When you left Mormonism, did you change your moral values dramatically? I changed very little about myself when I left, but I was talking to a friend of mine who just left Mormonism. She told me that her DH feels all morals are now subjective.

Apparently, nothing is off limits because there are no limits now that Mormonism isn't in the picture. He is wanting her to do things she doesn't feel comfortable doing, and she is really sad with his new values or lack of values. He is wanting to bring new sexual partners into the relationship, and she is upset. He tells her that her guilty feeling over the idea are just feelings left over from Mormonism.

I am just wondering what others think of this. How did you re-evaluate your morals after leaving Mormonism? For those of you who are now agnostic or atheist, do you still view life as having moral limits? Do you think there are some natural laws to society? I have the same morals, for the most part, as I did as a Mormon, but I can see how this could change for some. I think for my friend that she and her DH were living a particular lifestyle as Mormons because they felt forced to do this, and now they no longer feel forced. They were pretty much the picture perfect Mormon family. For me, even as a Mormon, I only did the things that made sense to me, and when I left, not much changed.

Please share your thoughts on this.

except I became much more tolerant and loving, which I like to think is becoming more my real self. I think the people who shift values dramatically are the people who didn't really think through their own values but just obeyed church ones. When they stopped listening to church counsel, they didn't know how to listen to their own moral conscience. They didn't know how to make good decisions based on who they were and what they believed in. So either they went spinning off into whatever other current moved them or their true self came out. But for people who were internally motivated within Mormonism, there wasn't much TO change. They already were more or less themselves, not some fake puppet of the LDS church.

CA girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When they stopped listening to
> church counsel, they didn't know how to listen to
> their own moral conscience. They didn't know how
> to make good decisions based on who they were and
> what they believed in.

there's evidence against *certain aspects* of an innate moral conscience...
first of all, there's no such thing as a unified "morality" or "moral conscience".

most children take what they want, from whoever has what they want, they hit, scratch, bite, etc.. we have to teach children to get along with each other or they learn it the hard way.

we are also social creatures and like to express love and like to receive love, we like to belong and like to have friends. this is normally nothing that has to be taught.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 07:14AM by Nick Humphrey.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 05:34AM by Nick Humphrey.

I think some people leave TSCC because they are too loving and accepting of others and feel out of place in the Morg. It's like the assimilation process failed.

We need to take time to find out who we are after leaving mormonism. That doesn't mean we have to do the opposite of everything we've been taught, only that we have to eventually start acting in concert with who we are authentically, not who the mormon church thinks we should be.

Too many exmormons think they have to change their political party, their style of clothing, their moral standards. They don't and going to any extreme is crazy. There's no need to start using dangerous drugs or exposing ourselves to other danderous practices just because mormonism used to caution us against such things. Just because the morg says booze is bad doesn't mean excessive booze is good.

I think it's best to keep everything pretty much the same for a few years until we've had some recovery time to be sure we're acting from authenticity and not knee-jerk contraryness.

Joe and Brigham and their cohorts are examples of what can happen when men go off the deep end sexually. Emma and all of the hundreds of other mormon "wives" were not happy being coerced and discounted. Your friend probably feels similarly.

Cheryl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> morg says booze is bad doesn't mean excessive
> booze is good.
but it is =)

> I think it's best to keep everything pretty much
> the same for a few years until we've had some
> recovery time to be sure we're acting from
> authenticity and not knee-jerk contraryness.

i think its best to do whatever you want =)

> what can happen when men go off the deep end
> sexually.

is that possible? =)

First of all, it is quite insulting to atheists to assume that we don't have 'moral limits'.... although I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't quite mean it like that.

Personally, I feel that my morals have become *better* (???) since leaving the church..... maybe it was easier for me, as I was a convert (15 years morg) and have a nevermo family.

I don't pay tithing to the corporation, but now I take a percentage off my income (payroll giving) which goes directly to charity http://www.worldvision.org

I don't drink alcohol, because that is *my* choice, not because anyone tells me what to do.

