Or: The problem with the Mormon approach to morality. I’m using as a reference Mark Rowlands’ book The Philosopher at the End of the Universe: Philosophy Explained Through Science Fiction Films (Thomas Dunne Books, 2003), in particular Chapter 6, which uses Hollow Man, a 2000 film based rather loosely on H. G. Wells’ classic The Invisible Man, as a vehicle to examine various approaches to morality. When someone is watching, one is more likely to follow the rules and norms of the relevant society or group. When no one is watching (hypothetically, if one is invisible) then that constraint on behavior is removed and one’s behavior is largely determined by one’s own moral views or, if one has no moral views or reasons to guide action, by one’s desires and interests, what Rowlands calls prudential reasons.
LDS culture really likes to use external monitoring and peer influence to motivate compliance with LDS rules and norms. What if no one is watching? “If we believe in God, there’s no problem. God is watching us. Even if we are invisible men or women, God can still see us” (all of the quotations are from page 160 in Chapter 6). So there is double monitoring to motivate compliance with LDS rules and norms: other Mormons, whether ward or family, and God. But the pervasive sense of following the rules because someone is watching undermines the development or exercise of a truly personal sense of morality. This is a problem.
If you are always being watched, then you are likely following the rules and norms not because they are the right thing to do (for moral reasons) but to avoid punishment or shaming (by humans) or eternal punishment of one kind or another (by God). As Rowlands puts it:
Appealing to God basically transforms moral reasons into prudential ones. Moral reasons are just one species of prudential reasons. It is in our long-term interests to act morally because if we don’t God is going to send us to Hell …. Hell being what it is, it is in our long-term interests to behave morally.
In addition to undermining a true moral sensibility, externally imposed norms leave people unequipped to deal with ethical decisions if that external control is removed at some point. This is no laughing matter for someone who exits Mormonism and suddenly finds they lack a moral compass. Or, to be fair, they realize that, being Mormon, they never really had a personal moral compass; they were just following externally imposed rules and norms while being told those rules and norms constituted morality. Here is Rowlands again:
People who believe this is the only reason to be moral [the threat of going to Hell] scare me. What would happen to them if they, for some reason, found they no longer believe in God? To tie moral behaviour so closely to the possibility of punishment is a sociopath’s view of morality. But this aside, the increasing secularization of society does leave us with something of a problem. If there is no God, then we cannot collapse moral reasons into prudential reasons in this way. So what reason do we have for acting morally?
Well, you have your conscience, but if you end up on the far side of a God crisis you might not fully trust your conscience anymore. There is criminal and civil law, which at least provides a minimum standard of behavior. The Hollow Man scenario of an invisible man who can evade (at least initially) criminal liability and has no conscience is only a worst-case scenario.
To summarize my application of Rowlands’ discussion to the LDS context, the Mormon approach features an overreliance on external encouragements to follow LDS moral rules and norms, from peers and family and your local bishop, with correspondingly little emphasis on truly personal moral thinking. Appeals to conscience or personal prayer are generally acknowledged only if they agree with the general or local LDS decision or view in question. “Pray until you agree with the bishop” is not an exercise in personal morality. We Mormons need to think harder about why we do the things we do. Maybe a Mormonish way of expressing that idea is that we need to reclaim and exercise our own moral agency, which might line up very closely with Mormon morality or may differ on some or many particulars.
I’m guessing a lot of readers will have strong responses to this discussion. Let me offer three terms to help guide the discussion in the comments.
- Institutional Morality, which for Mormons in a discussion about the LDS Church means Mormon Morality, as used in the title to this post. This is the external system of commandments, principles, rules, and norms that the institution wants its members to follow, encourage others to follow, and hopefully internalize.
- Personal Morality, what is given by a person’s conscience and by that person’s moral reasoning. One’s personal moral reasoning is autonomous: it can lead to a choice that is not initially directed by one’s conscience or that is not in conformity with one’s relevant institutional morality.
- Moral Courage, the aspect of character that empowers one to follow one’s moral view of doing the right thing despite habits or external rules and norms to the contrary. In some circumstances, it takes moral courage to follow one’s institutional morality over a competing social or institutional morality (church versus society; church versus employer). In other circumstances, the conflict may be between institutional and personal views of the right thing, or between family and personal views of the right thing.
Wheat & Tares 
I wonder how many of us do in fact derive our moral code from the temple recommend interview? Would it be Personal Morality to choose that standard, and Institutional Morality to follow it line by line (even when lines are added or changed)? How does that work?
