JJ on Death

Juliette asked me tonight, "Will you be sad when I die?" I answered I would be very sad, and she said, "I'm going to die. But not my brain. Just my body. My teacher's uncle died. The teacher with orange hair. Not Sister Goff. Oh, Sister Trotter. It was her brother. And it was my uncle. I don't remember his name." For the record, we are not related to Sister Trotter, as far as I know. I'll have to have a conversation with her, though, to verify the facts.

Ho'oponopono

ZERO LIMITS, The Secret Hawaiian System for Wealth, Health, Peace, and More

“It’s about a doctor who emptied a ward for mentally insane criminals in a couple of years, just saying a few words to himself.”

What did Dr. Hew Len do to the patients, how did he treat them that the results were so spectacular? He didn’t do anything. Not a thing to them nor with them, except looking at their files. He only tried to heal himself, applying an old, traditional community problem-solving system from Hawaii, called Ho’oponopono, adapted to individuals by his Teacher, the late Hawaiian sage Morrnah Nalamaku Simeona. And what was he doing to himself? In his own words: “I was simply healing the part of me that created them”.

Actually, he used to sit in his office and look at the patients' files. While perusing them, he would feel something, a pain, an empathy. Then he started the healing on himself, taking full responsibility for what was going on with a given patient. That's how those people got better, because their doctor had the strange view that it was himself who needed the healing, not them.

t’s your responsibility doesn’t mean it’s your fault, it means that you are responsible for healing yourself in order to heal whatever or whoever it is that appears to you as a problem.

Dr. Hew Len himself uses the simplest of the formulas from Ho’oponopono. Whenever a matter arises –and they arise incessantly– adressing the Divine within you, you only have to say: I love You, I’m sorry, Please forgive me, Thank You.  .... The cleaning of memories requires a lot of concentration and persistence and is an unending job. But the result is what he calls Zero Limits, a state where one is free from the past, and suffused with Divine Intelligence and love.


All of the above is quoted from this article: https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/How-Dr-Hew-Len-healed-a-ward-of-mentally-ill-criminals-with-Hooponopono

Anniversary-Fred Suicide

The biggest impact of losing my brother has been the pain it has caused my family. Being 8 years older than he was, I didn't have very many naturally occurring interactions with him. Not that the number of interactions has much effect on the importance of them. But it does increase the potential.

This is true for some of my sisters as well, yet his death had a much bigger impact on them. Why is that?

I am trying to imagine how I would feel if someone else in my life were to die. I live so much of my life alone in my thoughts and in my feelings. What would it feel like to have someone in my life who was so involved in my inner life that their absence left an actual sense of loss?

I have become so accustomed to loss, as each time my family moves to a new home I leave behind those I have learned to love in such a short time. Perhaps that love is not as meaningful as the love my sisters have for their lost brother. I rarely feel a deep pain at leaving someone behind. I do feel a deep pain at leaving everyone behind -- but it is not one specific person.

I can imagine the loss of a child or husband. When the kids are at school, or my husband is at work, my behavior is different than when they are around. I cook for them, do laundry for them. The pain of losing someone when they are young involves the question of why they died at that stage of their lives. With elderly people this aspect of their dying is less troublesome, but of course children and friends and grandchildren still feel pain at their loss.

What is the source of this pain? Is it because the pattern of behavior is altered? Or because the object of your love is absent? My inclination is that it is because the pattern of behavior is altered. I rejected the other (love is absent) because, for example, when I do not have communication with my loved ones, I still love them. They are absent, I still love, and there is discomfort that I cannot speak with them. But the discomfort is only because I am used to a certain pattern of behavior and that behavior has become disrupted.

Gender

I read this today from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. "Coming Home to Mormonism and to Self"

hrc.im/mormon

"Claren is often asked about the LDS doctrine stating that gender is “premortal, mortal and eternal.” On the surface, the idea seems to reject the transgender experience, but Claren disagrees. “There’s a difference between gender and sex,” he points out. “My sex when I was born was female but my gender – who I am, who my soul is – is male. I know who I am. I’m just making my outer shell match my spirit, my gender, my soul."

"I was always a male, a guy, a male spirit, but I chose to come down to earth in a female body. I’m supposed to be a boy – to have a boy body that matches my boy spirit. And now my spirit and my body are starting to become one."

