- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
I have been thinking a lot about this lately. I have been watching a video presentation by Pastor Andy Stanley about Guardrails. He uses guardrails as a metaphor for a system of personal standards that will alert the conscience prior to the danger area.
Let me give an example. One example of a personal standard is to not help attractive members of the opposite sex by giving them a job. This in itself is not a problem but it could lead to “proximity” which could lead eventually to compromising situations.
I once had an inactive female coworker with a young daughter going through a bad divorce. She was trying to come back to church and needed a place to stay. I thought about offering her a room in our home. My wife was vehemently opposed, and acted like I was horrible for even suggesting it. All these years I thought that my motives were pure and that DW had overreacted. When I saw this example of a “guardrail” the light hit me that the idea of inviting this woman into my home so many years ago was fraught with potential problems. I had thought that I had a green light to move forward and even felt like I had received personal revelation to do so (yeah, I know – in hindsight the implications of this are kinda scary), even though it was a seriously bad idea.
Another example might be the personal standard to abstain from alcohol or not eat alone with members of the opposite sex or carpool alone with members of the opposite sex.
They in themselves might not be a problem at all and if someone is stranded and needs a ride home or you are sick and need some Nyquil then to make an exception is ok. But the point of the guardrail is that even in making an exception you will feel uneasy – thus ideally preventing you from the slippery slope of disastrous consequences.
One last point: For years I have tried to understand why some people refuse to play card games with face cards. I have never heard a GA preach against them. (edit: I have since read that SWK preached against them at one time) A fair number of members do play with face cards and this doesn’t appear to be a problem. Just yesterday I thought about this restriction as a “guardrail.” If I want to set up a personal boundary against gambling and I want the world of poker and blackjack to be so foreign to me that even playing with face cards would make me feel uncomfortable – then that would be a reasonable guardrail for me to impose upon myself. As long as I understood that it was a personal choice/standard and the reasons for its imposition and others are in no way inferior for not having a similar conviction – then it could be an effective guardrail to help me avoid even dabbling my big toe into gambling.
Last weekend a friend asked DW and I to watch his daughter overnight. They were going to a late night event and thought that it would be easier to just pick her up in the morning. I explained that we would gladly watch her until late in the night but we had a family rule against sleepovers.
This is a guardrail for my family. DW and I both grew up with sleepovers without any terribly bad consequences. (besides run of the mill mischief
😈 )We have no beef with others who do allow sleepovers. We do see some vulnerability in having our child in someone else’s care for such an extended period of time. We could solve this by having all the sleepovers at our house but that is somewhat unfair. How might we explain it if someone who has spent the night at our house asks to have our child spend the night at their house? We feel that it is simpler just to have a blanket “personal guardrail” rule against sleepovers.We did make an exception to this rule when a friend had her husband incarcerated for a few days and she had to go to work at the crack of dawn. DW and I discussed the circumstances together and decided that the exceptional need warranted an exemption.
Just wanted to share yet another example of personal guardrails in action.
:thumbup: mackay11 wrote:
Having said that. I can also see how some do go wild when they leave. The problem is that people grow up in the church having a lot of decisions made for them. “Can I do that?” “No, the prophet said no.” “Can I do this?” “Well… The prophet didn’t prohibit it, so go for it.”I’ve had two recent conversations with different people who said words to the effect of “I like the safety net. I don’t have to think about every decision in life. I know it’s true so I act accordingly.”
Which is quite frightening when you think about it…
Looking back now over my life, I can see where the church was a safety net when I needed that at the time.
