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.
Whatever it takes to keep the tithing rolling in.
Just for kicks, if you weren't able to supposedly trace it all back to power and money, how would you then account for the changes that have come along?
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,
MG
Edited to "MG" rather than "MH" as in the original post. I need to keep myself error free or someone will jump on me!
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.
This may be obvious to most, but to be clear if one's child is part of a marriage with a same sex partner, they are not allowed to hold a Mormon temple recommend, or be baptized. I don't know what the current rule is on excommunication, but the lds church is pretty clear about denying them the promise of exaltation:
...In order to receive church ordinances such as baptism,[7] and to enter church temples, adherents are required to practice sexual abstinence outside a legal marriage between one man and one woman.[8][9] Additionally, in the church's plan of salvation noncelibate gay and lesbian individuals will not be allowed in the top tier of heaven to receive exaltation unless they repent during mortality, and a heterosexual marriage is a requirement for exaltation.[10][11] The church's policies and treatment of LGBTQ people[a] has long been a source of controversy both within and outside the church.[15][16][17] They have also been a significant cause of disagreement and disaffection by members.[18][19][20]
It would seem that understanding and accepting one's children who are not living the lds religion could be extended to accepting others not in the lds church. Why stereotype people who leave the lds way, and come here to tell them about your stereotypes every chance one gets, while at the same time allowing an exception for your own children? That doesn't seem very Christlike, or honest.
Last edited by Marcus on Sun Jan 25, 2026 4:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
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.
Whatever it takes to keep the tithing rolling in.
Just for kicks, if you weren't able to supposedly trace it all back to power and money, how would you then account for the changes that have come along?
It would seem that understanding and accepting one's children who are not living the LDS religion could be extended to accepting others not in the LDS church. Why stereotype people who leave the LDS way, and come here to tell them about your stereotypes every chance one gets, while at the same time allow an exception for your own children? That doesn't seem very Christlike, or honest.
What is most stunning to me is the apparent ability to make the statement without a hint of self-awareness. The problem isn’t that we sometimes fail to extend mercy—I think everyone fails that at times. It’s if we stop letting that failure bother us.
It would seem that understanding and accepting one's children who are not living the LDS religion could be extended to accepting others not in the LDS church. Why stereotype people who leave the LDS way, and come here to tell them about your stereotypes every chance one gets, while at the same time allow an exception for your own children? That doesn't seem very Christlike, or honest.
What is most stunning to me is the apparent ability to make the statement without a hint of self-awareness. The problem isn’t that we sometimes fail to extend mercy—I think everyone fails that at times. It’s if we stop letting that failure bother us.
It would seem that understanding and accepting one's children who are not living the LDS religion could be extended to accepting others not in the LDS church. Why stereotype people who leave the LDS way, and come here to tell them about your stereotypes every chance one gets, while at the same time allow an exception for your own children? That doesn't seem very Christlike, or honest.
What is most stunning to me is the apparent ability to make the statement without a hint of self-awareness. The problem isn’t that we sometimes fail to extend mercy—I think everyone fails that at times. It’s if we stop letting that failure bother us.
Just for kicks, if you weren't able to supposedly trace it all back to power and money, how would you then account for the changes that have come along?
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.
I think that it should be. Contrary to what you might think, most of my posts over time have taken that position.
What is most stunning to me is the apparent ability to make the statement without a hint of self-awareness. The problem isn’t that we sometimes fail to extend mercy—I think everyone fails that at times. It’s if we stop letting that failure bother us.