NEW TOPIC: the people quoted here believe "that their experience of God and God’s love takes precedence over church hierarchy or doctrine. " ---- what does that mean exactly, "take precedence over"? there may be an answer to my question in the next paragraph here:

"“We believe that the inner voice, the Holy Ghost, trumps everything,” Wendy Montgomery explains. “If you’re getting personal revelation and you believe it’s of God, then that takes precedence.” Drawing on the power of that core relationship with God has been key for many who struggle. “If you believe something, don’t change that belief because someone says you can’t believe it or you don’t fit the model,” Emmet Claren says. “You have to decide for yourself what you believe and decide that nothing is going to take that away from you.” For Claren, that conviction drives his desire to reach out to others. “I want people to know that they are loved by God. It’s hard, so hard – but the strength is there to draw nearer to God instead of pushing him away.

...“At the end of the day, it is about putting your own personal serenity first, independent of what is done and said around you. I am responsible for my personal serenity – not my church, not my priest, not my prophet.”


DIfferent topic: this next quote is from a feminist. preamble to the quote: --  these views make me crazy. I do NOT know why women believe that this is what the doctrine of the Church is. It sounds like this lady never has been in the temple anyway, so .... But I think there are Church members who have been to the temple who also hold these beliefs. It makes me really wonder if I'm missing something in my understanding of the gospel.

"Kendell suspects that leaving the church is sometimes an easier choice for women. “Men are giving up a status as priesthood holders,” she points out. “They’re the head of the household. They’re regarded as special and as superior to women doctrinally. The priesthood gives them a direct channel to God."

Being Wrong

From author Kathryn Schulz in "Being Wrong"

"So we look into our hearts and see objectivity; we look into our minds and see rationality; we look at our beliefs and see reality. ... every one of us confuses our models of the world with the world itself-- not occasionally or accidentally, but necessarily. ..."

When I was in college studying philosophy, I took a course on religion from an atheist. The reasoning for and against believing in God were both unconvincing to me.

My conclusion was that my beliefs were a choice. I wasn't constrained by the idea that my beliefs needed to conform with "capital T truth." That actually made me feel a bit more free. Even if there is a purely objective Truth, I doubt that my mind is capable of knowing It.

In the church doctrine I've been taught to believe in, God reveals His truths to anyone who asks, with one caveat: upon asking, the person must behave in a way that is consistent with the truth they are seeking. Which basically means, you must believe in the truth FIRST and you must ACT as if it is true. HOWEVER, you must also be willing to accept the NON-truth of your idea.

This willingness to accept the non-truth is demonstrated by asking God to reveal truth to you. Of course, this presupposes that you believe that God is real and that He answers prayers. A person could confront that potential difficulty by asking God if God is real.

In traditional academic and religious systems, asking this question (is God real) is problematic. Blah blah blah, there's something here about what the problems are.

In Mormonism, God has given a specific formula to follow to know if He is real: read the Book of Mormon, learn the principles of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and pray to know if THAT is true. Additionally, a person may learn about Joseph Smith, who, by the power of God, translated the Book of Mormon. Upon learning about Mr. Smith and his translation, a person may pray to know if Joseph Smith was telling the truth about his experiences. Of course, the best way to know if Joseph Smith was truthful about his experiences is to read the book he claims to have translated.

Now back to Ms. Schulz. I believe my beliefs are true NECESSARILY. This is perfectly consistent with the experiences I've written here dealing with knowing if God is real.

What about my belief in God? I decided that, if rationality wasn't helping me decide what to believe, how would I decide? I went with what I WANTED to believe, based on what I thought would be the best answer, and the answer most likely to get me to the Truth (capital T). So I'm not disinterested in the outcome. I really want to know truth. Philosophy failed to help me get closer to Truth, so I returned to God. Because the God I believe in promised that I *could* know it, He gave me a formula for how to find truth, and I saw results when I acted on those ideas.

Counterfeits

The LGBTQ community on the Mormons Building Bridges Facebook page has reacted to their marriages being called counterfeit. Here are a couple of excerpts from the article. I would like to call attention to any feelings of contention that arise in thinking about these things:

"Where there is contention, the Spirit of the Lord will depart."

"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, but same-sex marriage is only a counterfeit. It brings neither posterity nor exaltation. Although his imitations deceive many people, they are not the real thing. They cannot bring lasting happiness."

