Laisse-faire Morality

[JudoMinja]

"No one can judge. Who's to say? It's between him/her and God..." I see an increasing resistance to any kind of definitive discernment. The postmodern ear hears judgment in any propositional statement said with confidence, and without qualification. Perhaps the most prolific acronym in the blogshere is IMHO (in my humble opinion).

Maybe people get angry when the other guy's sin impacts them directly--such as the sinning of cutting off their driver-neighbor. Otherwise, morality has become very much laisse faire.

PC, I hope you don't mind, but I really liked this and wanted to use it to start a discussion topic.

What do we think of this concept of a laisse faire morality? Has it become the norm? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Are we so afraid of offending others that we do not take a stand for our beliefs? Is the lack of morality in the world a result of us standing by and letting it happen- like when children just stand around and watch the school yard bully beat up his new target? Or are we simply allowing all the freedom to "worship how, where, or what they may"?

[prisonchaplain]

I'll just say that the LDS concept of "agency" and the Protestant "free will" were never intended to muzzle those of us who see something wrong from saying, "Wow...that's wrong." For example, "Wow, Mr. Camping sure got the 5/21 prediction WRONG."

[Guest]

I'll just say that the LDS concept of "agency" and the Protestant "free will" were never intended to muzzle those of us who see something wrong from saying, "Wow...that's wrong." For example, "Wow, Mr. Camping sure got the 5/21 prediction WRONG."

There's a difference though with saying, "Wow, Mr. Camping sure got the 5/21 prediction WRONG" and saying, "Mr. Camping is going to hell for leading all these people on a false religion".

But, I wouldn't call it muzzling. I would call it - that's your side, here's my side. Take it or leave it.

Muzzling is when somebody says his side, somebody else says an opposing side and somebody else with some power shuts one or the other or both up.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess...I hear you. But...muzzling can also be, "Uh...don't be critical...to each his own...free agency...you can't judge." Let me push that dichotamy you created and say, "Mr. Camping may be in danger of hellfire, if he continues in his error." I left room for him to repent, and I put in just enough uncertainty, with the word "may." Am I okay, or too offensive?

[Guest]

Anatess...I hear you. But...muzzling can also be, "Uh...don't be critical...to each his own...free agency...you can't judge." Let me push that dichotamy you created and say, "Mr. Camping may be in danger of hellfire, if he continues in his error." I left room for him to repent, and I put in just enough uncertainty, with the word "may." Am I okay, or too offensive?

Nothing offensive about that at all, PC. It's very PC.

I do know what you mean by the "muzzling-by-guilt-trip" passive-aggressive mechanism employed by a lot of us.

[sensibility]

Well, here's my take. I spend plenty of time evaluating actions for their appropriateness, helpfulness, godliness. But I do it for my own sake, or because I'm specifically advising someone. I don't -- for instance -- go to Church and take notes on whether other women are wearing modest clothes. I think about modesty, and I often think in pretty hard absolutes, but the thoughts occur when I'm standing in front of the clothes rack at the store. Do some lovely sisters in my ward wear clothes I wouldn't? Well, probably. I'm trying to remember and I honestly can't, because I just don't have enough time to think about it. If I were teaching about modesty, I would teach my understanding without apology, but I don't look around to make sure everyone else is adhering.

Basically, I think that other people's specks of sawdust can be a very pretty distraction from my own giant 2x4s, and I try (with varying degrees of success!) to guard against that. The Pharisees saw Christ healing on the Sabbath -- and focused so hard on the perceived transgression that they missed their own Messiah. I don't for a moment think I can't fall into the same trap.

But at the same time, my understanding of 'the pure love of Christ' is that Christ's love is wholly focused on perfecting us and bringing us home. I believe the call to charity is also a call to aid in that work of perfecting each other. If I see a situation where I think I can genuinely help some one be closer to Christ, I try to be brave enough to speak up.

When I know my words will bounce off with no effect at all, though, then instead I dedicate my energy to repenting of my own sins. Because, indeed, they are many.

Oh, and something like the bully situation goes into a completely different box for me – that's protecting the vulnerable, and calls for immediate action.

