It seems that as long as there are rules, guidelines, values, teachings, or commandments, there will be rebellion. Some people even make bad choices specifically because they know the choice is bad for them (that’s an issue for another post).
Whenever a new “commandment” is announced (e.g. “one pair of earrings”) it often causes a stir. I’m not sure how much this stir actually has to do with the specific issue. I wonder if the bigger issue is feeling like one can make choices for oneself–being an independent and an adult, without being “told” what to do.
Any rules or commandments that are given by church leaders restrict agency to some degree. To use the earring example again, women in the church are no longer “free” to wear two pairs of earrings without having the consequences of being in a “state of rebellion” as they were free before. Perhaps new rules create additional consequences?
Whether it’s coming from church leaders, parents, or other authority figures, rules, guidelines, or commandments need to be chosen wisely, and consideration must be made that rebellion that will almost automatically occur in many people upon announcement of any new rule.
Even for many of those who have a belief in “immediately obeying the prophet” there are ostensibly some things they would NOT do.
- What is important enough for you as a parent to create and enforce a rule around?
- What is most important to the church? What commandments or “rules” are worth their price?
- Some might argue that rules are a test of obedience. Is this inevitable and sifting process necessary?
- For those who feel like they’re very obedient in their church membership, what new rules or commandments would cause you to be disgruntled or even leave the church? I think there is probably a line somewhere that everyone would draw.
Wheat & Tares 
The rules are sociological in many ways. They form in-group distinctions that enable notions of peculiar-ness or special-ness to be maintained. Their arbitrary nature actually allows them to function in this way.
There are many tools Satan uses to destroy free agency: temptation, sin, deception, drugs, technology, etc.
But the main instrument used is the State. Only with the inception of the State can Satan duplicate the spiritual kingdom he has set up and control every aspect of those who are citizens of it.
Although Satan owns and controls every State, none are identical to each other. Each one varies in the degree to which it controls the lives of its citizens. Those that control to a greater degree, are under a greater amount of influence of the devil, while those that control to a lesser degree, have less demonic influence, but all States, even minimalist ones, immediately come under Satan’s influence.
To the extent that parents and churches mimic the control systems used by States, they too are influenced by the devil in that thing.
There is no line of new rules or commandments that would cause me to be disgruntled or even leave the church. This is Jesus’ church — not theirs. I wouldn’t leave the church unless the Spirit manifested to me that the church had been abandoned by God — which has yet to happen.
I wonder if it makes a difference whose perspective we are talking about. I think many times (though certainly not always) when someone chooses to make a decision that is contrary to a social rule, it is viewed as rebellion by the society…but the individual may simply be making the choice they view as better for them. While they may realize that it is “breaking” the rule, I’m not sure they see it in the same negative way as the term “rebellion” is typically used.
I think the issue is that Mormons are conditioned to LOVE rules. By having regular interviews that address external “measurable” activity (as no one can truly question the inner man/woman except God), we are conditioned to look for ways to “prove” our faithfulness externally as opposed to realigning our faith internally.
We also, from an extremely young age, teach our children to sing “Follow the Prophet”. There is the old adage about Mormons claiming their prophet is a “mortal man” and subject to the same emotions and opinions that we have, yet treating him as if he were infallible, as if every utterance were a “thus saith the Lord” statement or doctrine.
The natural result of these is that following “more” rules is seen as a sign of being “more” spiritual in many ways. People who are chosen for roles in the hierarchy are, in general, the ones who follow more of these “external” rules, that aren’t really non-doctrinally based. People who attempt to distinguish between opinion and doctrine are branded as “heretical”. Non-issues are seen as “rebellion” or “not following the prophet”.
Using your earring example, here is what President Hinckley actually said: “May I mention earrings and rings placed in other parts of the body. These are not manly. They are not attractive. You young men look better without them… As for the young women, you do not need to drape rings up and down your ears. One modest pair of earrings is sufficient.
Nothing more. Nothing less. He expressed his opinion about earrings. But by the next conference, we heard talks about engagements being broken off because of an extra set of earrings. When my teenage daughter went to EFY this last summer, the only BOLD LETTERS on the standards sheet were ones saying she was NOT allowed to attend if she had two pairs of earrings. And all from a paragraph or two where President Hinckley expressed his opinion.
So, many of the “rules” in the Church are arbitrary. Some people love the rules. They love the structure it brings. The love being able to feel like they are “following” everything and living a good life. Other people consider the rules are nearing Pharasaical in nature. They would prefer to focus on the essence of the gospel and not the rules.
Which is right? I don’t know.
Interesting post. I was touched by the example shared in Elder Lawrence’s talk in the last conference in which he did not give permission for his 17-year son to go on a weekend outing.
His reason was not because of a family or church rule, but because he did not have a good feeling about that particular case. And his son accepted that response from him.
