Did leaving religion change your ethics?

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I feel a lot more genuine about the way I live my life now. When I was married, my husband was extremely TBM, and very concerned about image. Now that he has come out and is living a gay lifestyle, he does not attend any Church at all. My son, however, is still very active, and he takes my son to Church activities on the days that he has custody.

Although I'm not very active in the Church right now, when I do go, it is because I genuinely want to be there. I'm the Ward Employment Specialist, and I'm in that calling because I really want to help people. I've helped quite a few Ward members find work. It is a calling where I don't have to attend Church every week, and I feel like I am performing a real act of service.

Tomorrow morning, my son is singing for his cousin's baptism. I'm playing the piano for him. I'm also playing for the baptism.

I think that the reason my ex was so concerned about image was because he was trying to hide his own homosexuality, and give an outward appearance that we were the happy Mormon family.

That's the image that every family in the congregation tries to give. The Church is all about image.

[_moksha]

I think I understand where Bob is coming from in regards to divorce. It has often been said that the Church has little to offer single people. Because of this, single members feel marginalized because of the great emphasis on marriage, whether monogamous marriage in this world or polygamous marriage in the Celestial Kingdom.

Plus, what motivation could the newly divorced guys have once they are no longer candidates for Godhood and thus lose their opportunity to rule their own planet and have a harem of extra wives with perfected bods? If you only get a second or third rate reward despite past faithfulness, all because of being divorced, then why bother with it when you could be spending your Sundays in a more pleasurable pursuit.

At least that is what I think Bob was meaning.

[_Maksutov]

It definitely improved them. Honesty was made a priority.

[_Res Ipsa]

My ethics changed at a foundational level.

As a believer, what was good or evil was defined by eternal laws and immutable to the point God himself was bound by law. Law and ethics were largely synonymous. I believed in radical free will to the point a pre-existent spirit living in the presence of God could make micro-decisions resulting in being assigned to various earthly conditions that were used to explain the apparent injustice of the spectrum of human life conditions, and this seemed self-evident and just. If I had been taught something was wrong but I couldn't see why, it was my responsibility to figure out where I had it wrong. Or conversely, if I was told something was right but it seemed wrong to me, I was taught obedience was more important than judging right from wrong accurately.

Seeing the universe as arbitrary and human life being meaningful only subjectively and temporarily, I apply ethical judgment to everything completely differently than as defined by the above. Religion creates ethical handicaps in adults, in my opinion. It impairs the ability to make moral judgements because it defines morality in the authority of an inaccessible omniscient being as interpreted by other people pretending to know things to a degree that inserts dishonesty as fundamental to the process.

That's interesting, Honor. I would say that the foundation of my ethics changed and my way of thinking through ethical issues changed. But I can't really say that my ethics changed much. I treated people pretty much the same way after as I did before, as far as I can recall. I did stop treating certain things as "moral" issues (having sex, drinking alcohol) and started treating them as a subset of the general question of how to treat my fellow humans. So that's a change.

[_honorentheos]

That's interesting, Honor. I would say that the foundation of my ethics changed and my way of thinking through ethical issues changed. But I can't really say that my ethics changed much. I treated people pretty much the same way after as I did before, as far as I can recall. I did stop treating certain things as "moral" issues (having sex, drinking alcohol) and started treating them as a subset of the general question of how to treat my fellow humans. So that's a change.

At some point in my life, mostly while serving as a missionary, my LDS-centric ethics formed around the concept of divine virtue. This old thread in the celestial forum includes some of the thinking that informed this:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18168

My model of ethics was built upon seeking to understand the mind of God, to think what God thought and to feel what God felt. Right and wrong were defined by my understanding of this, and I actively sought to better understand the perfect model of thinking and feeling that was the mind, will and heart of God the Father as exemplified in mortality in the life of Jesus Christ. It was a mix of a virtue and a duty-model of ethics.

