The Golden Rule

[_Runtu]

I can appreciate that. It is just that my experience over the 50+ years of Church experience, has been quite different--at least in terms of how things have turned out for us in the recent past. I discovered early on that it was "true", and the more I have learn, the more confident I have become of its "truth", and as such, it has been more effective for me than other "treatment" plans I have considered. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To each their own, indeed. As painful as leaving the church has been, I'm finding that there's a real "me" in there that I had been submerging for many years because I was expected to do and think and believe things. Getting in tune with the person I am inside has been invaluable and ultimately more workable for me than staying in the church was. But that's just me. I'm not Wade, and Wade ain't me. :)

[_BishopRic]

I also learned to distinguish between principles and practice when inductively reasoning, and figured out the value of certain principles are best determined by properly implementing the principles, rather than on whether others may adhere to the principles or not, and how they may or may not adhere to the principles. To me, it is metaphorically like walking into a hospital and deeming it a health failure because of the proportionally greater number of sick people inside as contrasted with outside. Whereas, the unhealthy people are there at the hospital because the healing works. I find it helpful to view the Church in much the same way. I don't access the Church on how many spiritually "sick" people I may encounter inside, but rather by whether the Church's "treatment" works or not. For me, it does--though I can respect if others have found various alternative "treatment" plans more preferred.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I will be the first to admit that Mormonism worked for me for 40 years. What mattered to me was not "does it work?" but "is it true?" Once I discovered that it wasn't true, after all, I realized that it was no more an effective treatment plan than any other. And since its truthfulness is bound up with its effectiveness, it lost a lot of its effectiveness for me once it was divorced from "truth."

I can appreciate that. It is just that my experience over the 50+ years of Church experience, has been quite different--at least in terms of how things have turned out for us in the recent past. I discovered early on that it was "true", and the more I have learn, the more confident I have become of its "truth", and as such, it has been more effective for me than other "treatment" plans I have considered. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know Wade, I think your experiences have confirmed that your paradigm works for you, and I would be one that would not attempt to change that for you, just as I would not suggest a person that is happy in Buddhism to change.

I sincerely wish you the best.

[_EAllusion]

"Do unto others as should be done unto them."

That's a tautology. Rephrased, it just says, "You ought to treat others as you ought to treat them."

Moral rules that express reciprocity are trying to say something more interesting. They're saying that if you want to know how a person should be treated, think about how you like to be treated, and that should give you a good idea how to treat them. I think this is best understood in terms of something like a desire fulfillment theory of morality. It works because our inner worlds are similar enough that we share a great deal of our desires in common. The more trivial the desire, the more variety we'll see. So while John might like Tom Ka Tofu soup, Suzy might hate it. But they're more likely to like food that tastes good to them. And they're even more likely to want to experience pleasure. So if John wants to know how to treat Suzy well, fulfill her desires, a handy test is to think about how he'd like to be treated. Of course, since our desires do not line up perfectly, this is not a hard rule that binds us. John would be mistaken give Suzy Tom Ka Tofu soup. In order to correct for this intuition, you propose that we ought to treat others as they'd like to be treated - or perhaps more accurately treat them in a way that will result in the most fulfillment. That's the idea. Looking inwards is supposed to help us determine how to do that. But this leads to you recognizing that if we just act selflessly for others all the time, that will reduce our own fulfillment. For one, people will take advantage of us. I think you're right. It isn't a hard rule. I think what benefits the "greater good" and thus what is moral has to allow for a good deal of freedom for people to act in their own interest and those in their social networks.

[_wenglund]

I find it helpful to view the Church in much the same way. I don't access the Church on how many spiritually "sick" people I may encounter inside, but rather by whether the Church's "treatment" works or not. For me, it does--though I can respect if others have found various alternative "treatment" plans more preferred.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I appreciate what you are saying -- I like the example from the south, and have many examples in my own life that are similar. But I see an apples/oranges comparison of the church to hospitals (and I think you may not have implied this, but to make my point, I will). EVERYBODY in the hospital is "sick," or healing from something, but I don't think everybody in church is. Now, it is true that many religions (including Mormonism) attempt to indoctrinate people into believing they are "sick," and in need of forgiveness, etc., but most people are generally healthy and come from a good cross-section of society. Of course there are bad apples in any group, but when the norm (the majority) of the group are living a particular belief system, I think it is fair to "judge" whether that system works for me.

