Comments on Mormon Thinking: Our Universal Mentality of Morality

Take the law of chastity for an example.Most of th...

2008-12-04T05:46:00.000+02:00

Take the law of chastity for an example.

Most of the world is taking an increasingly lax view of this idea. Many believe it represents out-of-fashion prudish rules that have little relevance in today's world. They argue that the original motive had to do with unwanted pregnancies and STDs, and with the advent of new technologies for birth control and medicine we are free to romp. As I heard one college student put it, "we can, so we should."

The LDS perspective views sexuality as a supremely sacred (and therefore, closely guarded) experience. We are not free to wildly experiment, since our bodies were bought with a price by the blood of the Lamb. We keep our passions within prescribed boundaries.

So, you may have been taught in your youth that sex before marriage is 'bad.' That is a moral. If you learned it from your health teacher after strict warnings about AIDS, etc. you might likely disregard it, but if you learned it from your parents and your bishop after thoughtful discussion of theological and familial reasons, you'd be more likely to hold to it.

Nils:The answer to your first question is, of cour...

2008-12-03T22:49:00.000+02:00

Nils:
The answer to your first question is, of course, the monolith which caused prehistoric man to have the first scuffle saw what it had done, and it said something like, "Woah, back up there a minute."

Okay so maybe it didn't happen the way Kubrick filmed it.

The simple answer for the simple minded is that it came from the very finger of God himself. The better and more complicated answer for the b-a-m-c minded is that it evolved over time as ideas rose and fell, some enduring and some fading away. To actually trace morality as we have it today back to its source has been the life work of many a scholar, myself not included (I barely have time to trace the Word of Wisdom to its origins). Mormonism, some might say, is straight from the hand of God to Joseph Smith, but it is also easy to see, for those who are willing, that it's a product of its time in addition to being the product of God through Joseph Smith and early church leaders, a conglomeration of what has gone before, with some novel ideas (no pun intended) introduced to form a new religion, in the sense that it's a unique riff on many tenents of Christian doctrine/dogma/morality.

Where Mormon morality came from is more important than it used to be, because "that's the way it is" jives mostly with the same people who can't be bothered with newfangled technology, but as for the rest of us, an information age means exposure to not only greater detail about the past and present but also exposure to different ways of thinking.

Again, there's not room for where I think Mormon morality came from (except in very general terms already stated), but I think the key here is when it comes up against contradictions, a choice must be made. In the much used and abused 'frog in hot water' example, this is the way I think most people (myself included) grow accustomed to the new way of thinking. By swimming in the water, or popular opinion, as it becomes more intensely of the opposite persuasion i.e. from pro capital punsihment to anti capital punishment. "It just doesn't make sense any more," says the boiling frog (not to endorse or discredit captal punishment per se).

Another approach is to just block out any contradictions and carry on merrily. or stodgily, or any number of ways one carries on.

And then there's the lonely intellectual who's paradigm is only half built because it's not all quite clear yet. This option has the disadvantage of paralysis. In life, we're not given the option to wait till all the mail is in before a decision is made.

And so I propose, that while the origins of morality are important, I'm not sure I can know what those origins are, only in small fragments maybe. I propose that like having faith in a God one has not seen nor understands, one can have faith in an origin one has not seen nor understands.

To have faith in the Mormon definition of what is right and wrong is to keep the main structure, but to question as one can, without removing fundamentals unless there is an equally strong replacement.

Achem that's question 1.

Michaela - Welcome back to Mormon Thinking! I lik...

2008-12-03T13:35:00.000+02:00

Michaela - Welcome back to Mormon Thinking! I like how you pointed out that your parents were the primary source of influence in your definition of morals. Next week we will talk about the role of family in Mormonism. I also feel that my sense of morality came primarily from my parents. Even though we do not share the same religious beliefs, I feel that my morals are fundamentally a carbon copy of those espoused by my parents. While there certainly may be some tiny details in our moral definitions that differ, in a broad sense, our moral code is 99% identical. In fact, I believe all humans share this same, fundamentally identical code of morality. Unfortunately, we seem to give more notice those aspects of moral issues on which we differ.

Tobyo-

Thank you for the enthusiasm for the topic. Unfortunately, the reader who suggested this topic was only semi-intelligent and has some very disturbing physical features.

I agree with your assessment that three of the major sources of morality come from family, religion, and social culture. But I have another question for you, how do you think that your (or anybody's) family, religion, or social culture developed their morals? Obviously these things can be taught and passed from one person to another. But, digging deeper into your original question which inspired this post, where did these institutions get their morals in the first place?

Also, I agree with your take that a child without moral training from family, religion, or another source might go astray in their behavior and do what might be considered immoral. However, what is the characteristic that defines that these actions are immoral in the first place?

Thaddeus-

Continuing with my response to Tobyo, I would be interesting in hearing how Mormonism helped you to understand why something was moral or immoral. Maybe some more detail on what you mean by this?

Knowing what is right and wrong is not enough. Pr...