I don't attend church, but I will be at church parade for the local remembrance day parade next week.... once again, that is *my* choice.

and, my sexual life may have changed, but I still have 'sexual morals'.......once again, that is *my* choice.


Ethics and Morals have been around long before religion.... we are a tribal species and, without some code of ethics, mankind could not have advanced.

to abandon morals because you abandon religion is a cop-out -- literally an immoral cop-out

onceanelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ethics and Morals have been around long before
> religion.... we are a tribal species and, without
> some code of ethics, mankind could not have
> advanced.

christopher hitchens points out that societies die out if they allow incest, murder, etc..

> to abandon morals because you abandon religion is
> a cop-out -- literally an immoral cop-out

try abandoning morals and see if you like it. abandon whatever you dont like of teachings of the "prophets". its *your* life. retain the ones you eventually like, if any.

i like the thelema/crowley rule: do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 07:25AM by Nick Humphrey.

In no way am I implying atheists have no moral values. My question is more to get insight into how moral values develop both with and without a belief in God or religion. In fact, what I am implying more, is that often moral values are not as authentic if a religion is involved. I am more agnostic than anything right now, and I am just trying to be introspective about how my values are being developed now that I have left Mormonism. I am just wanting insight, and I am not implying anything. My friend claims to be atheist at this point, but yet, my guess is that most atheists still have a set of moral values or principals. I think she, and especially her husband, are struggling to find their own values because they have relied on the ones set up by the Mormon church.

At least as good as I can considering I am a member of the Primate Family with the normal stock of ego-related instincts and emotions. It comes with the package.

But I believe in being as fair and kind with others as I can, including learning to forgive myself for the occasional mistakes in judgement.

I am comfortable with people who use coffee, alcohol, cannibus, etc. - until it gets out of hand and becomes an addition.

Anyone who thinks religions based on the Bibles/BOM/ and probably the Koran are moral guides have read these books with their brains stuck in Neutral. The morals in the Bible really take the cake for ugliness.

I think it is important to recognize that the vast majority of humans do not change the values they were raised with, and those that do tend to gradually change those values over time as they gain knowledge they didn't have previously. It is really a minority of people who radically change their own morality overnight after they have changed their minds about religion, as SusieQ#1 might say. I am usually very suspicious of people who make a 180-degree shift in their morality overnight--it usually means they haven't really thought through what their new values are and the possible consequences of their behaviors based on those new values.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
--it usually means they haven't really
> thought through what their new values are and the
> possible consequences of their behaviors based on
> those new values.

It's a good idea to examine and change whatever doesn't work in our lives. But it's a bad idea to change just for the sake of change without regard to possible consequences.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> might say. I am usually very suspicious of people
> who make a 180-degree shift in their morality
> overnight
how are you suspicious? what are you suspicious of?

what would a 180-degree shift in morality entail?

if someone decides finally one day: "yes i now believe the lds church is a fraud"
how long do they have to wait then to do things the church has forbid them to do all their lives?

i say start today, start right away doing things differently! why wait?! life is short.

Nick Humphrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> blindguy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > might say. I am usually very suspicious of
> people
> > who make a 180-degree shift in their morality
> > overnight
> how are you suspicious? what are you suspicious
> of?

Fair questions. I would be suspicious of the person's authenticity--that the predictability of their behavior had made a radical change that I could not account for.
>
> what would a 180-degree shift in morality entail?

Another good question. A 180-degree shift in my mind would entail a 180-degree shift in behavior. Keep in mind that humans do not have the capacity to read each others' minds. The only way we have to judge other people is by the behaviors we see from them. This means that unless you say something, I am not really going to know if you stopped attending church, tithing, wearing garments, etc. On the other hand, if I had seen you the previous evening and you had said you couldn't drink, have sex, etc. and therefore wouldn't go out to a singles bar and then the next night, I observe you at a singles bar, drink in hand, asking someone you just met "Your place or mine?", I would certainly wonder about what happened and whether or not you would be trustworthy because of your unpredictability.
>
> if someone decides finally one day: "yes i now
> believe the lds church is a fraud"
> how long do they have to wait then to do things
> the church has forbid them to do all their lives?
>
> i say start today, start right away doing things
> differently! why wait?! life is short.