I view hospitals as well as the Church as a places to both receive and give "treatment". While there certainly are patients in hospitals (and the Church) that are "sick", there are also doctors and staff (or spiritual healers) who are not "sick", but are providing healing. Within the Church, a person may at times, and in certain ways, be a patient, and at other times serve in a healing role, and even at times be both.

And, just as there are varying types of "sicknesses" and varying degrees of "sickness" found in hospitals or other treatment fascilities, I see the same being true for the Church. Some Church members may have cataracts on their spiritual eyes that may prevent them from seeing and understand the value of certain gospel principles. Some Church members may be experiencing a spiritual fever from porn addiction. Still other members may have a spiritual rash from irritations caused by thoughtless members. Some may have a spiritual headache from pride. Some may experience spiritual emotional disorders due to jealosy, envy, and spite. And the list can go on and on.

Of course, you and others are free to see it differently.

I found that there were some dramatic conflicts in actions compared to beliefs in Mormonism (some I've mentioned above). These weren't a few that were obviously going against the norms, like the wife swapping. I'm talking about the norm -- and as I've said before, it wasn't the "being offended" that drove me out, it was simply the trigger that made me think "what else is awry with this system?" And after my years of studying, it became clear to me its claims of unique connection to, and authority from God were false.

Like with Runtu, I can appreciate and respect your decision. It is just that, with as many if not more years of study of my own, and having lived as an adult in both Sugar House and Sandy, my experience with Church members have been somewhat different from yours (what you found to be the "norm", I found to be the rare exception), and the meaning I assigned to the Church based on my excperience, as well as through my studies, has also been quite different. And, that is okay.

Perhaps the difference between us may be, in part, my disinclination to make the kinds of sweeping "judgements" of the Church in the same way you have (like whether the Church is comparitively lax in its observance of the Golden Rule). Who knows?

Now, the next chapter for me was the questioning of other religions too, and I didn't find any other "religion" to be more "true." So I transitioned to a place where I find good in many faiths -- and many faults. I find my spirituality in the basic energy of love. I think it is what bonds all things and people. I find the opposite is fear, or the absence of love. The paradigm has not been contradictory to me in any way, but I'm always open to learning new ways for what works and doesn't.

I wish you all the best with that, even though I have chosen a different course.

I think I've mentioned before that my second daughter is active LDS, and is one of the happiest people I know. She knows nothing of the challenges of history, and is not interested in hearing about them. I don't see the LDS culture or lifestyle as being so dramatically terrible for everybody like others do. If a person can find their happiness there, I rejoice with them...and I certainly do with her.

...as I do with you.

(Sorry for getting off-track). I think the GR is the core foundation for ALL positive systems of faith, and I hope we can recognize that.

I can't speak for other faiths, but as previously mentioned, I see the GR as intimately tide to the principle of love, which is the very foundation and end of my faith--at least as I understand it.

That is why at least I hesitate to make sweeping judgements about groups of people--my love for them, and my desire not to be "judged" in certain ways as a group, in light of the Golden Rule, dissuades from doing so to others. But, as always, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_EAllusion]

I'd call Wade a wolf in sheep's clothing, but a few tufts of wool glued to his body doesn't constitute a costume.

[_Moniker]

"Do unto others as should be done unto them."

That's a tautology. Rephrased, it just says, "You ought to treat others as you ought to treat them."

Moral rules that express reciprocity are trying to say something more interesting. They're saying that if you want to know how a person should be treated, think about how you like to be treated, and that should give you a good idea how to treat them. I think this is best understood in terms of something like a desire fulfillment theory of morality. It works because our inner worlds are similar enough that we share a great deal of our desires in common. The more trivial the desire, the more variety we'll see. So while John might like Tom Ka Tofu soup, Suzy might hate it. But they're more likely to like food that tastes good to them. And they're even more likely to want to experience pleasure. So if John wants to know how to treat Suzy well, fulfill her desires, a handy test is to think about how he'd like to be treated. Of course, since our desires do not line up perfectly, this is not a hard rule that binds us. John would be mistaken give Suzy Tom Ka Tofu soup. In order to correct for this intuition, you propose that we ought to treat others as they'd like to be treated - or perhaps more accurately treat them in a way that will result in the most fulfillment. That's the idea. Looking inwards is supposed to help us determine how to do that. But this leads to you recognizing that if we just act selflessly for others all the time, that will reduce our own fulfillment. For one, people will take advantage of us. I think you're right. It isn't a hard rule. I think what benefits the "greater good" and thus what is moral has to allow for a good deal of freedom for people to act in their own interest and those in their social networks.