What is more frightening for me is what would have been my life without that safety net. And how do I act so that my daughters get the benefit of the safety net (if it fits them) and how do I teach them what to do if/when that safety net fails them as they develop spiritually.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
The idea of moral reasoning is an interesting one. Most of us, until we grow up, use authority as a proxy (teachers, parents, leaders, the country we live in & other organizations set the moral boundaries). Personal revelation as a means to obtain a moral code seems particularly fraught with confirmation bias and self-justification of our own beliefs and assumptions, but it’s probably better than simply following rules set by someone we see as “authority.” There are certain methods for moral reasoning that we follow in the church, but they aren’t often discussed fully because some folks like to shut it down: “When the brethren speak, the thinking is done.” That’s a terrible idea, IMO. I think we can come up with moral reasoning for the codes the church puts out there, even the trivial ones:1 – Word of Wisdom. To avoid excesses that cause harm to others (e.g. drunk driving, extremely expensive coffees, exploitive practices in tea and coffee growing). Some of these are more of a stretch than others, BTW!
2 – White shirts and earrings. To create a bland public image that is non-threatening and shows us as a group rather than a collection of individuals. By focusing on group identity, people may want to join the group. When we focus on individual identity, there is less reason to join a group.
3 – Law of Chastity. To avoid harming others through misunderstandings, unwanted pregnancies (that can make childrearing stressful and less successful), and STDs. To put men & women on an even playing ground (because men cannot become pregnant).
Anyway, those are just a few examples of moral reasoning you may never hear discussed in church.
Thanks! I wish that someone had sat down and pointed out some of these things when I was a teenager. I was an obedient teenager who did the “right” things for some of the “right” reasons, but these pragmantic explanations would have helped me so much.
I was listening to the Infants on Thrones podcast (I think that was the podcast) about a year ago and one guy that has left the church was also worried about his kids having sex to early and drinking. He looked into the science of some of this and found some interesting things. (what follows a general recap, not the exact ages/etc)
He found that the chances of becoming an alcoholic greatly decreases if you don’t really get “drunk” until you are at least 25. A teenage mind is much more likely to have adverse effects from drinking early in adulthood, but that decreases. Same think with most drugs. And he also was able to give some empirical data that strongly suggests you are better at relationships if you don’t have a heavy emphasis on sex early in teens. The emotional heartache from wearing your heart on your sleeve and sleeping with lots of people early on can give some issues later on.
So he basically gave his kids this info and said
Here is the best information I can find for you to be happy and safe. I trust that you will not be stupid. I will always love you, so please don’t hesitate asking for help/advice. I don’t expect that you will never have sex until you are married, but I do suggest you not rush into that and don’t let others pressure you into it. Do it when it feels right and you have been in love with someone for a while. And BTW – here is some info on how to be safe. ” class=”bbcode_url”> Here is the best information I can find for you to be happy and safe. I trust that you will not be stupid. I will always love you, so please don’t hesitate asking for help/advice. I don’t expect that you will never have sex until you are married, but I do suggest you not rush into that and don’t let others pressure you into it. Do it when it feels right and you have been in love with someone for a while. And BTW – here is some info on how to be safe. Kinda “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves”.
LookingHard wrote:
I was listening to the Infants on Thrones podcast (I think that was the podcast) about a year ago and one guy that has left the church was also worried about his kids having sex to early and drinking. He looked into the science of some of this and found some interesting things.(what follows a general recap, not the exact ages/etc)
He found that the chances of becoming an alcoholic greatly decreases if you don’t really get “drunk” until you are at least 25. A teenage mind is much more likely to have adverse effects from drinking early in adulthood, but that decreases. Same think with most drugs. And he also was able to give some empirical data that strongly suggests you are better at relationships if you don’t have a heavy emphasis on sex early in teens. The emotional heartache from wearing your heart on your sleeve and sleeping with lots of people early on can give some issues later on.
So he basically gave his kids this info and said
Quote:Here is the best information I can find for you to be happy and safe. I trust that you will not be stupid. I will always love you, so please don’t hesitate asking for help/advice. I don’t expect that you will never have sex until you are married, but I do suggest you not rush into that and don’t let others pressure you into it. Do it when it feels right and you have been in love with someone for a while. And BTW – here is some info on how to be safe.