Wow. I just don’t recognize what you describe as Mormon. (That’s not to deny that it’s there – I trust you have reasons for feeling that) To me every ward I’ve ever been in emphasized that we should be good because it’s good to be good, not because someone is watching. That is your character is revealed when no one is watching. This is even emphasized in the youth programs. “When you have integrity, you are willing to live by your standards and beliefs even when no one is watching.”
“LDS culture really likes to use external monitoring and peer influence to motivate compliance with LDS rules and norms” Why do you always take two Mormons with you when you go fishing? Because if you take just one, he’ll drink all your beer!
Clark, have you ever had the blessed experience of not being able to keep yourself pure (according to Mormonism), either because of your past choices or your mental configuration? If you have, you understand the tremendous strength of Mormon shame – which in this case means anticipated devaluation by your family or tribe and rejection by God.
But I don’t think believing Mormons feel such shame only when they try their best to avoid sin and repeatedly fail. I think believing Mormons feel it a lot but don’t know it. When I discovered that I couldn’t believe in God, I also discovered that the negative emotion associated with acting against my personal morals was drastically reduced. At first, I thought I was experiencing less guilt. It turns out, though, that I probably experience the same amount of guilt, but a lot less shame. I no longer feel like I let down God or risk his rejection.
It’s hard to distinguish guilt from shame if you believe your morals, your tribe’s morals, and God’s morals are all the same.
Clark, I suppose my experience growing up in the Church was different from yours. I certainly internalized the negative version of this message (that God is always watching and judging your behavior), and our doctrine also promotes the positive version as well (that God notices our unseen, anonymous acts of charity and will reward them in the hereafter). Either way, I don’t like the idea of God as a heavenly spy or Eternal Voyeur. I prefer a more humanist approach to morality–doing good for the sake of doing good, for the respect of ourselves and our fellow human beings. Deriving a moral code from something like a temple recommend interview seems like a great way to become a pharisaical “checklist Mormon”.
The thing about Mormon Morality is that it is somewhat subtle. It’s the never-ending message of ‘Follow the Prophet.’ It’s telling youth (and everyone else) that when in doubt, check with your For the Strength of Youth pamphlet. It’s setting specific rules on yoga pants, Tshirts with folded-up sleeves, holes in jeans, and 2 piece swimsuits (even if they entirely cover the torso) as being immodest (rules from my local girl’s camp).
It’s the very clear judgments for ‘righteousness’ and participation in Mormonism that often have nothing to do with a persons heart and everything to do with external, somewhat nonsensical measurements. It’s teaching our kids to follow the rules rather than think through the reason/meaning/importance/spirit of the rules.
As the parent of some pretty smart teenagers, this is one of the things they really struggle with. At least once a month we have the discussion of, “but why can’t you have a cup of tea and keep your temple recommend, when Sister R has a temple recommend and she drinks tons of diet soda, which is so much worse.” or “Why are my shoulders considered too sexy when wearing a prom dress, but not when wearing a bathing suit?’ (I could go on and on…)
“LDS culture really likes to use external monitoring and peer influence to motivate compliance with LDS rules and norms. “
I’m trying really hard to imagine a culture that does this differently.
“But the pervasive sense of following the rules because someone is watching undermines the development or exercise of a truly personal sense of morality.”
Beware the personal sense of morality!
As it happens, I know that someone knows everything I do: Me.
“This is no laughing matter for someone who exits Mormonism and suddenly finds they lack a moral compass.”
No worries; the readers here will be happy to shame you into submission. 🙂
It is nearly impossible to escape moral compasses. The tricky part is finding who has a functioning compass.
The Right Trousers writes “you understand the tremendous strength of Mormon shame”
Oh, I think I do, vicariously anyway; but it is a tool of the enemy of God. At no time did Jesus shame anyone (so far as I can remember), not even the Pharisees. He was critical of hypocrites, lawyers but did not shame them into submission.
Shame causes one to withdraw from the very resources that would free him of chains. A day or two ago I posted mention of how elephants are chained with a little chain they can easily break, but they don’t, because in their minds the chain is much stronger than is really the case.
Penance must be paid. It eliminates shame and guilt. It has nothing to do with repaying God, he doesn’t need it. Penance balances the scales, makes you *feel* like you have done something to make amends. That is a grand principle of honorable people; it doesn’t work so well on not honorable people. But a person of honor wants the scale balanced; you cannot, must not, merely “forgive” someone of a grievous injury to you and deny that person a chance to make some sort of amend or penance. It can be paid forward I suppose, but there must be some action and this is a big defect (in my opinion) of born-again Christians that think all your sins are washed away by merely saying “I believe!” and it may even be true; but you cannot wash away *guilt* so easily.
