God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Res Ipsa]

That contradicts what you just said:


What you said stands on its own: the "structured scaffolding" of religion is necessary to convince a person that lying is bad and has real consequences.


What you said stands on its own: lying is bad and has consequences, not only that, but this instilment, if you will, is the definition of a moral compass. Now you're stepping outside the system you just created and suggest that a moral compass has more to do with judicious, independent thought.


Well, if they are lying, then in MG 1.0 they are in the wrong. But in MG 2.0, they aren't necessarily wrong, you just said yourself that lying might be necessary, and a working moral compass should tell them when lying is right or wrong. You claim to know that they are lying, and doing so in a situation where it is wrong. But how is it you know that they are wrong to lie in this case? Perhaps it is necessary. Perhaps building trust with you isn't an objective they care about.

Again, let me be clear, I am not claiming that people have no compass without religion, but I am proposing that religious scaffolding can train and reinforce the moral compass in a way that makes norms like ‘lying is bad and consequential’ more salient and stable over time.

It's ingrained

Many people that leave religion or God behind take the moral compass, the external moral code/teachings they had, with them unless they find something that has a better fit.

Mix and match.

LGBTQ folks are going to be more than likely to do this.

Two things can be true at the same time. There may be a moral compass (external) that acts as scaffolding for one's construction of their own moral compass. Some folks are going to take that external moral code and follow/ingrain it to the letter. Others will 'hearken' to that moral code and then integrate it into their own view of the world and their place in it.

The two can co-exist.

Regards,
MH

Religion can also do the opposite of what MG proposes: it can provide a moral scaffolding that justifies lying to others. One need go no further that the the concept of lying for the Lord. Or, under the Laban doctrine, if murder can be justified in a result oriented fashion, so can lying. Or just look at the pack of professed Christians who speak to reporters on behalf of the federal government and lie through their teeth? If Christianity provides a scaffolding for honesty, the track record seems pretty shaky.

This is the problem I have with MG’s entire scaffold argument. Who cares that religion “can” provide a moral scaffold, when it “can” do just the opposite? And who cares what it “can” do when a much more important question is what it “does” do and whether there are alternatives that do it better?

[Limnor]

Honestly this is a somewhat stunning reveal to me, but I’m trying to understand something. Mercy and nuance seem very appropriate in the way you’re describing your own situation and family, which I appreciate. I’m wondering why that same mercy isn’t afforded to those outside the Church—some of whom are living through their own moral dilemmas the best they can.

[MG 2.0]

Again, let me be clear, I am not claiming that people have no compass without religion, but I am proposing that religious scaffolding can train and reinforce the moral compass in a way that makes norms like ‘lying is bad and consequential’ more salient and stable over time.

It's ingrained

Many people that leave religion or God behind take the moral compass, the external moral code/teachings they had, with them unless they find something that has a better fit.

Mix and match.

LGBTQ folks are going to be more than likely to do this.

Two things can be true at the same time. There may be a moral compass (external) that acts as scaffolding for one's construction of their own moral compass. Some folks are going to take that external moral code and follow/ingrain it to the letter. Others will 'hearken' to that moral code and then integrate it into their own view of the world and their place in it.

The two can co-exist.

Regards,
MH

Religion can also do the opposite of what MG proposes: it can provide a moral scaffolding that justifies lying to others. One need go no further that the the concept of lying for the Lord. Or, under the Laban doctrine, if murder can be justified in a result oriented fashion, so can lying. Or just look at the pack of professed Christians who speak to reporters on behalf of the federal government and lie through their teeth? If Christianity provides a scaffolding for honesty, the track record seems pretty shaky.

This is the problem I have with MG’s entire scaffold argument. Who cares that religion “can” provide a moral scaffold, when it “can” do just the opposite? And who cares what it “can” do when a much more important question is what it “does” do and whether there are alternatives that do it better?

You're right. Religion has often been used to justify lying and/or telling half truths.

You're also right that there are/may be secular frameworks that 'do it better' for some folks. That is, creating moral frameworks/scaffolding/compasses that work better for them because of the nature of 'who they are'.

Obviously we are not all carbon copies of each other (for those that still know what a carbon copy was...if not, look it up )

When all this discussion is said and done, it comes down to the fact that I am describing a different slice of lived experience...not erasing yours.

If your moral compass works for you and doesn't cause any harm or discomfort for others, life is good, right? My concern here, in particular, is that we really don't know for certain what influences the moral compasses of those that participate here. Especially when there may/might be a 'build your own' scaffolding for behavior/action that might at times conflict with a more strict 'version' of truth telling.

What I can tell you is that my moral compass when it comes to being honest and trustworthy is built upon the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the fact that (just a few nights ago) I sat down and told a SP member that I was and am truthful and honest in my dealings with my fellow man.

In my mind, I'm saying that to God and witnesses. That, obviously, has an impact (external) on my internal compass of behavior. My concern is that, at least in some cases, if SOME people believe that ULTIMATELY they don't have accountability to anyone other than themselves, that compass may point in a different direction. Again, however, let me say that in many cases those compasses are going to result in honest and upright behavior/action to their fellowman.

You may very well believe that you belong in this category of persons. And from the outside looking in I can't judge you on that count. What I can do, however, is have reservations in regards to folks that I've experienced injustice from. Where I think/believe they have been less than truthful.

And yep, that's my own judgement. And it's not always 110% trustworthy when I can't sit down and have a face to face. I get that.