Kinda “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves”.
FTFYIt’s actually been a pretty interesting journey for me redefining morality in terms that don’t depend on the words of 2000-year-old scriptures and 80-year-old men. It’s quite the challenge extracting the underlying truths and patterns of human life that led to the advice being given in the first place. For instance, the law of Chastity is a good idea not because some old men said it is, but because of the effects of sex on the human brain and reduced risk of STDs. Intimacy is bonding, and it hurts a person emotionally to treat sex as a cheap thrill. Putting sex behind the commitment of marriage vastly reduces problems caused by casual sex by putting a fence several hundred feet from the danger. Objectively, I could argue this is a bit heavyhanded, but the benefits outweigh the costs, so it’s a satisfactory solution. In essence, objectively, I believe that casual sex is wrong, or at the very least,
really, really stupid. Generally speaking, my litmus test on whether something is moral or not is whether it significantly harms another person, directly or indirectly. My ethical code covers into things like consent, honesty, not wasting people’s time, and respecting others’ intelligence and decisions. (For instance, I would not consider it immoral to advertise, but I would consider it unethical in many cases. OTOH, assisting a suicide would technically be ethical according to my compass, but it would not be moral because it would harm the suicidal person and their loved ones.) There are exceptions, of course.
Beefster – I really enjoy seeing you wrestle with the black and white vs the varying shades of all kinds of color. I guess is that even thought there could be some struggles, you are going to do well no matter where you end up. Best of luck and trust yourself. Beefster wrote:
Putting sex behind the commitment of marriage vastly reduces problems caused by casual sex by putting a fence several hundred feet from the danger.
I believe that there is value to “guardrails” as defined as personal standards that trigger long before anything that might be considered sin or problematic. The key is to understand 1) that these are personal for you and do not make you any better than someone else, 2) that these should never be imposed on others and 3) that they should be somewhat flexible for individual circumstances and open to adjustment as necessary.
For example a person with a family history of alcoholism may implement a guardrail never to drink. Not dating before 16 is another great guardrail. Never having sleepovers is one. Curfew is a good one.
I also fully understand that we go way overboard on this as Mormons collectively. Often with some authority figures personal guardrail becoming a new expectation/rule in the church with little or no consideration for personal circumstances.
There are a multitude of ways to define harm. For example, Roy wrote:
Let me give an example. One example of a personal standard is to not help attractive members of the opposite sex by giving them a job. This in itself is not a problem but it could lead to “proximity” which could lead eventually to compromising situations.…..
Another example might be the personal standard to abstain from alcohol or not eat alone with members of the opposite sex or carpool alone with members of the opposite sex.
They in themselves might not be a problem at all and if someone is stranded and needs a ride home or you are sick and need some Nyquil then to make an exception is ok. But the point of the guardrail is that even in making an exception you will feel uneasy – thus ideally preventing you from the slippery slope of disastrous consequences.
Especially the ones in the middle about not physically being alone with members of the opposite sex. I have no control over whether someone else finds me attractive, regardless of their age or marital status. However, if that person is my supervisor or potential employer and has these “guardrails”, then my career options become limited simply due to my state as a woman. That is sexism in action. Attractive members of the same sex would not get this treatment. Therefore, this supposedly moral action is actually immoral because it harms my opportunities due to my sex. I think this is what subversiveasset meant when he referenced learning what
otherpeople’s vision of harm is so that we can actually prevent it. DancingCarrot wrote:
Therefore, this supposedly moral action is actually immoral because it harms my opportunities due to my sex. I think this is what subversiveasset meant when he referenced learning what other people’s vision of harm is so that we can actually prevent it.
Yes, this is a good point. I do not know the answer. Suffice it to say that I believe both sides have merit. The first in trying to actively prevent the types of situations that might lead to an affair. The second in decrying sexism and discrimination and pushing for all to receive equal opportunities regardless of their gender or perceived attractiveness.