I fully agree with your final sentence. Life is ultimately short for all of us. And though I tend to be a cautious person (my posts on this topic should indicate that), one can and should change one's values after giving full consideration to the possible ramifications of such changes and concluding that the advantages of changing one's values fully outweigh the disadvantages of changing those values.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it is important to recognize that the vast
> majority of humans do not change the values they
> were raised with, and those that do tend to
> gradually change those values over time as they
> gain knowledge they didn't have previously. It is
> really a minority of people who radically change
> their own morality overnight after they have
> changed their minds about religion, as SusieQ#1
> might say. I am usually very suspicious of people
> who make a 180-degree shift in their morality
> overnight--it usually means they haven't really
> thought through what their new values are and the
> possible consequences of their behaviors based on
> those new values.


Yes, I changed my mind about my religious beliefs, but my ethical and moral compass has not changed.

I've seen a lot of knee-jerk reactions by people leaving the church and it just gives the TBMs more ammo to say that you are leaving because you want to sin.

My philosophy is that you have certain moral values because you are a moral person. You are not a moral person just because you are a mormon. The church makes you think that your values would fall apart if they weren't there telling you what to do. Not true.

At first, when leaving, you are disoriented from all those years of brainwashing. Eventually you have to figure out what works for you.

I haven't gone out and had an affair. I haven't become dishonest in my business dealings. I haven't started lieing or cheating or become lazy. In many ways I am a more honest and genuine person since detaching from the church. But some things that are considered immoral by the church I now do, occasionally drink wine, coffee and tea, no longer wear garments, etc.

You just have to figure out what works for you.

What should it matter if moral values change or not?

As for how that works in a marriage, that's something the two of them will have to work out.

Almost every exMo I know has changed some of their moral values. The sabbath, word of wisdom and tithing are almost always done away with or altered significantly. Sex before marriage is another common change.

Does any of this actually cause hurt to others? Nope. We're all consenting adults.

But keeping the sabbath holy or not does not equal morality.

Paying tithing or not does not make you moral person (or not).

The Word of Wisdom isn't about morality.

The problem is values change but mormons think values and morals are the same thing. They are not. Values are things that we VALUE. I value air conditioning. I work so that I can pay my electric bill so I can continue to enjoy air conditioning.

I value feeling good about myself when I give an act of kindness to another.

Working and being kind are not MORALS. They are things that I happen to VALUE.

Being moral means you are a good person or not. One thing that is very difficult for most people to wrap their brains around is that sex and morality are not the same thing. If I wear a halter top to the city pool, that does not make me an immoral person. I might be immoral but it won't be because of the halter top. :: devil horns ::

Having sex outside of marriage isn't, in and of itself, an immoral act. It's just sex, devoid of morality or immorality. But cheating on a married person to have sex outside of marriage might be considered immoral if I happen to be a person who VALUES fidelity. But if I have sex outside of marriage with a single, consenting adult, and no one is cheating, lying, or stealing, and nobody is hurting anybody else, then I am still not IMMORAL. There are ethics to sex, depending on what you VALUE, and whether or not you have integrity with regard to your own VALUES, THAT's what makes you a moral person or not.

So, how have my moral values changed? I no longer value qualities or things that have no meaning for me. My virginity doesn't mean anything, or say anything about what kind of person I am, so I don't value my virginity. I don't have to feel guilty for not being one. In fact, I consider it a mark of integrity to embrace my sexuality without shame or fear, because we are all born sexual beings. Our evolutionary (and god-given, if you are a believer) purpose on this planet is to reproduce, so there is nothing inherently immoral or unnatural about the urge to mate. It's a biological imperative. Acting on that urge ≠ immorality. Lying, stealing, cheating, and hurting people out of that urge = immorality.

