Soul-Crushing Sins of Omission

[Linked]

No matter what you are doing now it is not enough. One good example of this is when we are told to double our offerings. I have heard this a couple of times from leaders. What this says to me is no matter what you are paying now, it isn't enough and you need to pay more. There is no amount you can be paying now that would be considered sufficient. Not only that but the more you are paying right now, the more you are actually underpaying.

So if you are paying $100 you should be paying $200, which means you are short $100. If you are already paying $500 you really should be paying $1000, which means you are short $500.

A similar thing happened to my hyper obedient MIL. She had leadership tell the congregation they need to double their temple attendance. She went from once a week to twice a week. A couple years later they said it again, and she tried to go 4 times a week. Later they said it again and she knew she couldn't do it. If I recall correctly she asked about this during a temple recommend interview and they told her of course she was doing enough, like she should have known they didn't really mean to double it to an unreasonable level.

[Palerider]

My statement that the definition of bad behavior varies was targeted at the different norms within our society, like coffee is bad to a TBM but normal to most non-TBMs. And each individual pulls from different parts of society making fairly unique, if predictable, views on what is bad or good.

I see. You are correct.

The coffee thing for Mormons, pork thing for Jews, transfusion issue for Jehovah's Witnesses etc., aren't really considered "bad behavior" over a broad spectrum of America.

But a person's choice to drink coffee should never be self-justified because their mother made them eat their broccoli.

And the mother should never feel that their child's coffee consumption might have been prevented if only they had made the child eat their spinach also....

Totally, I'm with you there. Maybe if she put my name on the temple prayer roll more though.

I was thinking more about this this morning. A lot of bad behavior is triggerable and predictable. Like if someone doesn't forgive their cheater spouse then the cheater spouse will have further bad behavior. It's like a lever, you pull it and something happens. The lever is not fair, and involves another person's choice, but you know there is a good chance if you do A they will do B. So you are in a position to prevent B by not doing A, even though it is not your fault and isn't fair. So by having that knowledge is there some responsibility? Is that what being the bigger person means?

ETA: Is that the definition of enabling?

Enabling is when we see and permit another person's bad behavior and make excuses or compensate for them. Especially when it is behavior that could fairly easily be corrected with a little bit of emotional growth.

What you're describing sounds more like manipulation.

If an individual "pulls the lever" for the sole purpose of getting the other person to behave badly or do what they want....that's called being manipulative. Which is bad behavior in and of itself. Nothing worse than a button pusher.

But a smart person who is growing emotionally will recognize the attempt at manipulation or the manipulative trigger for what it is and make a conscious choice not to react. Then they make an even bigger point to avoid that manipulative person.

Manipulation is deadly to a relationship mainly because it is deceitful. Only honesty adds trust to the trust account. When I detect manipulation or subterfuge in another person, I place extreme limits on how far I trust them or how close I allow them to get to me.

Not "forgiving" someone isn't manipulative behavior. It just means the relationship is over.

If someone is living with another person in a state of non-forgiveness, when the offending person has done everything in their power to make things right, but the offended party just keeps beating them over the head with it, then they're living in an unhealthy relationship.

Keep in mind "forgiveness" is different from "reconciliation". Forgiveness doesn’t mean automatically granting full trust. It means "I'm not going to seek revenge by beating you up emotionally or physically".

The offender is fore given revenge by the offended. But (depending on the severity of the offence) the offender may not be granted full trust and privileges for some time. Full reconciliation is dependent on the offenders behavior going forward.

If in view of the lack of immediate and full reconciliation, the offender chooses to go out and behave badly, that's his/her problem. Not ours. The offended wasn't responsible for the first offense and is not responsible for the second, third, or forth offense either.

People of integrity and emotional maturity choose to live honorably regardless of what others around them do. Triggers don't exist for them. At least that's what they strive for.