It made me rethink how I communicate concerns to my children.
I think that it may be interesting to note the authoritarian parenting style (the church isn’t a parent, but in a lot of ways the parenting styles can be generalizable to, especially, church leadership). An authoritarian parent is both demanding (high expectations) and unresponsive (unwilling to explain why rules are made or be engaged in logical discussion about the rules). The church is often times guilty of this type of leadership. As parents can tell you, this type of parenting has, in many many cases, some negative consequences, including rebellion.
Those who use arbitrary and ridiculous rules to sift the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, aren’t worthy of my respect, because they obviously don’t respect me.
Great post Adam
I dunno, but I’m pretty sure I’m gonna fail the test especially if 100% knowledge of the truthfulness of all the church’s claims is the rule.
This is an interesting question. I have literally asked some friends this question. More than one has declared to me that NOTHING would cause them to leave. That is one SCARY declaration and is the stuff terrorists, cultists, and kool-aid drinkers are made of!!! Though I agree with you that in action most would probably draw a line somewhere, at least in word, many would not.
JT: “arbitrary and ridiculous” — hmmm. How to define those terms? For some of my teenagers, anything I told them that was not to their liking was arbitrary or ridiculous. And yet, I as a parent, with more years under my belt, sometimes really did have a better view of likely outcomes, and that view sometimes guided my counsel to my kids.
Thanks for the comments – it is really interesting how the parenting aspect of this has come out in focus more. I think the best parents are both demanding (I don’t love that word, but I mean high in control or boundaries, expectations, helping kids organize their experience and feelings etc.) and also very high in warmth (i.e. love, affection, responsiveness, engagement, emotional accessibility). Perhaps in the church – as a large organization – many people don’t feel that high degree of warmth, unless they’re getting it from a great leader or parent or fellow ward member, or etc.
Love that image, Adam. And very intriguing topic. I also suspect that even among those who do not openly rebel there’s a certain spike of resentment at being managed so closely by those who are ostensibly the messengers of God.
It sends a clear message that God cares about such things and might easily result in an overly narrow view of what God might be.
“sends a clear message that God cares about such things and might easily result in an overly narrow view of what God might be”
Interesting – now that you say that I think I fall into this trap as a parent sometimes… getting so caught up in (or spending a lot of time in) disciplining or directing my son, or making sure his shoes are on or his hands washed or has he gone potty in the last 8 hours, or has he cleaned up, or has he finished his dinner, or… the list goes on, but I wonder if sometimes for me and for parents in general, the REAL message, the Truth or whathaveyou is lost in all the “stuff” or “commandments” or “rules.” I have the BEST intentions with all my direction and teaching of my kids, but maybe I always need to make sure I’m actually showing them warmth and love through it all, and we spend a lot of time without having a focus on all the boundaries.
Paul: I know it can be hard to define, but let me take a crack at. Rules with no other purpose than to see who is obedient. I was once told a story (by Elder Cook of the 70) about a 70 who asked a congregation to move up to closer seating for no other reason than to check their obedience (this story was told glowingly).
Adam: The church places a premium on obedience not on repentance (or at least has in the past few years). It’s hard to see love when you’re constantly being told that you’re not stacking up. I will say, however, that a lot of feelings of love and warmth probably come from local leaders while a lot of the feelings of high expectations probably come from the upper ups.
My own parents had very high expectations of me (and my father wasn’t always warm and loving, but was supportive), but what made those expectations livable was the fact that my parents always had a logical reason for having them. I was never asked to obey a rule (or “request”) that my parents couldn’t explain (they always did seem to have an explanation though…). That doesn’t mean that I always lived what they said, but it does mean that I have, and always have had, an enormous amount of respect for them. If the church can’t give a logical reason for asking the membership to do something then I don’t think that it deserves taking seriously. “The prophet said so” isn’t a good argument and isn’t one that I think holds up on ethical grounds (or other grounds, for that matter).
My read of Colossians 2:16 and other of Paul’s scriptures, is that any rules that can’t reasonably be related to “love thy neighbor as thyself” are the equivalent of the Law, which has been fulfilled, and under whose yoke we are not to allow ourselves to be brought again into bondage.
To the extent the Church teaches that obedience for obedience’s sake is righteousness, it needs to do a heck of a lot more distinguishing of Paul’s scriptures warning against backsliding into ritualistic observance of the Law, than it has done.
The earrings thing is a classic example. It is good advice, nothing more, from a person — a prophet — we are under covenant to hearken to. That means to give his advice due respect and a fair hearing. It absolutely does *not* mean that he gets to set up rules that must be obeyed (whether or not they are actually rooted in the eternal moral law) as a condition of one’s salvation.
