Values & Worldview eased transition

[Born Free]

I had a particular learning curve as I left Mormonsim, and would be interested to know if others have experienced anything like it, or could benefit from my experience. This offers a conceptual view of the terrain that many on this site report traversing experientially.

At about the time I left I came across Covey's 7 Habits. Part of me wanted to ignore it (I recalled he was Mormon); the other part said 'Don't be so immature as to throw the baby out with the bathwater'. In spite of all the copying from other people in his work, I enjoyed it, and decided to explore the importance x urgency matrix further, (BTW whilst Covey popularised it, it preceeded him by many years).

During that work I saw how important values were (at the conscious level as part of importance, and as urgencies when unconscious) and stumbled across a resource called the Values Inventory which is an Australian evolution of some original US work. Anyone who sees it will see similarities with Maslow's 'heirarchy of needs' which are both based back in Jungs work. It has 125 values, and defines values as anything a person regards as valuable - examples are service, and some complex ones are law-rule and law-guide, the latter being consistent with the saying by F1 team boss, Colin Chapman - Laws are for the interpretation of wise men, and the obedience of fools. They are far more broad than the moralistic ones many people in religion define as values, which tend to be restricted to moral ethical and sexual behaviour.

Anyway this material groups different values (priorities) into clusters which make up world views. In broad terms they form 4 groups: chaos, family/institutional, service/humanistic, and internationalist/spiritual (to use memory).

What is interesting about the model is that Mormon values fit comfortably inside stage 2 of 4, having 2 more world views further past it. Now this says that the Mormon worldview is in fact a quite primitive perspective, and also prior to the point of internalising the locus of control. This is in marked contrast to Mormonism's sense of its spiritual superiority or as the apex of growth. Self-actualisation actually happens after this stage.

Since I saw this model, over 10 years ago, I have compared it against a range of materials and notions of growth, and it has never failed to stand up.

This model is highly compatible with the post-Mormon web site founders philosophy of not seeing Mormonism as 'bad' or inappropriate for everyone. It says that the family/institutional world view is the next step after chaos, and an essential stepping stop for a person or family in growth, but at the same time, it says there are growth stages beyond, and that to see Mormonism as IT, and try to trap someone in that world view, is to try to damn their growth.

That is how I now see Mormonism, as step in a journey, which many people have confused with the journey. In their haste to reduce their personal anxieties, many Mormons (OK most) succeed in stopping growth in its tracks, limiting the follower to a very immature stage of growth where they are always looking for the answers to lifes big questions outside themselves.

Does this model connect with the experience of any of you, and offer any insights?

[Jeff_Ricks]

.
.
.
.
This model is highly compatible with the post-Mormon web site founders philosophy of not seeing Mormonism as 'bad' or inappropriate for everyone. It says that the family/institutional world view is the next step after chaos, and an essential stepping stop for a person or family in growth, but at the same time, it says there are growth stages beyond, and that to see Mormonism as IT, and try to trap someone in that world view, is to try to damn their growth.
.
.
.
.

Does this model connect with the experience of any of you, and offer any insights?


It connects with me! Maybe that goes without saying. ;)

Jeff

[peter_mary]

Anyway this material groups different values (priorities) into clusters which make up world views. In broad terms they form 4 groups: chaos, family/institutional, service/humanistic, and internationalist/spiritual (to use memory).

What is interesting about the model is that Mormon values fit comfortably inside stage 2 of 4, having 2 more world views further past it. Now this says that the Mormon worldview is in fact a quite primitive perspective, and also prior to the point of internalising the locus of control. This is in marked contrast to Mormonism's sense of its spiritual superiority or as the apex of growth. Self-actualisation actually happens after this stage.


This model is highly compatible with the post-Mormon web site founders philosophy of not seeing Mormonism as 'bad' or inappropriate for everyone. It says that the family/institutional world view is the next step after chaos, and an essential stepping stop for a person or family in growth, but at the same time, it says there are growth stages beyond, and that to see Mormonism as IT, and try to trap someone in that world view, is to try to damn their growth.

That is how I now see Mormonism, as step in a journey, which many people have confused with the journey. In their haste to reduce their personal anxieties, many Mormons (OK most) succeed in stopping growth in its tracks, limiting the follower to a very immature stage of growth where they are always looking for the answers to lifes big questions outside themselves.

Does this model connect with the experience of any of you, and offer any insights?

What I am continually reminded of as I read this post and similar threads is Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. For anyone not familiar with his theory, here is a quick and dirty link that summarizes his stuff in about half a page:

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html

Again, what is important to realize is that Mormonism remains stuck in a partially developed stage (or stages) of Moral development. It keeps people "choosing the right" for the express purpose of gaining the approval of others (priesthood leaders especially), correspoding to Kohlberg's 3rd stage, and the forth stage insists that we obey the law (God's laws as dictated by his mouthpieces and scriptures) and responding to the call of duty. And that's as far as they allow Mormons to develop. To move beyond that level is to deny the authority of the Church hierarchy, and as we've all heard a bajillion times, "The first sign of apostacy is questioning the Brethren."