Story: I had a young sailor that was misbehaving, had been for a long time, but being woman and black nobody dared discipline in any way. When I became supervisor I immediately put her on report. People were astonished; aghast I think is the word. But the result was phenomenal; she respected me for having stood by a principle and she knew that I would defend her as surely as I defended the Navy. Her behavior dramatically improved but as to those she respected it was somewhat limited to me.
I have seen many lives ruined or at least failing to advance because of shame which in most cases was probably unwarranted and totally not necessary. One very active anti-mormon in Los Angeles, a doctor, eventually it turned out he was shamed of his masturbation as a teenager, his father was a stake president, he dared not go to his father and his shame and guilt built up to the point he decided there could be no God that would allow so much pain and anxiety. But he also could not just close the door and walk away; because he was still chained by his guilt. I answered his guilt, answered his questions, and he dropped off Compuserve just like that; his chains were broken and he was free to make whatever choice he made.
“When I discovered that I couldn’t believe in God”
Belief is not a thing a person chooses (IMO). You start out life believing whatever you are told and eventually you develop your own beliefs. same as you start life with your mother’s antibodies but eventually you must have your own. In my case I was raised by an atheist and couldn’t continue to disbelieve God. ;
That’s the easy part. The hard part is “what about God?” An omnipotent God cannot “want” anything because he would have it instantly. Therefore he either wants nothing, or what he wants simply cannot be obtained instantly, in which case maybe he’s not quite 100 percent omni-everything. But there is *something* and of that I have many experiences.
It is more than a little comforting to me to know that God is watching me, that He loves me, and that He is rooting for me to succeed.
,”People who believe this is the only reason to be moral [the threat of going to Hell] scare me. What would happen to them if they, for some reason, found they no longer believe in God? ”
Huge problem in the exmo community.
The problem I see is that people who believe they are moral, can then vote for a person who appears to be personally amoral, and not be upset when he does things like divide families, and now undermine allies, and defend Putin, in opposition to the FBI.
Do they defend their political party leader, even when he ignores party traditions, and ignores accepted morals. Morality seems to be bendable to political expediency.
Is peace v trade war a moral issue too?
Making the rich richer at the expense of the poor, is the opposite of Christ teaching and I believe a moral issue.
Geoff-Aus writes: “and not be upset when he does things like divide families”
Dividing families is a natural consequence of incarcerating one or both parents. I suspect it happens even in Australia. Strange that only now has it become a “meme” but I suppose the Shiba Inu meme is a bit tired. Sometimes the government (Division of Child and Family Services) comes for the child instead of the parent.
“Do they defend their political party leader”
Some do, some don’t, for any reason or no reason.
“Making the rich richer at the expense of the poor”
I suggest you consider that the poor are not capable of making the rich richer. It is the slightly less rich that make the more rich richer as they are gambling on the stock market.
“is the opposite of Christ teaching”
Oh so many people that think they know Christ teaching. I’m strongly tempted to add to the clutter.
“People who believe this is the only reason to be moral [the threat of going to Hell] scare me. What would happen to them if they, for some reason, found they no longer believe in God? “
It is no different than people ceasing to believe whatever is the foundation of their morality. If God is not the foundation of your morality; what replaces it? Emotion?
“The problem I see is that people who believe they are moral…”
The challenge with discussing individual morality is that the research shows that every single person thinks they are moral. And that they are more moral than the general population. (I believe this is all explained in Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” but I could be wrong…) When in reality a good lot of ‘morality’ is virtual-signalling and post-decision (keeping in mind that the brain makes decisions emotionally, not logically) rationalization. I see a good lot of political moralizing as falling under these two, from both sides of the aisle.
I’m a little iffy that ‘morality’ when it comes to individuals is as simple as is being explored here. I know his name is thrown out here regularly, but Haidt (a moral psychologist) is a fantastic resource for understanding how the brain experiences morality and the dividing lines between the two moral compasses (that match politically left/right – not so surprisingly).
Thanks for the comments and fine discussion, everyone.
MIchael 2 said: ” If God is not the foundation of your morality; what replaces it? Emotion?”
I noted conscience (which doesn’t disappear after one loses belief in God) and moral reasoning (which everyone engages in when they face a moral decision, believer or not). But it is also worth noting that all kinds of different moral views and systems are compatible with belief in God. Even within the Mormon system there is a broad spectrum. Within the Book of Mormon we have examples of Nephi, who murders an unconscious Laban under the belief that’s what God wants him to do; Captain Moroni, a military leader who executes a coup to displace the civilian government and executes dissenters; Alma, a religious leader who orchestrates the lynching of Korihor, a vocal religious dissenter; and,in Ether, two feuding societies who engage in mutual slaughter down to the last man. Lots of killing, all of it defended and justified by various writers. The sermons expound general Christian values, but the narrative shows a thoroughly violent, amoral approach to life and power. So it is not at all clear what is the content of the term “Mormon morality.”
