We Sometimes Take Important Things for Granted

I have a friend who once responded to a question about his favorite aspects of the LDS Church, and his reply reminded me of how often we who have been raised in the Church (particularly those whose membership is multi-generational) take some basic, important things for granted and lose sight of how rare and special they can be to others without our background.

I am bolding the part that hit me the hardest:

1) The sense of belonging.

Being part of a "club" or family where everyone is accepted.

As an introvert, being involved in social activities, like pot-luck dinners, that I wouldn't be involved with otherwise. Knowing that I can disappear to the kitchen and do the cleaning or cooking, etc and it is encouraged and not seen as weird..

Knowing you can walk into any ward and feel at home.

2) The health code.

I come from a background of generational alcoholics, it is a pleasure to be able to go to events and know that I will not be sneered at for not drinking, knowing I will not be involved in an alcoholic fight, there will be no violence and my children will not be subjected to that. Knowing I can take my kids to church/events and my son is not at risk of an asthma attack from 2nd hand smoke.

The hope that with church teachings as back up, my children will continue my lead and break the cycle of generational dysfunction.

3) The moral grounding.

My children are seeing wholesome values in action, and it is normal behaviour (not just mum and dad saying so).

They also are taught and shown clear boundaries and limits of what is acceptable.

The focus on families in a world where they have very few school friends with both parents in the home.

I realize that none of these reasons are specifically Christ-centered, but, as a convert with a faith crisis right now, these are the things that I want to stay for. The people are kind, good and honest - and I don't want to lose that.

The Conflict between and Importance of Communal and Individual Morality

Believe it or not, the following is my attempt to provide a very short post about the nature of morality:

I think morality as a general concept (determining what is "right" and "wrong") is part and parcel of group interaction - even, in a very real way, among animals of widely varying degrees of intelligence. It is, at its most basic level, part of survival instinct. It is focused on what "is" - at the most basic level. It is focused on "how" interaction needs to occur in order to perpetuate the species and, although instinctual rather than conscious, really is "morality" at heart.

I think morality among humans, specifically, has the exact same foundation - but our ability to think outside ourselves allows us to move from the most practical, biological, survival aspect of morality to a philosophical foundation that expands from a purely group-based paradigm to include a focus on the person even, sometimes, at the expense of the group. It is focused on what "should be" - and, frankly, that transition, although important to us, is what complicates morality exponentially and makes things get really messy at times.

Finally, I see the existence of agency (the ability to think about and choose one's actions consciously, even when they conflict with the morality of one's community) as the monkey wrench in the ease with which morality can be evaluated and determined, since it is the only thing that posits the need for competing moralities - one communal and one personal that can and do conflict.

Morality is an incredibly subjective thing, but most people want it to be objective - since objective morality is SO much easier to implement and "obey". Frankly, the most extreme version of objective, communal morality we have within Mormon theology is Lucifer's plan - and I think it is important to understand that simple fact. 

When Moral Issues Become Political Issues: Abortion as an Example

I wrote the following post over three years ago for Mormon Matters, and I ran across it again yesterday.  It is much longer than what I normally post here on my personal blog and deals with politics and morality in a way that I usually avoid here, but I decided to post it here regardless.  I hope that decision was inspired in some way and helps someone, somehow.  
---------------------------------------
The proliferation of posts in the Bloggernacle dealing with same-sex marriage after the CA Supreme Court decision prompted me to make the following comment here on Mormon Matters:

Once a moral issue enters the political arena, it no longer is just a moral issue. It becomes a political issue, subject to different forces and obligations and stresses and interpretations ad infinitum than when it was “just” a moral issue. This is not the thread for it, but abortion is a perfect example of this. How I feel about it as a strictly “personal moral issue” varies radically from how I feel about it as a political, legal issue.

That’s the core reason why the Church can and should comment on moral issues while not attempting to dictate political action.

This post fleshes out that foundational claim - that once a moral issue enters the political arena, it is OK for Mormons to vote differently than they might preach from a strictly "moral" standpoint. The central example I will use to make this point in this post is abortion.

My moral stance on abortion is, unsurprisingly, that of the Church: Abortion is not murder, but it is a serious action that should be undertaken ONLY in specific situations - like rape or incest, when the mother's life is in danger, or when the fetus cannot survive birth - and that it should not be automatic even in these situations. (Abortion: LDS Newsroom) When abortion enters the political arena, however, my stance changes radically.