[JudoMinja]

PC and anatess- I would like to try to keep discussion in this thread focused on that quote and how it applies to our views on morality and the apparent lack of it in the "world". I know I pulled it from the "rapture" thread, but this is entirely different. The basic question of this thread is- Are we standing back and letting it happen because we do not want to "offend"?

[Guest saintish]

I think this sentiment is very popular in secular society, its kind of a double edged sword. Lets take gay rights for example, on the one hand we know how the LDS church and most of christianity looks at homosexuality but on the other hand some religions and some private individuals see gay marriage/ homosexuality as acceptable. who is right? can we deny the belief of some to support are own? Its an unfixable problem in a pluralistic society with few commonly accepted morals.

[Guest]

PC and anatess- I would like to try to keep discussion in this thread focused on that quote and how it applies to our views on morality and the apparent lack of it in the "world". I know I pulled it from the "rapture" thread, but this is entirely different. The basic question of this thread is- Are we standing back and letting it happen because we do not want to "offend"?

I thought I addressed the quote when I said, "that's your side, this is my side, take it or leave it.".

We don't "stand back" and let it happen. We stand upon what we believe in and practice it as far as it remains legal to do so and send missionaries to tell people what we believe in. I don't see that as standing back.

The problem is - you have people with loud public microphones yammering their side and refusing to let go of the microphone to let the other people talk hiding behind "you're offending me" to make sure they keep other hands away from the microphone.

Couple that with "absent parenting" so that these children growing up are hearing nothing but what is coming out of that microphone.

I don't see that trend as "letting it happen because we don't want to offend". I see that as letting it happen because we're too lazy to teach our children morality - we leave it to the microphone...

[Guest saintish]

I don't see that trend as "letting it happen because we don't want to offend". I see that as letting it happen because we're too lazy to teach our children morality - we leave it to the microphone...

the problem is compounded because the people with the microphone have been talking for several generations now so even if there wasnt absent parenting the parents and even some of the grandparents know nothing but the microphone message.

[JudoMinja]

I thought I addressed the quote when I said, "that's your side, this is my side, take it or leave it.".

We don't "stand back" and let it happen. We stand upon what we believe in and practice it as far as it remains legal to do so and send missionaries to tell people what we believe in. I don't see that as standing back.

The problem is - you have people with loud public microphones yammering their side and refusing to let go of the microphone to let the other people talk hiding behind "you're offending me" to make sure they keep other hands away from the microphone.

Couple that with "absent parenting" so that these children growing up are hearing nothing but what is coming out of that microphone.

I don't see that trend as "letting it happen because we don't want to offend". I see that as letting it happen because we're too lazy to teach our children morality - we leave it to the microphone...

Sorry, I was just seeing an extension of the rapture thread and wanted to get this one back on track, as I'm really interested in what others might say on this topic. :) I am suddenly intrigued by the possibilities.

I like your microphone analogy. We see something similar in things like surveys and opinion polls. Those who have a stronger opinion one way or the other are more likely to speak up and make their voices heard, while those who either don't care or stand somewhere in the middle get left out.

When it comes to the scientific community, there is some hard work in play at trying to eliminate bias. It still happens, but peer-review journals, careful research methods, and extreme scrutiny help in making sure all views are considered and either supported or rejected on a solid basis. It is hard to see something like that in the public and social community with regards to morality...

We are told to "stand up for what we believe in", and I know, in particular, that Captain Moroni was very adament about weeding out corruption and wickedness. Yet, we are also told that we should not concern ourselves with how others choose to exercise their agency. It is, afterall, their agency and their choice, not ours. But are we becoming so "accepting" that morality has fallen to the back-burner? Are we allowing these microphone-holders to lead the way, not standing up for our beliefs, and thus teaching our children that morality doesn't matter since we won't stand up for it?

[Guest]

Sorry, I was just seeing an extension of the rapture thread and wanted to get this one back on track, as I'm really interested in what others might say on this topic. :) I am suddenly intrigued by the possibilities.

I like your microphone analogy. We see something similar in things like surveys and opinion polls. Those who have a stronger opinion one way or the other are more likely to speak up and make their voices heard, while those who either don't care or stand somewhere in the middle get left out.

When it comes to the scientific community, there is some hard work in play at trying to eliminate bias. It still happens, but peer-review journals, careful research methods, and extreme scrutiny help in making sure all views are considered and either supported or rejected on a solid basis. It is hard to see something like that in the public and social community with regards to morality...