The Ensign magazine, April 2017, The War Goes On, Elder Larry R. Lawrence


I know that if my marriage was called a counterfeit by some outsider, I would probably be upset. A similar statement by a person who believes in the same religious foundations as I do would, I hope, give me cause for serious reflection.

The question for me is, what constitutes a counterfeit marriage?

My first thought is about love versus counterfeit love. If a married couple says they love each other and they love their children, I believe them. It doesn't matter if the married couple is a same-sex married couple or a man-woman partnership. I can observe their behavior, and if that behavior appears similar to mine, I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Can the love in a marriage be real if the marriage is counterfeit (we still need to decide what counterfeit marriage means)?

That's as far as I've gotten on this so far.

MBB

This is another brain dump post. It is an amalgam of ideas I hear on the Mormons Building Bridges Facebook page, and my own understanding of the Gospel and society.

One theme I hear repeated on MBB page is that a person 1) knows God loves them 2) Knows they're Gay 3) Knows the Church is true. 4) Knows their gay partner is a blessing to them.

----There are a number of issues I don't know very much about, and some of them seem related to the next idea I want to write about. It may be that my ideas are unsophisticated and inaccurate, but such it is for the time being.

The plan of salvation  -- the proclamation to the world on the family -- claims that gender is essential to our premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. It sets forth the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman; in other words, two people of opposite genders.

Homosexuals feel that they have no place in the plan of salvation.

We are sent here to the earth to learn by our own experience to choose good, to choose God's way because we recognize that it is the loving, joyful, sustainable, compassionate, and just way.

God put us here in families: a man and a woman create offspring. The parents teach the child about God and mortal life. In order for the plan to continue, the offspring (most of them, anyway) must find a mate and produce more offspring.

---------------

New topic ---  An idea about LGBT Mormons --- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has said that being gay is not a sin. Acting on that tendency *is* a sin. Here's how I heard the objection (paraphrase): "It's okay to be gay. As long as you don't do gay things, like have sex with someone who's the same gender as you."

It seemed that that idea was preposterous to these people. *NOT* have sex? Or that the Church was asking people not to have sex. Their response: "THAT's not going to work!! All those monks and nuns for centuries who were told not to have sex did *not* do well with that." It seemed like what they were saying was, "I'm gay and my sexuality is a big part of who I am (because I'm gay). So not having sex would be to deny a big part of who I am. Or -- not flirting or acting interested in gay relationships would be like denying who I am, and that would be *wrong*.

Did Christ say something about denying ourselves? But God told us to multiply and replenish the earth. As a heterosexual person, that doesn't make sense -- to both deny myself my sexual tendencies but also have sex and make babies.

As a homosexual, it's different, because having sex *doesn't* lead to having babies.

I was trying to think of a correlation with a hetero person. Say I'm hetero. I know the Church is true, and I love it. I know God loves me. But the only guys I'm interested in are married. I keep trying to be interested in single guys, but I can't seem to help myself. I decide that, since that's just how I am, and God loves me the way I am and wants me to be fulfilled as a person, then I'm just going to go ahead and have some physical relationships with whatever married man is willing.

I can't help that I'm only interested in married people. I was born that way. Ever since I was a kid, I never had any attraction to other kids. It wasn't until I was a teenager that I realized I was always interested in married people! And it's not against the law! If I'm an adult now, and my partner is consenting, then we can do whatever we want. I think it's wrong for the Church to tell me that I can't have a relationship with the people I'm attracted to. We need to re-think the idea that a man and a woman have offspring and raise them jointly. There's no place for me in that scenario! Sure, I can have offspring, but my kids won't fit in the Church because their friends will all know that they're illegitimate. I'll be excommunicated and my kids won't be welcome.

Ah -- there it is. The kids of an heterosexual person currently in an adulterous relationship *would* still be able to become members of the Church, at whatever age. But the Church has made a policy saying that children whose parents are currently living in a homosexual relationship are not allowed to be baptized.

Why has the Church not made a similar policy for the heterosexual adulterer? Is there a similar policy regarding the children of these adulterous unions? What is it?