2008-12-03T07:53:00.000+02:00

Knowing what is right and wrong is not enough. Practicing right behavior is not enough. The key to a truly enlightened society is knowing why a behavior is right or wrong.

This is where Mormonism has helped me out, and it's a major flaw I see in many other religious and secular schools of thought.

I agree with Michaela that the atheist professor w...

2008-12-02T22:10:00.000+02:00

I agree with Michaela that the atheist professor was probably borrowing from Hobbes' 'social contract' philosophy. But to make it more biological, one might speak of cannibalism as a trait that biologically humans evolved away from in order to prevent the spread of whatever diseases the dead guy has (see X-Files episode "Our Town").

I think morality comes from at least three sources: family, religion, and traditional culture. Then one draws on these sources, with some popular culture in the mix.

I imagine that as a child, most people are willing to agree with what they are taught. It is the introduction of quandaries, such as, "why is mommy and daddy not together any more," or "my teacher can slap my hand with a ruler, but I'm not supposed to hit others," or "I see those guys drinking and they look real happy." And unless the answer can fit into what that kid is taught, some or all of it might go out the window.

The most difficult part of being a Mormon is the fact that being a Mormon, or a member of any church, implies that one agrees with every little part. Every Mormon is instantly a hypocrite, whether it's going over the speed limit, or laughing too loudly (not sure exactly what the dB limit is...), or wearing a blue shirt to church, because it goes against latter-day revelation.

Also there's a trend in society to blame religion for setting unreasonable expectations. I think also religion is the easiest to attack, because it has its places of worship, its special dress code, and right and wrong is often written down clearly...

The solution must be, of course, to reject the all-or-nothing approach of Mormonism, and free oneself up for picking and choosing what seems moral and what doesn't. From this point of view, religions like Mormonism have no place in society whatsoever.

I have two problems with this:
1) It is the very structure of religion that makes it easier for families to pass on correct morality from one generation to another.

2) Who exactly is laying the smorgasbord for the non-religious person? In religion, it is not one person, but a body of tried and true moral answers, complete with examples and further explanation.

Imagine being a child, who was never told that ripping books in half was wrong. That kid might feel cautious at first, but without anyone having said it was wrong, he gets over it, and it becomes okay. I have to wonder whether I agree that the light of Christ is in each of us, or as Nils put it, Our divine nature follows the same universal code to which our Spiritual Father is subject. I think that without someone to explain right and wrong, that divine nature is not enough. In the example above, replace ripping books in half
with
sex with strangers
or drinking coffee
or stealing
or shooting animals
or better yet, watching a movie where the heroine is drinking coffee while ripping a book in half in bed with a stranger and shooting animals, and stealing.

I think each person has their own traits, personality, and their own sense of right and wrong, to an extent, but without good teachers, that child could and probably would go far astray.

This is a fantastic topic! The reader who suggest...

2008-12-01T16:46:00.000+02:00

This is a fantastic topic! The reader who suggested it must have been amazingly intelligent and probably good looking too!

Will write more when I get the time--

sorry for looong entry - it did not look that long...

2008-12-01T15:19:00.000+02:00

sorry for looong entry - it did not look that long before I actually posted it ... :)

I was inclined to say that I (thus also referring ...

2008-12-01T15:17:00.000+02:00

I was inclined to say that I (thus also referring to myself as having morals ;) )did not have a very religious upbringing as such , at least not a specifically catholic one, but then thinking about it - that's not totally correct: My parents went to church with us, although not regularly, when we were kids. I went to a (catholic) church-based weekly playgroup and I loved our class for religious education in primary school and remember my teacher telling us stories from the old and new testament that made me think about right or wrong, judge or reconsider my own and other children's behaviour. But ultimately it was my parents (not being very devoted to church and church activities, but still believing in God) I would trust to guide me, mainly I think because over the years they have proven to me that their guidance kept me out of trouble and left me with a clean conscience. I thus agree with you, Nils, that religion and church can be a source for our morals, but that it is definitely not the only source available.
The professor you cited was probably referring to Hobbes and his "Leviathan", saying that people, being in a "natural state", would kill each other , but close a deal ("social contract," which then ultimately results in the creation of a state) between each other not to hurt each other, simply because it secures their own survival and not because out of any God given morals.
I agree with this theory insofar as that I think many things we call morals and appropriate behavior is what we (as a group, state, community, congregation etc.) have adopted because it surves an ultimate purpose (the survival of the state for example). But I would like to think that there are basic human values and morals given by God/nature, such as for example not to hurt or kill someone other than for selfdefense, and I would not agree with the professor when he says, that people refer from hurting each other simply because they were biologically condition not to do so. I have to say though that it is hard to think of this theory - the evolving, biological conditioning - as not being logic, and maybe I do not agree with it because it draws a too pessimistic picture of human behaviour, a picture which is not congruent with my idea of universal morals and goodness given by God - which is something my heart very much wants to believe in .
Michaela.