As I left the church, I figured out how to define morality for myself instead of allowing some old white man define it for me from behind some pulpit.

cl2 said, "Some people have considered me unethical because I stay married to have access to health insurance for my medical conditions. That is their opinion."

For the record, I disagree with this meme that you are somehow gaming the system. Even if the act of remaining married for the sake of healthcare really can be considered unethical somehow (I don't really get that. People stay married for a thousand different reasons.), that still doesn't necessarily make you immoral.

Does one allegedly unethical act make a whole person completely immoral?

I'd guess that most of us would say no because who here has not committed at least one unethical act in their lifetime?

Does that make you immoral? Of course not.

I think it is very important to define terms whenever this conversation comes up. Morals, ethics, and values are not interchangeable terms. They all mean different things. Yet, even in this thread, people use the term "moral value" as if those words mean something when strung together in that order. There is no such thing.

I agree. (I had some old board member say I was doing something illegal for using my ex's insurance.)

I don't feel I am an immoral person in any fashion.

I also don't believe that mormonism made me who I am. I would have been the same person ethically and morally no matter how I was raised.

I knew there was a post I wanted to get back to.

Changing moral values . . . I was as devout mormon as anyone I knew. I've said before I was a true mormon virgin when I married at age 27. I, even now, have only kissed 2 men and I'm age 53. Back when I was dating, I kissed the boyfriend I am with now, but I wouldn't allow him to French kiss me. I didn't believe in premarital sex. I tried to save my gay husband--which is why I married him. I thought gays were perverts, etc., etc.

I never touched alcohol. I still have never had a puff of a cigarette. I am TOO honest and it comes back to bite me.

Nowadays--I still am honest and ethical to a fault. I definitely feel I live with integrity.

BUT I am still married (for insurance reasons) to my gay husband. I have "extramarital" sex with my boyfriend. I have tried alcohol and drink now and then, but it is no big deal to me (everyone thought if I ever touched alcohol I'd become an alcoholic as I have an addictive personality)--and I still have never smoked.

I am extremely supportive of my gay "ex" and all gays.

I still consider myself to have very strict moral values. I do not cheat on my boyfriend. I consider myself to be in a very committed relationship. Some people have considered me unethical because I stay married to have access to health insurance for my medical conditions. That is their opinion.

I live a VERY different life than I did as a mormon, but I still consider myself to have moral values.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 11:21AM by cl2.

In other words, if a person has to find their moral code from what a group tells them, then they have some pretty severe ethical issues.

I think true morals start from "will my actions harm another, or carry that potential?" Anything beyond that is merely refinement, and probably window-dressing.

No, we shouldn't necessarily throw out *everything* from mormonism, but consider this example: Many people in business or office settings will continue to use certain procedures "beacuse we've always done it this way".

Well, *WHY* have you always done it that way? Maybe the justification doesn't exist anymore. One shouldn't necessarily drop all their "values" upon leaving mormonism, but one should at least question all of them and determine if they still have any moral validity and are relevant to the way one currently lives one's life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 01:33PM by helamonster.

My core moral values were what made me think the mormon cult was better than it truly is.

They haven't changed much since leaving the cult, but I have become more jaded.

Such things as: honesty, truthfulness, tolerance,kindness, integrity, treating people like I want to be treated, respect for others, their property, and on and on as is appropriate for the society I live in. None of that has changed since I changed my mind about my religious beliefs. In fact, I am probably more tolerant and accepting of others, that is, unless they cross my moral boundaries.

If you learned them from the LDS or an LDS family and you no longer believe the LDS is true, then wouldn't it make sense to deeply evaluate the values taught to you by an institution that was not true, that lied?

For me the LDS places way to much emphasis on sex and appearance when other values, respect and acceptance of others for example, are far more important.

When making such big changes I think it important to reevaluate all aspects of your life. Chances are, the LDS influenced every aspect of your life, so it makes sense to evaluate what that influence was and if it is something worth keeping.