It makes sense to me that a child whose parent(s) were currently living in an adulterous relationship would be denied baptism at the age of 8. But the issue is -- whether the current, written policies reflect this or not. Should they reflect it? Do all things need to be equal in this regard? Must be dictate every law for every situation?

---------------

Another issue I feel is that homosexuals feel they have been treated poorly by the Church, it's doctrines, its leadership, etc. They are hurt and want the Church to say "sorry", and to accept LGBT as members in good standing.

Is this true? Is this what the LGBT community is asking for? I can see no way to reconcile the idea of living a fully realized LGBT lifestyle with being an active member of the Church in good standing. I have heard that many LGBT people are hoping for a revelation or something. That's the only way to maintain the relationship with both the Church and the LGBT ideals.

***  Anyway -- the Church (and society at large, if I may say), has treated LGBT people poorly in the past. Now, society at large has accepted LGBT lifestyle as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. The Church has not. Therefore, the past hurts caused by the Church cannot be forgiven?? Is this what the issue really is?

Equal Work for Equal Pay

This post was written as a response to a facebook post. It may not make sense right away.

For many women, time at work is balanced with their time to be a mom. That is what they want. For some, it's a necessity for them to work, and for others it's just what they want. The Odom on factor is that they all want to be with their kids. Men want to be with their kids too, of course. But it's a social norm that dads generally don't take time off of work ****because***** it is generally accepted that mom will. Many women accept this. And it affects their pay. Women are seen as "less focused" on the career track, and therefore less qualified. It doesn't have anything to do with their intelligence or ability. It has everything to do with their commitment to kids first over job. I'm not saying that men out their jobs over their kids. Just that, when a man has the option of giving the kids' mom the responsibility of being the "go to" parent, then dad can focus on what he sees as his duty with regard to the family: providing the main financial support. I think, for feminists, the idea is that women ***should **** be independent and equal in that same way that men are. If the woman is serious about her career, then she *should* have the option of sharing the care of the children with her husband, so they both take time off work when the kids need care and it's not just her career that "suffers", but his as well. I think feminists see that men resist this idea, and they are saying it isn't right. For a mom who believes that its better for women to be home with her kids, the argument is silly. Why is the mom working at all? Why would she be serious about a career if she wasn't serious about having children? If there is no financial *need* (not want) for her to work, why would she choose that? So the feminist argument in that case has zero relevance to them. But for many recognize that they have skills and talents that they see as valuable and *necessary* to bring to the workplace. Men just don't have the same qualities as women. They would agree wholeheartedly with the "different but equal" idea. And those differences are what will help our society become healthy again. They think what they're doing is her best way. My question is --- what other way, besides having a job or being a government representative (which would also take moms away from home for a long time) can women make significant impact on the society? Yes, I know raising children will. As king as the woman raises the child with a knowledge of what needs to change in society. And for a woman to have that knowledge, she needs Ron be educated -- not necessarily with a degree or diploma (though that helps tremendousl), but by being involved in the community. By learning about what people's concerns are, what the laws are, etc. I know women *can* learn these things and gain this education in a variety of ways besides having s job. In fact, having a job might prevent the women from learning as much as she needs to know about her community to know where best to focus her attention as she is teaching her children. And the woman needs to be well educated enough to be able to think critically, think through different arguments, and think outside of the box, and know how to influence people in a way that she will effectively lead them to elevate their dreams and their behavior. It's a pretty tall order. It's what motherhood is meant to be. And many women are not capable of this ideal, because they don't have the education, or they have to work at a low paying job, and they have kids, and they live in a society or community that is less than ideal for raising children and getting kids good education and adequate health care and nutrition. More and more women are becoming aware of the need to raise their vision and "up their game" as mothers, but they have circumstances that make it challenging to achieve those goals. I believe feminists wants to help with that endeavor. They may Be going about it not exactly in th best way. and the everyday woman who doesn't identify with feminism could help feminism by understanding what they're really trying to do (I don't mean extremist feminists) and sharing ideas for how to achieve the goals in a way that isn't outside of the "man's world" solution, i.e., working at a job or being a government representative.

A Culture of Victimhood

After the 2016 election results, I listened to a podcast about the effect that the election had on Clinton supporters. I listened carefully to the women's concerns. I didn't understand the emotions these women were having. I wanted to understand them. I can sympathize with the feelings they professed. I have these feelings myself. Yet I could not connect emotionally, though I bent my mind to it and searched my heart to discover the tender feelings of sympathy with one who has been wronged.

