First, I can genuinely be who I am, without artifice, and without trying to fit some mold that empty suits in SLC say I should.

Second, I choose to do or not do things based on whether they actually will or may help or harm someone, rather than by imaginations of what an invisible being or my dead relatives might think of it.

Third, I find that some of the "moral" requirements of mormonism actually forced me into unethical actions.

I'm not alone here, am I?

I find that people who do "good" things so they can have a reward in the afterlife are actually very selfish. Little Ms or Mr Ego is doing things for itself alone. That's what makes it much easier to discard family members who no longer play the Salvation Game.

It's all about them.

I don't lie anymore.

Despite those who decry "situational ethics," who believe there are hard and fast universal standards of right and wrong, I think true morality requires examining each case. It's easier to do that when one is freed from the moral straight jackets of a rigid belief system.

To one degree or another, ALL ethics are situational. Few things in this world are cut-and-dried balck or white.

Do unto other as you would have others do to you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2010 08:51AM by axeldc.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do unto other as you would have others do to you.

Works until you figure out that what "you" want to have done to you may not at all be what the "others" want done to them.

The golden rule falls apart because it is self centered, the only person who's wants are considered are the person doing the "do unto". The wants and the needs of the "others" are not considered when it comes to the Golden rule.

Sorry, but if you are going to "Do unto" me what you would have others do unto you, no thanks, I'll hang with people that consider MY needs, MY wants, etc.

Yours sounds the most egocentric of all. Does everyone have to bow and scrape and ask your permission on how to act around you?

How are you supposed to know how to treat every individual around you? The Golden Rule is the only guide to 99% of the people you meet. Maybe your spouse can cater to your whims, but don't expect everyone else to.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yours sounds the most egocentric of all. Does
> everyone have to bow and scrape and ask your
> permission on how to act around you?

Um, what happened to the "GOLDEN RULE" we were discussing? I said NOTHING about how I expected OTHERS to act toward ME, Where the F' did you get that? I was talking about how *I* act towards others and unlike YOU, I try to consider what the OTHER person wants and not just force what I want on them as you and your golden rule would do.

>
> How are you supposed to know how to treat every
> individual around you?

Well, it is called close observation of how they act, understanding the culture from which they came, actually ASKING the person, noticing when my actions cause issues, talking with the person getting to know the person, you know actually engaging the person not just forcing what I want on them the way you and the golden rule would have. There is also a set of rules we live by to get along, it is called CULTURE.

> The Golden Rule is the
> only guide to 99% of the people you meet.

Oh. look, a made up statistics, how clever, but meaningless. Since I have made it a practice to pay close attention to the people around me to understand what THEY want and not just force what I want on them, I have observed that the golden rule fails quite often. Maybe if you spent more time paying attention to what others want and not just forcing what you want on others, you would see how flawed your fake stats really are.

Seriously, "he Golden Rule is the only guide to 99% of the people you meet." sounds a shit load like "TSCC is the one true church" and neither statement is true. Understating the culture is a far better guide to how to treat people than the golden rule. People from different cultures what to be treated in different ways, sometimes dramatically different ways, many times what is polite in one culture is rude and insulting in another. The golden rule fails miserably in such cases. Understanding cultural differences is a much better guide.


> Maybe
> your spouse can cater to your whims, but don't
> expect everyone else to.

Again, I am not demanding that THEY behave in any particular way, we are talking about how I would treat others. Why do you have to so misrepresent what I am saying, is that how YOU would want to be treated? Is that why you are misrepresenting what I said?

And yes, I do expect people to respect my feelings and not assume that what they want is OK by me. I would hate to have a masochist start treating me the way he would want to be treated.

A good example of the flaw in the golden rule would be to consider the giving of Christmas gifts, people that are good a giving the gifts that people like are good because they pay attention to the person and learn what they do and do not like. People that are bad at giving gifts often give what they want to receive assuming that everyone else in the world would want the same.

You and your golden rule give what you want assuming everyone else whats the same, and that simply is not true.

I mean seriously, do you really think it a bad idea for YOU to consider the feelings and needs of the people around you before you act?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2010 02:26PM by MJ.

I agree.

As a TBM, I thought Mormonism was pure good and the opposite of Mormonism was pure evil (my simplistic TBM worldview). I now view Mormonism as a plastic, superficial existence and the opposite is learning to be genuine and real (both with yourself and others). Yes, the opposite of Mormonism is simply being a real human being.

Dufreyne

I dont feel the need to defend my ethics before or after leaving TSCC.
However, I will just examine a couple of instances in my own life of how things have altered.

I now give to charity, whereas while I was a member I justified my 10% church corporation tax as all the charitable giving I needed.