Roy wrote:
DancingCarrot wrote:
Therefore, this supposedly moral action is actually immoral because it harms my opportunities due to my sex. I think this is what subversiveasset meant when he referenced learning what other people’s vision of harm is so that we can actually prevent it.
Yes, this is a good point. I do not know the answer. Suffice it to say that I believe both sides have merit. The first in trying to actively prevent the types of situations that might lead to an affair. The second in decrying sexism and discrimination and pushing for all to receive equal opportunities regardless of their gender or perceived attractiveness.
There is an additional point I think about. When does “treating everyone equally” wind up grossly mis-serving others? Case in point – leave for a new baby. A woman will NEED at least a month to recover physically and be out of the workforce and greater home support if she goes back to work at that time or sooner. The minimum guideline is 6-8 weeks, but not all women are lucky enough to have the financial resources for that amount of time. A man needs/wants paternity leave to bond with his family and support his recovering spouse – he can get away with less time numbered in vacation days being spent. For every situation I have come up, there is no easy answer. What is always boils down to as near as I can tell is how much does it cost in terms of finances, time, number of people impacted, the amount of power among those people, and change of habit to change against the group of people who do not want the change.
Another way I look at it is if the MBTI theory has any merit, there are at least 16 different ways of thinking (on a very large scale, blurred level) – which means there are at least 16 different ways of acting (and or justifying those actions mentally). So how do you balance the needs/ways of thinking that most people have in common against those needs/ways of thinking that some people do not have in common for a variety of reasons?
Introverts and extraverts definitely should be treated differently, for instance. That’s the most accurate part of the MBTI. The other 3 criteria paint people in rather broad strokes. The Big 5 personality test is considerably more accurate and it maps personality as a 5-dimensional vector. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily immoral to treat an introvert like an extravert and vice-versa, though if you were to intentionally isolate an extravert for days on end or throw a big party every day for an introvert, you could very well drive them crazy (making it immoral to do so). I think it does everyone well to understand which they are and learn to respect the other mindset. Society needs both, though it seems that extraversion was needed in greater quantities for human survival since like 2/3 of humans are extraverted.
The golden rule and equality are both great rules of thumb, but it breaks down if you don’t take personality differences into account. I’ve heard of a modification of the golden rule, “Treat others as you would consent to be treated in the same situation.” I think this elegantly summarizes my objective morality. Treating others differently must be tempered with an equality of respect and recognizing that some fences you have put around yourself for your own protection also keep others out. Just remember that Jesus once crossed through a field of grain on the sabbath and ate some of it. Even the most elegant rules have exceptions.
I have experienced too much of what John Dale and experience. Been tempted to dull The Angst of life with alcohol other narcotics. But I never do it. And I all went to the fact that I was raised with the conscience. Conscience that was independent of the church. Also I did a lot of University study ethics. There is a field called normative ethics that has you asking yourself certain questions what to believe or do. It’s completely independent of religion. And it gives a person a moral compass that is independent of Mormonism. I ask myself these questions number one. I want to go down that path? It’s hard the first time but it gets easier the more you do it. This is not a slippery slope argument because there is evidence that when you cross a line it gets easier to cross that line second time. Another question you ask is what you want what you’re about to do broadcast on Facebook and National Television? If you would be ashamed then that’s an indicator that what you’re about to do isn’t something that is going to bring you happiness in the morning room. There are many more questions that normative ethics encourages a person to ask himself. So far I haven’t given into any of these Temptations. I hope that I never given to them. The idea for me is to be lying on my deathbed knowing that I followed my own moral compass. Since I’ve become a disaffected Mormon, I realize that I have even more responsibility to do the right thing in a variety of situations than I did in the past. I no longer buy into the culture. I no longer care about progression in leadership. I no longer care about what others think of me there either. Michael is just to avoid those periods of sadness rekindled her from the things that have happened in the past.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.