ReTx, you might enjoy this post on Haidt’s book:
http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2012/05/you-and-your-righteous-religious-mind/
Dave B. – Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the read. Very thoughtful stuff.
“I noted conscience (which doesn’t disappear after one loses belief in God) and moral reasoning “
How is conscience manifest? It’s an emotion. You feel good and right about some things, bad and wrong about other things. What is the mechanism? How can a society be built relying solely on the imaginations of people that have nothing in common with each other? Having a written law aligns a person and a population and some of the oldest laws for any society pertain to human relationships, marriage in particular.
Belief in God, by itself, probably accomplishes nothing — as it is said somewhere (*) the devils believe, and tremble. What matters is what you DO, not what you BELIEVE. This distinguishes Mormons from evangelical Christians.
What a God belief produces is expectation of eventual justice; maybe not in this life, sooner or later. Atheists will express shock and dismay that a person must fear the consequence in order to be moral, but that’s a straw-man argument. It may well be love of God (and others) that produces moral behavior, a willingness to postpone the reward of good behavior to the next life, to do good even to bad people. But without a guide, even the most moral persons will fumble around trying to do good inefficiently.
* James 2:19
More than 60% of mormons are trump supporters. That tribe might like to explain the moral good they are acomplishing.
As a non US mormon It is not obvious to me, and it does no good to the image of the church. Another angle is that many overseas mormons think they are required to be in this group, which makes them very extreme, by local standards. Mormons are being recruited by the extreme elements of the conservative (Liberal) party in Australia which is lead by Tony Abbot, who was overthrown as PM because he was unpopular, and has since dedicated himself to undermining his own party.
I think that there may be good from religion on a local level but on a global level religion is behind most of the bloodshed/wars in the world.
Geoff-Aus writes “More than 60% of mormons are trump supporters. That tribe might like to explain the moral good they are acomplishing.”
That would be difficult.
Think of a Venn Diagram. You have a box, the Universe, and in that box you make a circle. The circle represents society and everything that goes with it such as normalized social values, common sense of right and wrong, stuff like that.
At the very center is an Attractor, perhaps invisible such as a Lorenz Attractor. Millions of people hover around this attractor, seemingly independent but very much organized by the magnetism of the Attractor.
It is a Monopole. Attractors are not paired with Repellers. There might be more than one Attractor.
Now it happens that certain people such as Karl Marx, Saul Alinsky, Samuel Gompers, Barack Obama and more recently Hillary Clinton, enjoy social power. They aren’t the Attractor, but hover very close to it and imagine thimselves to be at the center.
Libertarians have reverse polarity. They are repelled by Attractors. Libertarians do not “group”, there is no tribe of libertarians, no libertarian party. They can make social contracts of course of their own free will choosing, but doing so is somewhat rare and ephemeral.
In a religious sense, this Attractor is Lucifer. He wants the power and the glory; nearest to him are those that also want power and glory. Away from this is a wide variety of people and spirits; a few might want their own kind of power and glory, but perhaps not. As a consequence, there is no description that fits all or even most of them. They are not a tribe. They are libertarians.
So it is that in the United States you have “Democrats” and then you have “Everything Else”. Because the US government has become two-party, sometimes one-party, voting for a third party is pretty stupid. So you pick the least bad of the two parties.
As it happens, Donald Trump wasn’t the favored pick of Mormons. Ted Cruz of Texas was favored, so was Mitt Romney whose scathing criticism of Donald Trump nearly cost Trump the entire Mormon vote, and it would have, except that the result would be a Hillary Clinton presidency, a disaster for religious freedom.
Back to discussion of Moral Good
It is clear to me that everything about moral good is personal. There is no social duty to moral good, it is personal duty. I cannot delegate my moral good duty to the state or to any other person, nor can the state require me to do Moral Good, although that is exactly what socialism and the Democrat Party attempts to accomplish.
Consequently, there is not, nor can there be, a “tribe” explaining its “moral good” to anyone! It is a personal duty. *I* might explain my moral good to someone from time to time, perhaps as an example since to boast of it seems to taint the description.
“it does no good to the image of the church.”
Perhaps in another life I would be more concerned with the image of the church. Trying to re-make itself already in the image of other churches by using the language of other churches, such as “ministry”.
