"High Moral Conduct"

[_Moniker]

I saw mention on MAD that one of the positive aspects of the Church is the "high moral conduct" that is evident in LDS members. What precisely is "high moral conduct" for LDS members?

No fornication? Honesty (were you a missionary -- were you honest?)? Not drinking? What?

What precisely do LDS members think their "high moral conduct" is?

My thoughts on morality is that our mirror neurons play a key role in morality -- that to empathize is an essential component, and that morality evolved through cultural and biological processes (reciprocity). I don't think any religion (or lack thereof) has a market on it.

What say you?

I agree. My definition of "high morals" is completely different today than when in the LDS church. Morality in Mormonism seems inherently strawman -- the strawman being "God." In other words, Mormon morality is when a person behaves as Mr. Straw says they should, anything different is immoral.

One behavior that is highly immoral in Mormonism is extra-marital sex. To me, there is nothing more moral than two committed people willingly sharing their passions with each other -- regardless of whether there is a paper that says they are "married."

A behavior that I find immoral in Mormonism today is the ingrained attitude that they have the "one and only right way to live," and that plays out in relationships with others. This chronic judgmentalism is, in my opinion, one of the most immoral behaviors humankind can do. I will grant that it is not exclusive to Mormons, but very well groomed.

So "morality" is subjectively defined, and I just believe it is quite different than the way it is defined by those that claim a unique guidance by "God" -- the ultimate strawman.

Thanks to you and Tori for the responses. :)

I agree that there does seem to be quite a bit of focus on chastity. I recall first visiting MAD a bit over a year ago and really questioning whether I was someone that was filthy and tainted -- the talk about chaste women really made me feel sort of awful about myself. There does seem to be a lot of condemnation and judgmentalism. It seems odd that it occurs, to me, in relation to sexuality -- sexuality is something we all have (when we abstain or not) and there are many sexual behaviors that seem to be condemned that really are not hurtful to others or self.

I see a lot of religious morality concerning itself with behaviors that really don't seem to be any more than a way to control people. If the control is put in place to ensure self and societal structures are protected from harm that is one thing. In LDS I just see morality set up as a sort of almost pointless notion of not doing something for NO purpose whatsoever other than God said so.

[_Moniker]

What is immoral about having sex outside marriage? It's just 'cause God says so? That's it? Right?

Interesting question. The Gospel does not teach that anything is moral or immoral because God says so. God identifies to us standards, conditions, and actualities in the universe that we are then free to conform ourselves to or ignore.

I'm not certain I understand what you're saying here. Sorry. :)

I think I understand that we can ignore the dictates (in whatever religion) or choose to live them. Yet, how does the gospel teach about moral and immorality in regards to sex? I'm seriously not certain I understand how it is taught.

Sexual morality is one of a class of principles that may not be obvious to human beings but which is required of us if we are to be happy in this life (to a higher, more fulfilling degree) and have eternal life beyond this one. It is not immoral because God says so, but because it is; God identifying that state of affairs so that we can choose to live a higher or lower law in this life.

So, let's take premarital sex. I seriously had no idea this was a sin until about 6 months ago.... :)

So, premarital sex is not immoral 'cause God says so... yet, it just is immoral. I don't understand!

One would think, however, that God, being God, would be trustworthy in these matters.

Well, I would certainly hope so! Yet, it does concern me that there are many people that claim to communicate with God and he's sending out mixed messages...

Do you know what mirror neurons are, Coggins? You do recognize that those that do not empathize (or relate -- get into the mindset of others) may not recognize when they hurt others? Do you understand that? I think the ability to recognize our actions and how they impact us and others is what morality in its simplest form is.

Great. Now Moniker's letting Bundy, Dahmer, and Gacy of the hook. This is where liberalism leads....

What? I was explaining to you what mirror neurons are. Google it. It's fascinating. It's our way of looking at another human and experience and feel as if we were them. We watch sports and we get sucked up into the game and scream at the t.v. We see someone in pain we feel it. We cringe when we see someone else experiencing something that would cause ourselves pain. We see someone sobbing and we understand they're sad, in pain, etc... It's essentially how we KNOW each other -- how we empathize. It's a part of socialization and how we learn from others what it essentially is to be human. We MIMIC -- we start as lil tots and do it for the rest of our lives. :)

What is the purpose of morals, Coggins? Is it just to go through the motions 'cause God said so? Or is there a reason we should be moral (whatever that entails)?

Morality is the structural integrity of relationship. It is, in a Gospel sense (this is my own definition) that aspect of our relationships with one another that direct and channel them towards our happiness and eternal progression. It is that which creates, draws out, cultivates, and amplifies character in ourselves and others.

Well, I sort of like that, Coggins.

Noooo.... morality is essential to human relations Coggins. What use is morals without the social aspect of it? Morality/ethics come into play when we deal with others, Coggins. In light of that it is easy to see how morality evolved as social orders did.

Yes, especially without empirical or historical evidence in an ex post facto manner...

Huh? Just above you mentioned morality in aspect of our relationships with others. Now are you disagreeing with what I say above? I agree that it comes into play to ensure we navigate safely in our world with the least harm to ourselves and others -- to progress in human terms. You look at it as progressing spiritually -- I view it as human progression. :)

Do you think all cultures have the same code of moral conduct as they always did? Did they change in some manner as humanity progressed? Why would that be? It's for survival purposes that we must learn to cooperate and interact with each other.

Interesting Moniker, as humans have survived for thousands of years under a almost continual regime of bloodshed, slaughter, war, genocide, and mayhem.

Animals have also survived for millions of years killing, eating, and predating one another.

That's not answering my question.

[_Scottie]

Well, if you consider high moral conduct by boycotting a store because it isn't LDS owned, or by not allowing someone that isn't LDS to play in sports, yeah I would go along with high moral conduct.