We are told to "stand up for what we believe in", and I know, in particular, that Captain Moroni was very adament about weeding out corruption and wickedness. Yet, we are also told that we should not concern ourselves with how others choose to exercise their agency. It is, afterall, their agency and their choice, not ours. But are we becoming so "accepting" that morality has fallen to the back-burner? Are we allowing these microphone-holders to lead the way, not standing up for our beliefs, and thus teaching our children that morality doesn't matter since we won't stand up for it?

I had the radio on yesterday and caught a section of Sean Hannity radio show. He had 2 guys doing a pow-wow on the Israel issue. One guy was so loud and talked over everybody that sometimes Sean Hannity had to turn off his microphone just so the other guy can put two words in edgewise...

Now, I am listening to this and the guy was talking so fast, I can barely understand the words. But, my pervailing feeling is - the guy's position, whatever it is, must be bad to require all that effort to portray his idea over the radio.

Because, you know how it is with "the still small voice" needing a peaceful avenue.

That's what I tell my children everytime they're fighting - the louder guy is usually the wrong guy.

So, Judo, I'm thinking that the perception that we won't stand up for it because we're not speaking against it may not be accurate. The indicator for laissez-faire morality is not the "standing up for it" - the indicator is what we are teaching our children.

And if I might be so bold as to throw a generalized statement out there, I would put this cultural shift in the hands of absent fathers and absent mothers - usually in single-parent households unsupported by the grandparents, who can barely keep food on the table so that instilling morals into wayward children becomes difficult.

Yes, it is a very bold statement especially since I know you just got out of an abusive relationship and had no choice but to raise your child on your own. I do know you are not one to set aside the proper upbringing of your child even if you are overburdened with responsibilities without a help-meet. I know that and you're a HERO in my eyes for that.

[KrazyKay]

We are told to "stand up for what we believe in", and I know, in particular, that Captain Moroni was very adament about weeding out corruption and wickedness. Yet, we are also told that we should not concern ourselves with how others choose to exercise their agency. It is, afterall, their agency and their choice, not ours. But are we becoming so "accepting" that morality has fallen to the back-burner? Are we allowing these microphone-holders to lead the way, not standing up for our beliefs, and thus teaching our children that morality doesn't matter since we won't stand up for it?

I think some people are becoming so accepting that morality has fallen to the back-burner, so to speak. Sometimes I hear people complaining about the lower morality in our society to others who they know think as they do, but I have yet to hear someone who has taken the next step to try to teach higher morals to others.

I know many in my ward who do stand up to their beliefs and teach their children that morality matters. But it appears to me that the children are being taught that morality matters to what they do, but to let others live as they choose to live.

I know some people who will be friends with someone who has lower morality. While it is true that their friends morality did raise some over time, but those people with the higher morality I noticed lower their own morality further down. I like numbers, so I will use numbers to hopefully help y'all understand what I mean. If say person A's morality is at level 70 and his/her friend's morality is at level 40. Over time their morality will eventually meet - probably around level 50. This is where the higher morality went down further than the lower morality went up.

I think we should start to stand up for our beliefs more outside instead of just in our houses and at church. I have started to do this with my daughter's friends who are not members of the church. I ask them to not cuss at my house and I ask them to dress modestly when they come over - meaning no tank tops, no halter tops, and no really short shorts.. They are all 10-11 years old and starting to mature. I have also explained why. Their parents are supportive of my beliefs in my house and are helping to make sure their daughters are dressed more modestly when they come to my house.

I am blessed to have a daughter who has a high sense of modesty herself. I have never had to fight her concerning how she dresses (if it is modest or not), nor have I had to fight her with her language.

We do have to be careful when we do speak up for our beliefs that we do it in a way that we do not sound judgmental, like saying "because those two participate in homosexual acts, they are going to outer darkness" or "because that girl wears tank tops, she won't go to heaven". We need to remember that our judgments need to be righteous judgments. We do not know people's hearts, we do not know if the person has an understanding of what they are doing is wrong - this includes members of the church. So any judgments need to be based on this temporal life. For example, it would be ok to say "That girl in that skimpy dress needs to dress more modestly, otherwise she can cause men (in general) to have adulterous thoughts"

[prisonchaplain]

The very root of this question seems to be whether there is absolute truth, and absolute standards? Older generations have no doubt, and younger ones are often taught nothing but doubt. Those of us in the middle wonder how to address this. Some say we should fight the culture and insist on our absolute truth. Thus, we have the culture wars. Others say that we must "Be the culture to win the culture." The problem is we look so much like them that we have nothing to offer them. Still others say relationship is everything. Just build authentic relationships and our truth will rub off.