“Another angle is that many overseas mormons think they are required to be in this group, which makes them very extreme, by local standards.”
Agreed and unfortunate. Mormonism has gone to great lengths to NOT be political; as you can see on this blog many Mormons (most here anyway) seem to be left wingers. Mormonism itself is somewhat socialist with the singular exception that moral good is a personal duty. Mormons approach a type of socialism such as welfare projects, but even there, my participation is voluntary, my tithing and fast offerings are voluntary, a choice element that is entirely missing in state sponsored socialism.
“lead by Tony Abbot, who was overthrown as PM because he was unpopular”
Tony Abbot obtained leadership at least in part by trying to inject some sense and common sense into Australia’s otherwise self-destructive global warming hysteria. It was nearly a single issue election as seen from the other side of the planet. Coal is a big issue, Tasmania’s electrical power shortages are a big issue. Plenty of coal but power plants have been retired.
There’s something odd about the commonwealth, the former crown colonies except the United States that simply rebelled to the point we drive on the other side of the road. But that’s a topic for a different day and probably a different blog. It does seem that the most strident alarmists of global warming are almost exclusively Australian (John Cook, Ken Rice and so on) and all eight Australian universities are firmly in the camp of global warming and expel doubters and dissenters. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion/dont-you-dare-upset-the-moneymaking-engine/news-story/eace23b2ee56317eda332250a4f1570d
Geoff, I have a sense that the more correct answer is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not in the business of Moral Good.
Mormons are encouraged to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause”, it is in those good causes that Moral Good is accomplished.
ReTx writes: “keeping in mind that the brain makes decisions emotionally, not logically”
That is (part of) the reason Donald Trump is President; assuming that all brains work the same way and running a campaign on that assumption. Even Haidt is guilty of this assumption.
That some brains may be very different I leave to your contemplation.
“This is no laughing matter for someone who exits Mormonism and suddenly finds they lack a moral compass. Or, to be fair, they realize that, being Mormon, they never really had a personal moral compass; they were just following externally imposed rules and norms while being told those rules and norms constituted morality”
Those who leave Mormonism do seem to complain that Mormonism is the reason they don’t believe in God, but I’ve yet to meet one who claims they lack a moral compass. My impression is that they generally consider themselves more moral than your average believing Mormon.
Many religions hold that there are consequences to our actions after death. Learning to be good for fear of punishment is how children can be trained to behave until they’ve developed more empathy. It’s a stopgap that nip bad habits in the bud. I don’t think you can seriously study any of these religions, including Mormonism, and conclude that the end goal isn’t to move their people’s morality beyond simple fear of punishment.
Mormonism does have more rules than average, so maybe the OP’s implying that the more rules, the more likely the people are going to get stuck in “prudential reasoning” and less likely to move to “moral reasoning”. I don’t find that argument compelling. I don’t get the impression that churches with fewer rules are generating more moral people. Unless by more moral, you mean more left-wing (which many would). However, because there are more rules, there are more things they can feel they’re being watched over. But I don’t think you’ll find any communities demanding a similar level of time commitment and mutual involvement where that isn’t also the case (have you seen how the various liberal factions shame each other when women’s rights people don’t advocate sufficiently for women of color, or when the LGT people seem to neglect the B and Q people? I’m glad I’ve never felt THAT level of scrutiny within Mormonism).
“This is no laughing matter for someone who exits Mormonism and suddenly finds they lack a moral compass. Or, to be fair, they realize that, being Mormon, they never really had a personal moral compass; they were just following externally imposed rules and norms while being told those rules and norms constituted morality”
Maybe I was too quick to disagree. Is the OP just saying that exmos struggle to decide how much and what kind of alcohol or extra-marital sex they can indulge in when they don’t have the Mormon church telling them? You know, because everybody else sorts that out in college and their development was stunted because they didn’t? I have read exmos who’ve said such things.
“That some brains may be very different I leave to your contemplation.”
I didn’t quite understand your comment. But to be clear… That brains make decisions emotionally is a biological/physical reality, not a psychological one. All brains make decisions emotionally first, unless the part of the brain that does this is damaged/removed. And then the person doesn’t turn into Spock. Instead, they become completely unable to make a decision. The research on all this is super interesting and can be found in Haidt’s book.
Mormon rules are mostly conditional; the principle being obedience to a law (rule) activates a blessing. You can ignore all of the rules if you aren’t seeking those blessings. Picking and choosing seems pretty common.
The important rules are to be had in their entirety in a five or ten minute worthiness interview.