My ethical model had to be abandoned and reformed when I progressed from questioning the Church to ultimately the concept of divinity and religious-based thinking. I would describe my current thinking as still a form of virtue and duty ethics so it may be that at it's most fundamental my ethical thinking didn't completely change. But it would be dishonest to pretend that my ethics didn't change just because I may make some moral judgements today that are very similar to ones I would have made as a believer regarding respecting others or what have you. Especially when those are the kind of claims a person makes to try and counter a current believer's bias about wanting to sin when one realizes the Church is not what it claimed to be. But that similarity would be cosmetic rather than foundational. And I strongly maintain that religion is like moral crutches - helpful for those who need them to heal or otherwise develop their moral muscles but crippling for those who might otherwise be capable of engaging in healthy moral judgement making.

[_honorentheos]

One other area I could expand on is in how my ultimate rejection of the concept of libertarian freewill has left me far more likely to want to give someone the benefit of a doubt while at the same time instilling a sense that dialog on issues is essential. We all must find it necessary to promote in ourselves conscious behaviors that counter our own biases and deeply subconscious modes of thinking if it's illusionary.

The process of rejecting the premise that we all have such radical volitional control over our lives and behaviors puts one in a ethical framework that must be contrary to the framework on which LDS ethics are built.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I think it’s ethically wrong to withhold saving ordinances from someone that doesn’t meet the standards the church set forth. If these ordinances are truly required by God for salvation, the temple doors should be open for all regardless if they are Mormon or not, full tithe payer, masturbator, criminal, gay, etc. God will then be the judge of the persons actions. Because of this, and because the church has not made public the temples, I see no harm in someone filming what should already be public by their very own claims of what the temple is supposed to do. That is, to provide saving ordinances for ALL mankind.

Christianity teaches that only believers are saved, I honestly don't see a lot of difference.
Non-believers will go to Hell.

[_mcjathan]

Religion creates ethical handicaps in adults, in my opinion. It impairs the ability to make moral judgements because it defines morality in the authority of an inaccessible omniscient being as interpreted by other people pretending to know things to a degree that inserts dishonesty as fundamental to the process.

This resonates with me.

Many people whom I love and respect are believers. However, I see them adopt beliefs and practices that I believe goes against their own sense of compassion and justice because god's oracles told them otherwise. Front and center: LGBT rights and justice.

[_honorentheos]

Religion creates ethical handicaps in adults, in my opinion. It impairs the ability to make moral judgements because it defines morality in the authority of an inaccessible omniscient being as interpreted by other people pretending to know things to a degree that inserts dishonesty as fundamental to the process.

This resonates with me.

Many people whom I love and respect are believers. However, I see them adopt beliefs and practices that I believe goes against their own sense of compassion and justice because god's oracles told them otherwise. Front and center: LGBT rights and justice.

That was one of the examples I had in mind when I wrote that. I also think it's evident whenever one hears a believer make a statement about how terribly immoral and without principle one would behave if they didn't believe in a god. Dr. Peterson is fond of making a statement along those lines while quoting Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted."

People who walk about with moral crutches don't see how crippled they are by refusing to stop relying on the crutch to make moral judgements. It's also ironic that their belief system is built on the claim mortality is a necessary condition where humankind must be tested, yet the test is reduced to who can break their neck harder by nodding in agreement to authority. It becomes no wonder a person who views the world this way sees life as a constant battery of temptations they are to resist and overcome that, left to their own devices, would overwhelm them and turn them into craven beasts. And why they view people who think or behave differently as being overcome and at least in part, bestial.

[_mentalgymnast]

...the test is reduced to who can break their neck harder by nodding in agreement to authority....

OK. That made me chuckle a bit. There is some truth to that.

During my years working in the educational system I also worked part time for the church. I did so for many years. During that time, I was a bit privy to this sort of mindset among those that were in power positions. Of course, the 'stories' came to me indirectly...I was obviously far down the food chain. But at times, I observed it directly.

It's also recognizable out in the 'wild' within the wards and stakes. We should realize, however, that it isn't always a bad thing to be subject to authority under the right conditions.

Regards,
MG