I have friends who are Lesbian, gay and transgender and have no problem with fitting them into some imaginary sky-fairy plan of existence

This topic is my whole life. As a philosopher, I'm an ethicist. Every time we make a decision about what to do we are making an ethical decision, to some degree. The ultimate question of morality is, how must I live? Every decision about this is a moral decision.

I don't believe in moral relativism. But the questions that concern our individual lives are different from the questions that concern us as a public. Two things we can not compromise no matter what are human rights and justice. So instead of morality being relative, it is more accurately described as contextual. We might also say ethics and morality are situational, but "contextual" is a term that works better for this application. Morality is not absolute, but it is universal, which is not exactly the same thing. Justice and human rights are universal. "Absolute" morality is a religious thing, and I have no use for it at all. I'm interested in what affects every single person on earth. Not people in one particular religious group.

One of the most important secular ethical principles is called the "Harm Principle." It was one of the things that interested John Stuart Mill. It's part of what makes a person a moral person. The principle is very simple: do no harm--ever.

If we take this principle seriously, it can affect our lives very deeply. There are things we do in our everyday lives that cause harm, if only indirectly. But indirect harms are harms that still must be prevented. So we need to conduct ourselves in a way that reflects our concern for any indirect harms that may result from our way of life. We can't expect perfection, but morality simply demands that we do our best. And morality has nothing to do with watching the behaviors of others. A moral person behaves morally because it is the right thing to do, and not for any other reason.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2010 06:32AM by Troy.

Not lying to yourself or anyone else is an act of integrity.

you need to be willfully ignorant even if you are otherwise bright.

That is wrong, and that creates huge fissures in your character.

I should know. I lived it.

Mormon "morality" is about sex, tobacco, coffee and alcohol. If can abstain from those, you are allegedly a good person.

Here are some morals they seem to ignore:

1) Caring for the poor. Jesus was really big on this one, but he never said a word about gays.
2) Caring for the environment. Utah is an ecological disaster and people who care about air pollution, global warming and mass extinctions are viewed as nutcases or worse. The Congressmen from the most Mormon districts are the biggest enemies to environmentalists and they don't even represent oil interests.
3) Judgmentalism. "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Yeah, try that one out in LDS culture!
4) Kicking out their own children, especially for being gay. This is a horrible sin and they do it all the time. SLC is filled with teenage male prostitutes because their parents want nothing to do with them.
5) Love thy neighbor. (See above) Trunk or treat is an example of how Mormons treat their neighbors


I could go on, but Mormons get so sanctimonious about "morality" when in my eyes they have some very immoral attitudes. They care more about who you sleep with than how you treat others and their planet.

Controlling the corporeal. I think you're absolutely right when you wrote: "Mormons get so sanctimonious about "morality" when in my eyes they have some very immoral attitudes. They care more about who you sleep with than how you treat others and their planet."

That's exactly how I feel too. I choose to be the way I am, because it's simply my nature. I no longer live a certain way due to a fear that if I'm not 'good' then I'll go to some dark, scary place.

It really does feel much more genuine, now that I'm leading an honest life. It made me realize how phoney a forced morality is.

Be who you really are. My philosophy now is that if there is a God, then you can't lie to Him anyway, so you might as well just relax and be yourself. You might even come to realize that you're a pretty decent human being.

Agree with all of the above.

In my "good mormon" life, I am ashamed to say I bought into some very superficial ways of judging myself and others - smoking cigarettes, drinking beer = one step away from depravity.

These days I am much more forgiving of myself and others. What a relief.

It hurts deeply to think of all the lies I told while raising my children to believe. I'm sure more than just one of us would recognize something was bullshit, but then had to assuage the teenager or child with a doctrinal lie in order to keep him or her a believer. I'm glad that's over. I've apologized to my kids, but I still have two out of five that are TBM and proud of it.

Since leaving Mormonism I find I can actually speak to strangers with more ease and openness. Isn't that weird? I wonder why it is.

Axeldc, I loved your comments and totally agree.

Not me. I'm a slut, whether in or out of the church. Sorry, but that's how I roll.

Ron

ExMormonRon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not me. I'm a slut, whether in or out of the
> church. Sorry, but that's how I roll.
>
> Ron


But are you a GOOD slut?

Mormonism is all about adhering to mostly arbitrary rules and being evaluated as a good or bad person depending on the extent you follow those rules. It has nothing to do with who you are on the inside, which is obviously what really matters. It is a juvenile approach to morality and integrity, and is easily manipulated.

You never really see who the person really is as no one cares who the person really is; who the person really is doesn't matter. What matters is image.

They are shiny and white-washed on the outside, dead man's bones on the inside.

We do not have to do things we know are wrong, or to defend something that we know is morally reprehensible.