As I said earlier though, we have many, many instances where when men/women is 'left to/on their own' things don't go so well...for themselves or others.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Is it relevant to ask whether/when Person A's moral compass can be legitimately applied to the thoughts, speech, and actions of Person B? Does A have the right to judge B by A's moral compass, or only by B's moral compass?

Well, we all do this, right? We judge Joseph Smith's moral compass. He says an angel ordered him with a flaming sword and we say, no, didn't happen.

However, because it's unlikely that A and B are going to agree on criteria, it's often more effective for A to point out inconsistencies in B.

[Limnor]

What I can tell you is that my moral compass when it comes to being honest and trustworthy is built upon the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the fact that (just a few nights ago) I sat down and told a SP member that I was and am truthful and honest in my dealings with my fellow man.

In my mind, I'm saying that to God and witnesses. That, obviously, has an impact (external) on my internal compass of behavior.

Do you recognize a distinction between accountability to an institution and accountability to truth? Institutional accountability can and does depend on how the institution aligns to truth. If an institution allows and even encourages deception at times, then accountability to that institution isn’t really a good endorsement for individual integrity. Looking upthread, res mentions similar thoughts with examples.

[Limnor]

Is it relevant to ask whether/when Person A's moral compass can be legitimately applied to the thoughts, speech, and actions of Person B? Does A have the right to judge B by A's moral compass, or only by B's moral compass?

Well, we all do this, right? We judge Joseph Smith's moral compass. He says an angel ordered him with a flaming sword and we say, no, didn't happen.

However, because it's unlikely that A and B are going to agree on criteria, it's often more effective for A to point out inconsistencies in B.

I think this is accurate. Examples of inconsistency include saying that conscience is important unless it goes against the institution, mercy is appropriate but only for those inside the circle and not outsiders, lying can be necessary except when others do it, and moral judgment is limited internally but ok externally.

[Gadianton]

Again, let me be clear, I am not claiming that people have no compass without religion, but I am proposing that religious scaffolding can train and reinforce the moral compass in a way that makes norms like ‘lying is bad and consequential’ more salient and stable over time.

First you said lying is bad and consequential. Then you said lying is basically a tool, and the moral compass tells us when to use it and when not to. Now you're back to your first proposal, that religion can instill (indoctrinate) us with things like "lying is bad" more deeply. Presumably, what you're saying is scaffolding is rote indoctrination that gets us to perform in a certain way, and then as we mature, we know when to override our training.

well, there is no question that religion or authoritarian institutions can train children to behave a certain ways and that children without that training will be less likely to act in those ways. But that's only a moral advantage if the training actually promotes moral behavior.

Many people that leave religion or God behind take the moral compass, the external moral code/teachings they had, with them unless they find something that has a better fit.

Deferring to Morley again, people develop their moral compass from a variety of sources, from church to television to school and family. There aren't moral teachings in Mormonism practical for the real world that a person couldn't have got from just about anywhere else. Also, as others have pointed out, the "leaving religion or God" may at times be due to the morality that they learned being inconsistent with the religion that taught them the morality or the God they were taught to worship. I mean, you learn killing is the worst thing ever and those with empathy understand this internally very well, but then they finally read the Old Testament and see that God is a "man of war" who is on a constant killing spree.

Can people leave religion and go off the rails? Are there cases where leaving the religion results in a string of horrible choices? Sure. Happens all the time. But, these are the folks who are most likely to burn out and one day find God again. The kind of person who usually shows up on a board like this one, I'm not going to say is necessarily good or bad, moral or immoral, we ultimately don't know each other very well, but they are quite interested in questions such as what it means to be moral, or in general are interested in understanding the true nature of the world. The point is, it's more likely for an "atheist" who ends up here to obsess over what it means to be moral than the average church member who just assumes they know everything they need to about right and wrong. And so it just falls flat to warn people on a board such as this one that they've left behind some great repository of moral insight and have to "go it alone" now. There are people in shooting galleries who may really be in that position.

[bill4long]

Also have you ever been "visited with fire" from "the Father"?

A fair question.

Still no answer.

[bill4long]

I would point out that while Mormonism is broadly authoritarian, it's not like living on the Sea Org. Or even being in the military. In fact, I almost want to say that Mormonism has far more to do with peer pressure than commands from leaders. For the most part, revelation has ceased, the leaders simply don't say anything and member culture fills in the gaps.

Prior to the 1990 temple changes, the "prophet" sanctioned a poll to determine how the members felt about the Endowment™. Clear indication that the Mormon Jesus wasn't calling the shots.

Lately they've had Garment™ changes and Washing and Anointing™ changes.

Mormon Heavenly Father and Mormon Jesus sure are accomodating fellows, despite the ordinanaces being eternal and unchangeable.

Most plausible explanation: whatever it takes to keep the tithing rolling in.

How much of a dupe does one have to be?

[MG 2.0]

What I can tell you is that my moral compass when it comes to being honest and trustworthy is built upon the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the fact that (just a few nights ago) I sat down and told a SP member that I was and am truthful and honest in my dealings with my fellow man.

In my mind, I'm saying that to God and witnesses. That, obviously, has an impact (external) on my internal compass of behavior.

Do you recognize a distinction between accountability to an institution and accountability to truth? Institutional accountability can and does depend on how the institution aligns to truth. If an institution allows and even encourages deception at times, then accountability to that institution isn’t really a good endorsement for individual integrity. Looking upthread, res mentions similar thoughts with examples.

You make good points. As it is, I've described elsewhere my thoughts in regards to "deception" and it's fungibility in the real world.

There are always tradeoffs.

Regards,
MG