The bottom line is that the Mormons don't own morality, any more than they own the concept of "the family." Any more than they own Christ or God.

What Onceanelder wrote is true: "Ethics and Morals have been around long before religion.... we are a tribal species and, without some code of ethics, mankind could not have advanced."

Anyone who believes that Mormonism keeps people moral is still brainwashed. The children and I were always more moral than the general expectations of the cult. We never did cheat our fellow man in business, extort money, tell lies (tried not to), judge unfairly (tried not to). We didn't shun non-members, or hate gays, or demean women. We didn't have social/racial/econimic prejudices or elitism. We didn't overindulge in meat and junk food. We didn't rebel. You know what I mean, don't you? Rather than giving up our morals, we lived up to them, after leaving Mormonism.

Now, and always, the Mormon church was not what kept me moral.

As Helamonster said, "...morals that don't come from within aren't genuine."

Even as a TBM, I always knew my reasons for being moral: to avoid unwanted pregnancy and diseases, to save my passions for the man I truly loved, to keep my emotional integrity and not lead men on, to avoid yet another addiction (chocolate was enough of a struggle for me), to live a life of integrity, to be trustworthy, to maintain good relationships, to succeed in business, etc. etc. I could go on for pages, and not mention religion as a reason. Much less fear that God will punish me, or that Satan will get a hold on me. I always thought that was nonsense!

It has to come from within! As many of you said, it depends on the individual's personal ethics and values. I admire you people, and respect what you've written on this thread. >^..^<



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 03:55PM by forestpal.

A simple look around the world and throughout time shows that morals are not at all universal for mankind, they differ from culture to culture and throughout time. Even views on murder and rape have changed. The Gladiators or Rome to me shows how views on murder have changed, while the story of Lot offering up his daughters for rape show how attitudes towards rape have changed.

The question is, is there a true absolute morality? Is there are moral code that exists without exception or possible exception?

For example, I feel murder is wrong, but what if I knew for certain that allowing an individual to live would lead to nuclear inhalation of all life on earth, would I be willing to murder that person? Either way the person would be dead, but by not acting and murdering that one person, I would have caused the death of every living thing on earth, so what is the best moral choice, murder or not? Yes, this is a hypothetical and it is meant to be, it is meant to illustrate moral the sort of moral deletes that are possible with any moral code. It gets worse, what if I was 98% sure that murdering that one person would prevent the inhalation of all life on earth?

So, what is the ultimate moral code that exists without possible exceptions?

But as your post states, that isn't to say that some things just aren't "wrong" on their face, like murder. Choices in this world are seldom so black-and-white, though, which is I believe the point you were trying to make.

Would you harm one person to save thousands from suffering? If so, then you have violated the "Do not harm" ethic. If not, then by your inaction you have caused harm, thus violating the do not harm ethic.

Sorry, but sometimes you need to "harm" someone. Sometimes you need to cause emotional harm by rejecting someone who shows interest in you. Sometimes you have to cause emotional harm by breaking up with a partner when things are not working out....

Nope, the "Do not harm" ethic is one of the weakest most often violated.

It sounds to me like your friends' husband has a lot of anger in him either at the church or something else. To say that nothing is off limits is like a child that wants to smash all the toys because he feels betrayed.

But there are some folks who seem to believe that if there is no god to make them be good, they can rob, kill, do drugs, anything because the threat is gone. They really believe that people are raving maniacs without religion to keep the leash on them.

Him wanting his wife to do things that make her uncomfortable is not very loving...its like he wants to punish her because Mormonism is a fraud.

Thanks for all you interesting posts. I appreciate your input. I think it is important for everyone to rethink their values after leaving Mormonism, and I understand that they may change in various ways. I also realize that some may change more than others. However, I think with my friend's situation that it is not fair to her, for her husband to expect her to change her values to match his, especially when his are dramatically different. Further, I do not think it is right to pressure her into doing things she does not want to do. It seems controlling to me, and in some ways, no different than what Mormonism did them in the first place.