NOM

I sat reflecting this morning on my personal morals and how they have grown since the start of my faith transition.

Stories teach morality, and all stories contain conflict. There is a situation that must be resolved, and the resolution comes in the journey. If there is no conflict, the story is boring. And to be honest, I have never read a story that begins, "Once upon a time, a princess lived happily ever after". Growth comes through conflict and opposition.

Mormonism, in providing a strict moral code, presented me for the first 25 years of life a moral code that didn't create conflict. The times that I disobeyed the Mormon moral code, it ended badly for me. Clearly, they were in the right. I accepted it and things worked out really well. I could easily point to faults of my own when running into issues in marriage (pride) or sometimes in work (procrastination). Life was simple.

Then, two major portions of morality given to me by the LDS church came into massive conflict. I ran into a situation where I caught someone participating in child pornography, and the moral thing to do was to protect the children (it is better to wrap a millstone around your neck and be drowned in the sea than to hurt the child). It fell into my LDS morals. Then, my bishop and stake president implored me not to turn it over to the police and "let them take care of it".

My first real conflict in the LDS morality structure occurred: protect the innocent children and listen to priesthood leadership. I took the path of protection and immediately contacted the police. I paid a heavy price for my disobedience of priesthood leadership. I was questioned, called prideful, called hateful names by some of the membership. I was destroying this poor man's life all because I couldn't just let the church deal with it.

This was by far one of the most difficult journeys of my life and has a significant hand in destroying my marriage.

When I emerged from the fire, my morals had not only changed, but had grown significantly. I had a strong moral compass, and I knew that it was stronger and greater than the moral compass that the LDS church gave me. Morality became prioritized, where in cases where morals conflict, some are more important than others. Morality was something that came from inside, not from the outside.

But, moral growth comes when there is conflict. When there isn't conflict, when there isn't opposition in rules, we remain stagnant. Upon leaving Mormonism, I have found that the conflicts occur more often and that growth is something more common. I am much more firm in my morality and simple conflicts no longer bother me as I have established my prioritization. Occasionally, I run into decisions that challenge, but those become less and less.

There must be opposition in all things for the soul to grow. This is also a core LDS doctrine, one that is taught in the temple. However, this crucial portion of life (and LDS doctrine) is too often pushed to the sidelines when a detailed and structured moral code is handed down.

Saw this post by a TBM - discussing a God that would allow children to suffer.

I think I confounded a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses when I told them that I trusted God enough that he must have a good reason for the suffering of children. I suggested that without suffering, how would any of us get the chance to practice mercy? And in the case of a child's suffering, there could be no justification for withholding mercy. It was necessary for the innocent to have pain in order for us to understand how mercy works and to be given the opportunity to practice it ourselves in this life.

For me, this is similar to your experience of individual morals vs institutional morals.

The necessity of opposition for my own growth does not require another suffer.

Gold-Medal Mental Gymnast wrote: And in the case of a child's suffering, there could be no justification for withholding mercy. It was necessary for the innocent to have pain in order for us to understand how mercy works and to be given the opportunity to practice it ourselves in this life.

What actual good does it do for me to offer "mercy" to a 3-year-old, who's dying of Leukemia?

Note: See that my question is directed at the Mental Gymnast TBM who you quoted, not you Kish-Kori.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:48 am

Gold-Medal Mental Gymnast wrote: And in the case of a child's suffering, there could be no justification for withholding mercy. It was necessary for the innocent to have pain in order for us to understand how mercy works and to be given the opportunity to practice it ourselves in this life.

What actual good does it do for me to offer "mercy" to a 3-year-old, who's dying of Leukemia?

Note: See that my question is directed at the Mental Gymnast TBM who you quoted, not you Kish-Kori.

Fluff - I'm going to tell my wife to shoot you so you can see how much mercy I have as I tend to your wounds.

document wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:30 amMy first real conflict in the LDS morality structure occurred: protect the innocent children and listen to priesthood leadership. I took the path of protection and immediately contacted the police. I paid a heavy price for my disobedience of priesthood leadership. I was questioned, called prideful, called hateful names by some of the membership. I was destroying this poor man's life all because I couldn't just let the church deal with it.

I admire your guts - even when you were under the influence of mind-control and were intimidated to believe what was good was bad and visa versa - you still had the clarity of mind and the courage to do what you knew to be ethical.

Last night, I was just reading some notes from Carl Jung: "Every good quality has its bad side, and nothing that is good can come into the world without directly producing a corresponding evil. This is a painful fact."

It does seem to be the way that "there must be opposition in all things" - as you mentioned, it's how we're strengthened. But I wonder how that works now, and I wonder in an ideal world, how it would work. I mean, some opposition I've had was because I made ignorant decisions and had to suffer the consequences. But other opposition has come, kind of like you mentioned above. And I'd hope that by developing good, it isn't creating bad - it just doesn't seem right. What do you think?

That's a great story of personal growth. I won't share the story here, but one of my very first shelf items is when I was faced with the choice of "protecting the good name of the church" and doing the right thing. I too, chose the right thing and paid the price for it, if you call not holding church callings for a while a price. But you are absolutely correct, one develops a "higher" moral compass once that choice is made. Integrity always comes at a price, and once you pay it you will gladly do it again.

Kudos to you for making the right choice, even if it came at the cost of your marriage.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:48 am

Gold-Medal Mental Gymnast wrote: And in the case of a child's suffering, there could be no justification for withholding mercy. It was necessary for the innocent to have pain in order for us to understand how mercy works and to be given the opportunity to practice it ourselves in this life.

What actual good does it do for me to offer "mercy" to a 3-year-old, who's dying of Leukemia?

Hmmm, offering "mercy" is a weird way to put it (and the way this guy describes it, if accurately transcribed, sounds kinda dick-ish) but suffering seems to be easily the most powerful way to develop empathy. From my understanding it was stories of suffering found in books such as Uncle Tom's cabin that really intensified the abolitionist movement. Hearing of the suffering of homosexuals in the church caused my own introspection and change of position in their regard and that appears to be the case for many.

Totally anecdotal but the people I know who have suffered the most tend to be the most thoughtful, caring and loving people I know. While those who haven't known much struggle tend to be self-centered dicks. For myself, my suffering has definitely knocked off some of my rough edges. And for my wife and I, seeing our respective suffering has softened us towards each other.

Now, I have all the standard issues with the problem of evil and suffering but I'm not convinced our growth does not require suffering for ourselves and others. Which is disappointing... but from my experience reality tends to be a little disappointing.

I'm baffled by people who believe the LDS church causes no harm. Most of these people won't even listen to stories about the harm the church does cause, but I think we need to put those stories out anyway. From Helen Marr Whitney to Kip Eliason, people need to know harm is being done. It is our best hope that the church will get better. I'm a little of topic, but this was my takeaway from this thread.