The same statement in the Church's website Newsroom also includes the following statement, which rarely is quoted in these discussions:

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

Here is why I think this is so:

I) As a political issue, there are three options:

1) Always prohibit abortions = not consistent with the Church's moral stance;
2) Always allow abortions = not consistent with the Church's moral stance;
3) Allow some and prohibit others = can be consistent with the Church's moral stance.

It would appear that I should support #3 as the basis for legislation. I don't. I support #2, for the following reasons:

1) Exceptions must be decided through compromise among differing beliefs. Most people who accept exceptions would support abortion in situations where the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, but many don't. I think most would support exceptions for cases of rape and incest, but many don't. Less support a doctor's determination that the fetus won't survive birth, since there is an element of subjectivity in some cases. Compromise that does not include the exceptions the Church allows would be in direct violation of my own moral code - forcing birth in situations where I believe the parents (including my wife and I) should be able to choose abortion, if necessary in their situation.

I can't support that.

2) It would be fairly easy for a doctor who is committed to abortion as an option for all to over-estimate the danger to the mother's life if an abortion was desired. In order to address this potential conflict, the courts would be required to assign a second doctor to verify the initial diagnosis, but this doctor would be just as likely to be opposed to abortion as an option. If so, the verification might be withheld for many women whose decisions I would support otherwise.

I can't support that.

3) The most tricky situation legally is in cases of rape.

A) For abortions in these cases to be allowed, there would have to be a charge made of rape.
B) Any charge would necessitate an investigation.
C) An investigation would require the possibility of a trial.
D) Typical investigations and trials cannot be undertaken and completed in nine months - especially in cases that might boil down to "she said/he said". In reality, these cases actually would have a "prosecutorial window" of only about 4-6 months - since the pregnancy might not be known until the second month and would need to be terminated prior to the third trimester in order to avoid late-term abortions that would never receive legal support.
E) In these situations, to be a viable option, an abortion would have to be possible before the completion of any legal action to determine the validity of the claim.
F) Rape cases are difficult to prove, but under this "exception" construct, abortions should not be allowed for spurious accusations.
G) Therefore, these cases would need to be expedited to reach a conviction that would justify the abortion occurring.
H) The cases that should not be rushed, EVER, are explicitly those that are the most difficult to prove. Such a focus makes it less likely that the charge will be substantiated, meaning that legitimate cases have a greatly reduced chance of being proven - meaning that the perpetrator has a GREATLY ENHANCED chance of being acquitted.
I) If abortions are granted on the basis of the accusation, in order to address the nearly impossible task of convicting within 3-4 months of the charge being made, the courts would need to be willing to punish women who make spurious claims in order to have that abortion. Otherwise, a charge of rape would become the automatic action of any woman desiring an abortion, effectively legislating the allowance of abortion in any situation.
J) The near impossibility of determining guilt in some cases, even when the accusation is valid, would mean that many women would be punished for having to make the case in a shortened time frame - for making a claim that is difficult to prove in an expedited time frame.
K) The possibility of being prosecuted for making a valid but unprovable accusation would have the practical effect of scaring many women away from making such an accusation, thus effectively legislating option #1 for many in the guise of #3.

I can't support that.

Given that I can't support outlawing all abortions, and that I can't support outlawing all abortions with the exceptions of rape, health of the mother and viability of the baby, all that is left for me is to leave the decision in the hands of the individual mother (and father, where applicable) and let them deal with the moral consequences of their decisions.

Morally, I am opposed to abortion, but I allow for exceptions; politically, I oppose legislation that restricts abortion in any way that would not address the issues I articulated here. I have yet to see a proposal which I can support.

Unrealistic Expectations: Chastity

There was a family near me growing up in which the father preached against immorality in such a way that the message was, "All boys have raging hormones and need to suppress their sinful inclinations." I know for a fact that this father faced this particular temptation (without ever succumbing to it), so it is "understandable" that he would think this way, but his sons ended up seeing their very natural urges as sinful, instead of natural effects of the Fall. Therefore, they were wracked as teenagers with feelings of inadequacy and failure and guilt every time they saw a girl and even thought, "Wow, she's hot!" At least two of them ended up convinced that they could never be good enough - and they couldn't based on their Law of Moses definition of perfection.