Me? I say we do a little warfare and a lot of relationship building.

[Traveler]

There is an old west parable about a company owner hiring a wagon driver. The question put to the applicants concerned how “good” of a driver are they? How close to the edge of a cliff could they get a wagon before anyone should be concerned? One said within a foot, another said so close that part of the wagon wheel was over the cliff. The third said he had no idea - he stayed as far away from a cliff as he could get. The third got the job.

My father told me that often we like to draw lines between what we think is good and bad; thinking that as long as we are on the good side we are safe. Anyone that crosses our line (cliff edge) is the bad or foolish one. My father said the problem with that concept is that we have a tendency to always keep ourselves on the good side of the line - so if it seems that we are getting too close we just move the line a little bit farther away (which is never hard).

I have come to understand the wisdom of my father. Thus it is that we tend to “judge” not just others but ourselves as well; based on where we have placed the line rather than on where they have placed the line or much more; where G-d (wisdom and prudence) places the line. The last thought (of G-d or wisdom and prudence placing the line) is hard to define because with rare exception everybody thinks G-d places the line where they think it ought to be. The rational all this is missing is my final point - the point of discipline. But discipline is another whole discussion in and of itself - and since I do not want to hijack this thread yet - I will be quiet now and listen to the rest of you.

The Traveler

[Netgood]

How do you balance being friends with people and not seemingly approving their bad life choices. Everyone lives with their boyfriend nowadays. If they ask for advice about their relationship should you just say that they should not shack up without committment or should you treat them as married people. Guy I know would call anyone who lived together married, they would respond no im not and he said well you sure act like it.

[JudoMinja]

How do you balance being friends with people and not seemingly approving their bad life choices. Everyone lives with their boyfriend nowadays. If they ask for advice about their relationship should you just say that they should not shack up without committment or should you treat them as married people. Guy I know would call anyone who lived together married, they would respond no im not and he said well you sure act like it.

I like this example because my best-friend lives with her boyfriend. She came to church with my family for a couple years when we were still in grade school, and she reached a point where she had a testimony, believed it to be true, but she didn't want to get baptised because she felt unworthy. I explained that this was not really a reason to not get baptised as the atonement makes up for our faults, and baptism gives her a clean slate, but she still didn't want to do it.

Since that time, she continues to avoid church but professes that she knows it to be true. Much has happened in both our lives and we are still best-friends. She tells me that she still feels it is the true church, but does not want to make the necessary changes in her life to join it. One of those changes would be the situation with her boyfriend. She would either need to leave him or marry him. The living together has become more of a convenience factor than anything else- as she cannot afford rent on her own and her relationship has become more one of friendship than intimacy.

I, personally, draw the line at trying to interfere with someone else's decisions (as long as those decisions are not causing someone else direct harm). This is why I am still her friend and I do not tell her how to live her life. She knows what I believe, she knows my personal morals and standards and respects them. She never tries to pull me down and in fact encourages me to exercise even greater morality in my decisions than I do. I will not act in a way that compromises my morality, but I will also not force her to try to live by the same standard I do.

I "accept" her the way she is. I think Traveler is right in that we all place the line where we think it should be, and because we all have a different understanding we end up placing it differently. Because we have no way of knowing who is actually right, it would be very presumptious to try and enforce our line on others. This is where I think we are meant to be accepting. We should live to the best of our ability by our own moral code and standard while trying to bring that in line with God, then leave it up to others to do the same on their own.

Yet, I wonder if the "you live your way, I'll live my way" might be TOO accepting. It is creating an environment where "anything goes", and the environment plays a major role in shaping future perceptions of morality. We do not need to "force" our moral code on other people, but should we not take some level of responsibility in how the environment is shaped? In our schools, our stores, the media... are we letting the "microphone" bowl us over and allowing the world around us to turn into Soddom?