It's also only fair to note that Kohlberg lumps stages 3 and 4 into what he calls the "Conventional Stage" because it seems to be where most adults end up. I expect it's because most adults are constrained in their moral development by the hiearchies and dogmas of their respective religions. That is NOT to suggest that religious people are all stunted in their moral development. Only that for most people, Mormons included, the requirements of their moral "package" only takes them to that level. They depend on scriptures or leaders to do the "heavy lifting" of moral reasoning.

I believe that to a certain extent, (and I fear that this will sound as narcisistic as all get out, and you are free to call BS on me if you want), moral reasoning is an aptitude. Some people have it, and others frankly would rather not be bothered by it, and some THINK they have it when they clearly do NOT. There are countless things I think are great, but which I don't have the aptitude for...concert piano and brain surgery spring immediately to mind. Because I can't or won't learn those things, I depend on others who have the aptitude and/or interest to develop those skills, and I'll rely on them. I think for most people, they would rather not be bothered with all the many shades of gray in the world, and so rather than ponder the moral relevancies of any given situation, they choose what I call an "off the shelf technology" to plug into the moral reasoning slot of their brain, and just go with that. Churches are by far and away the biggest producers of those "off the shelf moral reasoning technologies." They all have their own packaging and plan (with unlimited weekend and night-time minutes!), and each one appeals to different folks. But they serve the same purpose.

But for some, that's not necessary. They enjoy, and even have an aptitude for moral reasoning on their own, and religion no longer serves a useful purpose. Of course, Hitler and Stalin both claimed that moral prerogative, and they obviously failed, demonstrating the danger of trusting someone ELSE'S claim to know what is moral. Interesting dilemma...

So anyway, pat yourselves on the back, Post-Mos, you may very well have evolved past the "dam" STURGDW speaks of and begun developing your moral self past the conventional level.

Or maybe not...! :D

Paul

[free thinker]

Thank you for the great post!! Very erudite!!

I have stated this before on this site. I most feel like I outgrew mormonism. It just became so stifling. Can you imagine spending eternity with someone like Boyd K. Packer? :o

I do not think I am better than any mormon. I just want more out of my life!!!

Free Thinker

[david]

Paul said: "I believe that to a certain extent, (and I fear that this will sound as narcisistic as all get out, and you are free to call BS on me if you want), moral reasoning is an aptitude."

Well, I won't exactly call BS on you, but let me add some thoughts here:

I suggest that moral reasoning, like any type of reasoning, is a skill, not an aptitude. I believe everyone possesses it, but it can be suppressed and discouraged by social forces. Religion, as you correctly state, is one of these forces. But religion is only the tip of the iceberg. In America, our culture of consumerism and the two-dimensional political climate also strive to blunt one's consciousness and stunt one's reasoning. There is an anesthesizing effect that takes place, turning people effectively into uncritical beings who are incapable of objectively assessing their place in the world or of recognizing the power in themselves to be in control, morally and rationally.

Thus neutered, they are ready to be spoon fed whatever crap those in power serve up. And religion is the most obvious of these duping institutions (corporations and ideological groups being the obvious others).

Part of this effect was the subject of a recent New Yorker article by Lois Menand called "The Political Mind." He notes studies showing that at least 80% of the population has no clear picture of the political landscape (what the parties stand for, for example). Instead they rely on the opinions of their associates to form their own views, and often will let specific, isolated ideas drive their decisions about how to vote. Such lack of reasoning is also apparent, IMO, in the consumer patterns that are prevalent in our culture. Why should religion, and specifically Mormonism, not fall into this pattern, since it is also a manifestation of power?

It is only when one is able to progress into the upper stages of moral development that you and sturgdw have pointed out that it's possible to break free. Thanks for some great points!

[peter_mary]

Well, I won't exactly call BS on you, but let me add some thoughts here:

I suggest that moral reasoning, like any type of reasoning, is a skill, not an aptitude. I believe everyone possesses it, but it can be suppressed and discouraged by social forces. Religion, as you correctly state, is one of these forces. But religion is only the tip of the iceberg. In America, our culture of consumerism and the two-dimensional political climate also strive to blunt one's consciousness and stunt one's reasoning. There is an anesthesizing effect that takes place, turning people effectively into uncritical beings who are incapable of objectively assessing their place in the world or of recognizing the power in themselves to be in control, morally and rationally.

...

It is only when one is able to progress into the upper stages of moral development that you and sturgdw have pointed out that it's possible to break free. Thanks for some great points!

And thank you for some great input. It's very helpful to me to expand this notion of "off the shelf technologies" to plug 'n play in our brain slots to include a much wider variety of skills :) and aptitudes than just moral reasoning. I suppose that in part, that's the way the human creature evolved, depending heavily on the specialization of others to round out their own deficiencies, and thus making the sum of the whole much more successful than the individual parts. In that sense, maybe we ARE like Brigham's bees in Deseret? :eek:

Paul