Recognizing that having such a thought is not actually a sin - that at its very worst it is a transgression caused by our fallen state and at its best solid evidence of heterosexual tendencies (*grin*) - and turning to the Lord for help to see even beautiful girls and women as He sees them - could have removed a tremendous burden from their shoulders and freed them to focus on something else instead. It would have allowed those boys to realize that they didn't need to beat themselves up for being human. Rather than their painful and impossible efforts to become "less human" - which led to almost giving up completely for one and terrible decisions for the other, they could have accepted their humanity as having been redeemed already and simply focused their efforts on managing their natural inclinations properly.

Some Thoughts on Sexual Activity and Being "Chaste"

Nearly three years ago, a friend told me of a professor who applied the discussion of whoredoms in Jacob 2 to "petting" and kissing. That discussion is relevant to my current resolution of "Being More Chaste in Thought and Deed". In response to that discussion, I wrote the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the professor was wrong on at least one fundamental level - his application of the whoredom discussion in the second chapter of Jacob to petting and kissing. However, I believe he was correct in his statement that the Lord doesn't care if fornication is homo- or hetero-sexual -- that the sin is the same. Let me address that point from two angles.

First, petting and kissing (of any kind) are not condemned in any of the canonized scriptures of which I am aware. Those records condemn the categories of sexual activity known as fornication and adultery. This broad categorization includes pre-marital and extra-marital sexual activity - or activity of a sexual nature.

We do have a written prohibition against these same types of activities in what we accept as the words of modern prophets and apostles - the "For Strength of Youth" pamphlet. Among other things, it says to abstain from petting, "passionate kissing" and any other activity that arouses sexual desire. It doesn't distinguish between hetero- and homo-sexual activity; it prohibits both equally.

Second, I always try to understand the "why" for restrictions. In this case, however, I disagree completely with the "respect" angle. If I love a pedophile, showing "respect" for his or her inclinations might be a justification for facilitating that desire. "Respect" is far too subjective for me.

In this case, I see a very clear and simple "why." Petting, passionate kissing (NOT kissing, but "passionate" kissing) and other similar activities (including, in my mind, anything that simulates intercourse) arouse sexual desire. Sexual desire can be very hard to control once initiated. Hence, the counsel to avoid any activity that might logically lead to a losing battle with escalating desire for more stimulating activity. "You can't finish what you don't start" is a truism.

I see the smoking and drinking prohibitions in the Word of Wisdom in exactly the same light. If I make it a scientific issue, I lose. There is much evidence that alcohol used in moderation has positive results for many people. I just read this week an article that described the positive aspects of caffeine consumption - one of the richest sources of antioxidants. Yet we are asked to abstain. Why?

Because of evil designs of conspiring men. (Which applies perfectly to those who seek to stimulate sexual desire, as well.) These substances are addictive, and the consequences of over-indulgence can be disastrous -- especially for a drunken woman. The article I mentioned in the last paragraph skipped blithely over a statement that heavy coffee drinkers are much more likely to be heavy users of alcohol and cigarettes. It is impossible for each individual to know, with certainty, what his or her limit is prior to reaching it. Because it is not always easy to know those who are weak and prone to misuse, the prohibition has been "adapted to the weakest of the weak who are and can be called saints."

In other words, if I am strong and not likely to have a problem, then it should be easy for me to abstain; if I have a problem abstaining and find myself fighting the restriction, then I probably am weak in that area and benefit from the prohibition more than others might. (That, in and of itself, is a fascinating concept - that the areas where I need repentance and outside guidance the most are exactly the areas where I want it the least and work to justify my rejection of it the most. Often our biggest weaknesses are most apparent by our claims that we are strong enough to not need outside prohibition or counsel.)

As an additional rant, I have a HUGE problem with those who rail against homosexual activity but are quick to forgive and excuse heterosexual fornication and adultery. I have always said that punishing homosexual activity in any way without doing the same thing for heterosexual fornication and adultery is hypocritical and narrow-minded. That's why, although I oppose redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, I have no problem, within the context of our heterosexually lenient society, with creating a legally recognized way to allow homosexual partners to live in a committed relationship without fear of legal punishment. Again, the alternative is hypocrisy.