[trubludru]

I think we need to try and influence others towards what we know is right but that is often easier said than done. And it is tough to fight every possible battle so we then end up trying to pick and choose what battles to fight. In the end though I think we need to remember that we can't make other peoples decisions for them and that we need to try and live by D&C 121 when seeking to lead or show others what we know to be right.

I recently have had two roommates that were members of the church but weren't particularly valiant in the Gospel. I tried to influence them to improve their lives and spirituality without being preachy or naggy. I remember one easy thing I did was ask them if they wanted me to wake them up Sunday mornings so they could get ready for church. And they both said yes, so I tried to follow through and wake them up almost every Sunday, there were a lot of Sundays where they never got out of bed after I knocked on their door and got a response from them but there were times that they did. But I tried to not make too big of deal if they didn't come to church (I usually just said missed you at church instead of: it would be a lot easier to get up and go to church if you didn't stay up until 4 am playing video games) and tried to be postive when they did come to church. One roommate I don't think I had much effect on overall but the other when he moved out he did express appreciation for my good example and encouraging him.

At the same time I think there are situations especially if there is someone we are close to that we can see is doing something that we know will take them down a bad path that we need to use what my mission president's wife called "sweet boldness" and express bluntly but with love our concern about what they are doing and/or testify about a truth or blessings they are missing out on because of a bad choice.

So what battles do we pick and choose especially as a society? I don't know, is it better to try and prohibit something as a society that we know can be very harmful i.e. the Prohibition on alcohol. Forcing people to do the "right" thing and not have alcohol would have theoretically get rid of alcoholics, drunk driving, etc. But instead it led to organized crime, violence etc because people still wanted alcohol even though they knew about the negative effects of using it. I most definitely do not advocate using marijuana or any other recreational drug and/or addictive substance but is the current "prohibition" on it and the drug running and cartels and associated violence and murder that go with the "prohibition" better than allowing marijuana to be more legal and putting the drug lords out of business and probably ending a lot violence associated with the drug trade? And marijuana is probably safer to use than the legal drug alcohol. I don't know the answer, I do know that people shouldn't be using addictive and mind altering drugs (despite what many marijunana users would probably claim) but how do I get them to stop when that is what they want and willingly choose to do so even when it is illegal and there is evidence that substance (whatever it is) has harmful effects?

And aren't there somethings that are so bad whether they be drugs, or actions (murder, rape etc) or whatever that we should and that need to ban because they are so serious? And then what punishment if any is then appropriate for breaking the law on things that we have mad illegal? Where is the line? It can get tricky to figure especially on some moral issues. I know what I know about what things are right and wrong but how do we decide as a society full of all sort of individuals with different ideas and backgrounds where the line is between right and wrong especially when a lot of people (in some instances) want to do things they know are bad for them and/or others (things like alcohol- I'm not trying to get in a debate whether moderate use has health benefits vs the thousands or millions it has harmed throughout history)? I guess you try to educate and encourage people to make the right choice without forcing them to. There are some things like murder that everyone pretty much agree is bad (obvious negative effect on person who was murdered and people close to that victim) and need to be punished but when the negative effects aren't always so immediate and obvious it starts to get tricky (relatively mild recreational drugs, moving in together instead of getting married, etc). I don't know what the best/right answer is for some of these issues are.

After writing all that I feel like I need to take more action on a personal level (walk the walk more) but am still not sure what we do as a society about some issues.

[Backroads]

I kind of lean to the idea that it's a good thing.

People preaching to each other for/against <insert controversial topic> is hardly respect. Indoctrinating doesn't do much good.

It may sound awful to say "you do what you want and I'll do what I want" but I do believe that if the heart is in the right place it does work out.

True morality consists of a few high and even general standards and I would daresay most good people fit into those.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not asking for a discussion on any hot button topics. However, if I broudly mention "the religious right" "social conservatives" "social justice" "affirmative employment" "traditional marriage" etc.--I think most see what I am driving at. Christians of all stripes, and churches institutional are called to be salt and light, and to speak the truth to power. Where I draw a firm line is in seeking human (i.e. government) power, in the name of morality. So long as we diligently proclaim God's message, perhaps to the point of gaining lobby influence, leave the decisions to personal agency.