Then the podcast host told the story of a woman in Utah. I live in Utah. I grew up here, moved away after college, and recently returned. I had heard of the woman being interviewed. I was sure she was truly concerned about the status of women in our culture.

Then the host said some things that turned a key in my mind. I don't care to recall the exact words, as I do not care to cite the podcast. The idea being put forth was that women in Utah are oppressed by a patriarchal society and an oppressive religious majority that limits women's freedoms.

Whether or not those claims are true is not my current focus.

The key that turned in my head was that the podcast producers had designed their stories to garner sympathy for victims of oppressive male domination. As a woman living in Utah, having received a modest college education, having traveled the world and around the United States, and then having returned to the state of Utah, I am assured that I am not a victim. Nor do many of my fellow women living here feel like victims. Even those who agree that we live in a paternalistic, oppressive, religiously-dominated culture do not feel like victims. 

Why, I questioned, were the podcast hosts, not to mention the feminist-minded women in Utah, trying to make victims out of people who do not feel like victims? Do they believe that the rest of us educated, world-travelled women are blind to our victimhood? What do they hope that we will gain by accepting that we are victims?

I wrote an email to this effect to the general email listed on the homepage for the podcast. I didn't expect to hear back from them, and I moved on.

Today, however, I read something that brought my previous experience into a little clearer focus. The article was about women who claim they have been raped, their cases have been evaluated, and their claims of rape have been dismissed. Here's one of the author's conclusions: 

"The damaged credibility of fake victims tends to undermine the credibility of real victims."

This is relevant to how I felt about the post-election podcast. I am not a victim of a paternalistic religion. Trying to make me into one is damaging to those women who actually are.

At the end of the article, the author theorized that some of these "fake victims" are influenced by people with an "anti-rape culture" agenda. The conclusion of the article could be the conclusion of my own experience with the podcast:

"It’s a system which systematically preys on and exploits the emotional vulnerability of young women in order to use them as publicity fodder for an ideological agenda."

Quotes from "'Rape Culture' and Feminism's Sexual Exploitation of Women" by Robert Tracinski. http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/10/rape-culture-and-feminisms-sexual-exploitation-of-women/

Another view of this situation: 

"I agree with William Layne that broader societal trends shouldn’t excuse what is often, plain and simple, malicious behavior. He is certainly correct that false accusers are not “cogs in a cultural machine.” They are individuals with agency—whether they admit it or not—with a wide range of complex motivations. However, I do think the larger sexual confusion on campus causes young women to engage in an activity they truly are not ready for and, even worse, don’t fully comprehend, with disastrous results." -- Heather Wilhelm, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/feminism-and-rape-culture/

Steam of consciousness - follow the prophet

following the prophet doesn't mean I blindly give my allegiance to him and do everything he asks without question.

It simply is a disposition. I am disposed to give the prophet the benefit of the doubt. Upon my own searching and prayer, I will then take action.

What we are taught as Church members is that, if you search and pray, you will find the same answers that the prophet has given.

What happens when you don't get those same answers?

Implication is you need to wait for a time. you need to trust in the Lord. Perhaps there is something in your life that is not in line with the commandments? This is where the difficulty arises.

If I am not living the commandments, the Church says my understanding of God's word to me may be influenced by my unrighteous thinking or actions. Like looking through a dirty lens.

On the other hand, if I feel that my actions are not sinful, then I may question the validity of the prophet. I think this is where many people are at today. They do not see how their actions are sins. They think their ideas are good, they are right, and it is the prophet and apostles who are living in a false tradition that has passed out of fashion.

What about me? I believe that God speaks to me. There are many habits and attitudes that I believe would be healthy for me to live, that I do not live. I then question my ability to judge the rightness or wrongness of what the prophet says is a good way to live. Until I can live in the way my conscience tells me I should live, I feel unqualified to make a judgment on anyone else's life or ideas.

But I give the prophet the benefit of the doubt. I lean towards the side of believing the prophet.

Saying how you feel is different than saying what you think.

That's what I'm learning lately.

Until recently, I've always told people about my thoughts. I experience a feeling. Then I examine my thoughts. Then I talk about how my thoughts are connected to the feeling. But I'm not really talking about the feeling itself.