Right, it's actually quite simple. Put yourself in the shoes of another. That's it! Wala! How would you feel if someone did that to you? Would you appreciate it if someone did such and such to you? If not, it's a good rule of thumb you should refrain from doing something that you find painful when it is done to you. Do you enjoy certain behaviors because you derive pleasure from them -- look to others to see how they too would derive pleasure and how you can go about ensuring that you don't cause displeasure.

Simple!

I'm sort of stunned that this went off into a tangent about the Church itself (Wade -- you always derail my threads!) and Charity piped up to talk about how she wouldn't want to help people in need of help -- I think she may need a refresher on the GR. See above for the refresher, Charity.

[_wenglund]

I can appreciate that. It is just that my experience over the 50+ years of Church experience, has been quite different--at least in terms of how things have turned out for us in the recent past. I discovered early on that it was "true", and the more I have learn, the more confident I have become of its "truth", and as such, it has been more effective for me than other "treatment" plans I have considered. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To each their own, indeed. As painful as leaving the church has been, I'm finding that there's a real "me" in there that I had been submerging for many years because I was expected to do and think and believe things. Getting in tune with the person I am inside has been invaluable and ultimately more workable for me than staying in the church was. But that's just me. I'm not Wade, and Wade ain't me. :)

I personally see the "real me" as much a function of choice as it is a current state of being (whether dormant or flourishing)--a destination to strive for, and a work in progress. I see belief systems (secular and religious) as vehicles to help make us who we "really are" and get us to what it is that we "really" wish to be. For me, the Church has been the best spiritual vehicle I have found for realizing the "real me".

And, while you "ain't me", there is much about you that I admire, and wish to emulate in being and becoming the "real me".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I'd call Wade a wolf in sheep's clothing, but a few tufts of wool glued to his body doesn't constitute a costume.

I been called a lot worse by people acting, as you say, in their own interest rather in accordance with the Golden Rule. How this may benefit the whole is anyone's guess. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I'm sort of stunned that this went off into a tangent about the Church itself (Wade -- you always derail my threads!)

I recognize the inclination of some to "blame" (ironically in the process of speaking about derailing a thread that is not about "blame"), but not wishing to go there (and thus FURTHER derail the thread--hint, hint), let me just say that I am sorry for allegedly derailing the thread by responding to OTHER people's (hint, hint) claims about my Church as it relates to the topic of the thread, if not also the general subjectmatter of the board (which, in case people may have forgotten, is "Mormon Discussions"). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Moniker]

I'm sort of stunned that this went off into a tangent about the Church itself (Wade -- you always derail my threads!)

I recognize the inclination of some to "blame" (ironically in the process of speaking about derailing a thread that is not about "blame"), but not wishing to go there (and thus FURTHER derail the thread--hint, hint), let me just say that I am sorry for allegedly derailing the thread by responding to OTHER people's (hint, hint) claims about my Church as it relates to the topic of the thread, if not also the general subjectmatter of the board (which, in case people may have forgotten, is "Mormon Discussions"). ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh! Wade, I'm so hurt! By saying I'm blaming you are you blaming me for blaming you?

This thread is how the Church emphasizes the GR principle. Not just the Church in general. There's a specific emphasis here. :)

Some replied that they didn't believe it did. That's a valid reply since the OP asked for instances of posters experiencing this. If the OP asked if the Church emphasized Satanic worship would it be okay for people to discuss your Church and reply it did not? ;)

If you would like to refute their points perhaps you could show how the Church DOES forward this principle in its teachings. You discussed how you personally practice the GR by saying that those on this thread that discuss your religion are somehow not practicing this principle and how you attempt to always do this. Personally I'm often frustrated when you sometimes place a motive on discussions. I think there can be discussions of religion and the practices without it having to be an attack. I mentioned growing up in Japan --- can I discuss the festivals and talk about how different and strange (yet stunningly beautiful) they were to me as an outsider? Is that disparaging anyone? What if I asked what precisely does Shintoism stress? What if some posters disagreed with some of the practices/beliefs of Shintoism -- is this not appropriate or somehow violating the GR? I don't see it as such.

I fear I just created anther Ping! Pong! moment. :) If you do reply to me, perhaps, you could state how you see the Church emphasizing this principle? Please?