of a sudden it’s not just my personal definition of harm that matters…it’s my understanding of the other person’s definition.

It seems to me that if you’re struggling with temptations that you will say are from Satan, you are going to struggle with those regardless of if you have a rule that claims to be “from God” or you have principles about treating people with care and fairness. I would suggest that if the locus of morality is external for you (e.g., “because God said so”) rather than internal (e.g., “because I personally feel pained to see someone else hurt, especially by my hands”), then you’re probably going to be more at risk of making immoral, insensitive choices, because you don’t have anything personal behind your choice (whereas the internally driven person has to live with *themselves*)

Well said! I want my kids to grow into that kind of empathetic morally centered people. Crisis averted! I shall return to the Lord’s plan of agency and consequences!

[Author]

Posts