I've lived a lot of my life with the idea that feelings are caused by what happens to me. If someone does something I don't like, then I feel uncomfortable or angry or frustrated.

So then I tell someone that what they did was wrong because it resulted in me feeling badly. And that doesn't usually go over well with people. So. When I tell people just a simple emotion that I'm feeling, the outcome is different.

For example, if I open with, "You did 'x' and I'm angry about that," then people get defensive. It's not the words that I use. It's an attitude: the attitude of "you were wrong to do 'x'."

If I say, "I'm angry," then I'm not starting the conversation with a judgment. And then people around me can respond sympathetically, which allows me to focus on my feelings, instead of on what the other person did.

Mystified Gratitude

Adara broke her arm on Halloween day. Today I called to find the latest total for the three appointments she had. I was surprised to learn my balance was zero, as I had not submitted it to my healthcare ministry.

Medicaid paid the bill in full. I don't know why. We used a Medicaid from October 2015 to April 2016 because a jon had been fired from his job. I don't know why, 6 months after our eligibility ended, they paid the bill. I am happy they did.

Adding to the mystery is that the same child saw a doctor in June for a ruptured eardrum. We paid out of pocket for that (our insurance at that time was mostly catastrophic insurance). Why would Medicaid pay the broken arm but not the burst eardrum? Again, I don't really care about the reason.

2017 Goals

1. Diet
Feeling: Feed my body like it was a newborn baby body.
***Practice: Find one new vegetable, or a new method or recipe that maximizes nutrition, tastes pretty good, is on the easy-ish side to prepare and keep on-hand, and is sustainable over several months of eating.
****Easy, one-time goal -- get a good multivitamin routine started
(Also - supplements that support healthy hair)
***Deadline: April 30, 2017


2. Exercise
****Feeling: My mind and body are healthy when I'm happy with what I'm doing
****Practice: Find fun ways to move my body with my kids. YouTube videos on dance, martial arts, balance balls, yoga. Swimming, biking, gymnastics, roller blading. Hiking, rock climbing, weight lifting, pilates ...
(Also - look for how to tone abdominal muscles)
****Deadline -- Do activity with kids at least 2 times each week, before Saturday


3. Relationships
****See the world with mindful energy (that light in your eyes when you're doing something you love) in day-to-day tasks, including and especially, in my interactions with children and husband, and also with people in general.
ALSO -- the more energy you put into life, the more energy you have.

****Practice: Read with kids. Play puzzles. Singing / playing piano. Pattern games, math games coloring together as a family. Sewing. Drawing. Art time. Science games. strategy games .... find ways to enjoy one another that everyone is happy with, and doesn't involve just "watching t.v."

****Deadline -- Do at least ONE of this type of activity every week. Perhaps on Sunday morings. Or Monday evening?

Equality and Relativism. Mormonism and Atheism

Rough Draft -- thoughts after reading this article:

http://happiness-seekers.com/2017/01/02/the-alarming-truth-behind-anti-mormonism/


The question of equality is one that particularly has concerned me. This issue first came to my awareness when I was studying the Civil Rights movement. I'm still exploring the ideas of equality, but one thing you said was helpful. "Simply put, society will be governed completely by what individuals think they want and need—as opposed to a sense of duty and obligation to some higher truth about good and evil or directives from Heaven."

I've heard this basic idea from my atheist friends. "Social rules are the result of human evolution" is how I understand it. That, of course, means that social rules are subjective. And that means the rules can change. So, for example, with the abolition of slavery, we changed the rules. That's a good thing. Women having more equal treatment. Also good. Disabled people, LGBT, different religions -- all are alike. This is an idea from scripture that we believe is true. Only in scripture the idea is that all are alike unto God. Which means there is a standard. God is the standard. If people decide what the standard is ... I'm pretty sure I don't trust any one person, or any group of people, to create a better standard than the one God has made. If they try to reinvent God's standard, well, okay, except for people tend to get distracted, especially over long periods of time. I just don't trust people. I guess I don't understand why atheists do?

I do believe people can improve, they can grow and become more gentle, patient, just and merciful at once. And I believe they become such by following the standard of conduct decreed by the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. I guess I don't see how humankind, as a whole, will ever agree to a common standard of conduct that will bring people to ever greater fulfillment .