I agree with Coggins. Although I'm sure there are a few isolated cases, this is not the norm.

[_karl61]

High moral conduct is just propaganda. I think what they talk about is when you have sex and Mormons will always give an adoring sexual history. It has nothing to do with how they do business in their personal/private life which can cause a lot of pain and harm to people.

[_Scottie]

I gotta ask here...

What is so horribly wrong about teaching chastity?? There is so much risk of life long repercussion for indulging in premarital sex. I sure plan on teaching my kids to save it until marriage, and it has nothing to do with religion.

I don't know where this idea came from that if you don't express your sexuality in your late teens/early 20's, you're going to be locked into some kind of sexually repressed state forever. If nothing else, people are hearing this BS and saying to themselves, "Hey!!! I didn't experiment in my 20's!! I was repressed!!"

Now, masturbation...that's a whole other story...

[Dr. Sunstoned]

First, the sight of YOU calling ME a liar is amusing. Of course, your brain may just be addled, I give you that.

That's interesting, because I have no recollection of ever lying or deceiving anyone here, at any time, upon anything relative to the Church, its doctrine, its history, or my personal attributes.

[_Coggins7]

The Mormon view or morality pretty much begins and ends with sex, as in no fornication, no adultery, and no masturbation (though why anyone believes that Mormon boys and men aren't taking the one-eyed monster out for a joy ride with frequent abandon is beyond me--I can't speak for the women). Ladle on a fixation on "modesty," and dollop on top an obsession with abstaining from alcohol, coffee, and tea as moral virtues, and then wrap the whole thing up with "obedience as the first law of heaven," and, viola, you have Mormon moral cosmos.

This is either yet another outright deception, or an indication of a state of substantive ignorance of LDS teachings that bespeaks, yet again, another exmo who is really a nevermo.

It also bespeaks the classic secularist cultural liberal obsession with sex which then gets projected out onto critics of the sexual revolution and its threadbare shibboleths.

though why anyone believes that Mormon boys and men aren't taking the one-eyed monster out for a joy ride with frequent abandon is beyond me-

Of course some are. Many aren't.

Bish's use of terms such as "obsession" for what are willfully accepted and internalized standards of life based upon deeply held principles of spiritual conviction, are yet another indication the Bish is an emotionally driven ideologue on a mission, and has no serious or good faith critique of the Church on offer.

What I find amusing, in post after post, is Bishopric's preoccupation with sex and sexuality and the Church's teachings on sex and the Church's standards regarding sex and the disciplines and limitations upon sexual relations imposed by the teachings of the Gospel regarding sex while at the same time he asserts that LDS have an obsession with sex.

Now that is what we call irony.

[_Coggins7]

I gotta ask here...

What is so horribly wrong about teaching chastity?? There is so much risk of life long repercussion for indulging in premarital sex. I sure plan on teaching my kids to save it until marriage, and it has nothing to do with religion.

I don't know where this idea came from that if you don't express your sexuality in your late teens/early 20's, you're going to be locked into some kind of sexually repressed state forever. If nothing else, people are hearing this BS and saying to themselves, "Hey!!! I didn't experiment in my 20's!! I was repressed!!"

Now, masturbation...that's a whole other story...

Yes, especially the mental kind. But that is another story as well. But thanks for your comments. There is, indeed, a large corpus of social science data and cultural experience to support the idea of Chastity from outside the Gospel context. The Gospel, I'm convinced, provides the ultimate ground and meaning relative this concept, but you are right, its simply a better way to proceed through life, and many non-Mormons (including obviously, those who existed before the Church was restored), have long known it.

[_karl61]

people can and should be concerned with abuse that comes from within since people trust the mind of their young people with the church- telling young people about the licked cupcake thingy is wrong and abusive (infact - how about a church court for someone who says this) or someone like Spencer Kimball that says that those who have sex will never get the full kingdom just like the prodigal son who got the robe, ring and fatted calf but not all that the father had but what he fails to see is that he like everyone is a prodigal son - (If I ever see him in the after life I am going to drop kicked his ass all over the milky way while repeating "everyone young man should prepare to serve a mission" "even those who are not prepared because of abusive childhoods".)

[_Moniker]

I gotta ask here...

What is so horribly wrong about teaching chastity?? There is so much risk of life long repercussion for indulging in premarital sex. I sure plan on teaching my kids to save it until marriage, and it has nothing to do with religion.

I don't know where this idea came from that if you don't express your sexuality in your late teens/early 20's, you're going to be locked into some kind of sexually repressed state forever. If nothing else, people are hearing this BS and saying to themselves, "Hey!!! I didn't experiment in my 20's!! I was repressed!!"

Now, masturbation...that's a whole other story...

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting your kids to be chaste. I want my children to be in loving relationships and learn about their sexuality with a caring partner. Yet, I don't necessarily think they MUST get married. Especially my daughters. Should I tell my daughters they must wait to have sex until marriage? Why? That's me telling them they MUST marry -- I'm not doing that.

I wonder what risks you're talking about with premarital sex? That you have a baby that you're not prepared for? Well, look about you in any ward and it's full of people MARRIED and not prepared for children. STD's? Well, you can get that in marriage too and you better hope to "God" your spouse doesn't stray -- oh, and by the way there are CONDOMS.

I don't think it's necessary to be active in your teens or 20's. Yet, the guilt placed upon people for WANTING to be active is quite different than someone deciding they'd rather wait. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm single now, Scottie. Should I never have sex again 'cause I don't plan on marrying again? I'm telling you right now I'm not going to refrain from sex when I find a man that I adore and I want to experience a sexual relationship with. I'm not going to feel a bit of guilt over it either. :)

The question is -- what makes it immoral?