AdamF: “Perhaps in the church – as a large organization – many people don’t feel that high degree of warmth, unless they’re getting it from a great leader or parent or fellow ward member, or etc.”
Where else would it come from? Not the cushion on the pew.
If we are to invite all to come unto Christ, then we should behave in a way to allow those who attend to feel that warmth and welcoming.
Personally I’ve been very fortunate to have many local leaders who are just that way. I don’t know many General Authorities — I’ve met maybe less than a dozen at conferences during my 40 years of membership in the church. But the ones I’ve heard speak have generally also been warm, inviting and have shown honest concern for the members of our stake.
Justin, ironically the controversial talk from Elder Packer was mostly about repentance. And Elder Uceda and Elder Kearon’s talks also focused on repentance.
When I was bishop, I would say that 80% of the time I spent in one-on-one counseling was related to repentance.
But on the assumption that it’s easier to stay on the path than to get back on the path, it’s not a surprise that we also teach obedience.
“What is important enough for you as a parent to create and enforce a rule around? What is most important to the church? What commandments or “rules” are worth their price?” I think as a parent, the big rules are 1) safety (avoiding physical harm), 2) moral conduct (how my kids treat others and themselves), 3) getting a little payback on my investment as a parent (fetching diet cokes, unloading groceries), and 4) not irritating me (noise levels, clutter, homework expectations, how many episodes of Avatar can be on the TiVo at one time).
“Some might argue that rules are a test of obedience. Is this inevitable and sifting process necessary?” If obedience = humility, there’s some value in that I suppose. But I can’t really believe that we can blindly “obey” our way into Godhood. You don’t go from soldier to commander-in-chief just by obeying more than everyone else.
“For those who feel like they’re very obedient in their church membership, what new rules or commandments would cause you to be disgruntled or even leave the church?” I wouldn’t follow any instruction I felt was immoral. Clearly that’s subjective to my own views of what I think is moral, but that’s why we have the gift of the HG, right? I would leave if the immoral behavior was a condition of remaining. I would stay and abstain from the immoral behavior if it were not required.
I have found the following extremely useful in helping my children follow the rules.
1) Taken from Joseph Smith “Teach them correct principles and allow them to govern their own lives”. This is a very laissez faire approach, but it is extremely effective. Ultimately, this is the approach our Father took in the pre-existence. It instills confidence.
2) Closely tied to the first one is the adage “If you never trust them, they will never be trustworthy.” It is vital that they come to knowledge something is true or right for them on their own. Dominion and compulsion are counter-productive.
3) Find something productive for them to do (sports, music, ballet, not video games, etc..) or Lucifer will find something for them.
4)Live the way you should. Be an example.
5)Have their mother at home with them for the crossroads of their lives. This is the most important step by a mile. It is often asked how a mother can “do it all”, when the more relevant question is how do the children manage without their mother at the crossroads of their life.
I have found if you follow these rules you won’t have rebellion in your home.
I think there are things you can do as a parent to minimize rebellion, but I have a hard time imagining a 100% success rate even with the above list.
Alice,
Fair enough. Strike my last line.
Well, now I feel a little obnoxious. 🙂
Alice,
You shouldn’t, you were right.
Great post, and something I’ve thought about quite a bit as I prepare for those years. I think Will’s list is a great basis, although I will add that a “parent” should always be available at the crossroads. It’s not always going to be the mother that makes the difference in a rebelling teen. In fact in some mother daughter dynamics, it’s the opposite and the father needs to be there for support.
Corktree, I remember that for a brief period one of our daughters (who is wonderful and really never was rebellious) would simply stop talking to her mom. This would go on for days until finally I’d be asked to go in and find out what was going on. Having parents come in pairs is a great blessing, and I have great respect for those who parent alone.
Ditto on Will’s original parenting post. That’s what I was thinking, especially line #1. We try not to make very many rules at all unless what my daughter is doing is over-the-top, e.g., hurting her 4 month old sister. But even then we only tell her to “be gentle,” if she doesn’t stop then we’ll actually do something more to intervene, of course, we’re not perfect parents but the “laissez faire approach” is the goal.
I always found arbitrary rules as a child to be annoying and ineffective. I came to resent the person making the rules (stepfather) instead being a help. Maybe that’s why I like the voluntarist stuff (referring to the political blog post comments).
Hail Eris! ALL hail Discordia! The rules are for fools.
On a more sober note, I respectfully disagree with the fundamental association between rules and limiting free agency. In fact, I will be so bold as to say there aren’t nearly enough rules yet! As long as so many of our sisters and brothers worship “the rules” by pouring their ego and soul into them, they have not had enough.
Rules. More rules. Rules for the rules. Soul-crushing and arbitrary rules. Rules of obedience for every thought and action from dawn until sleep.
When people are ready to lay down their beloved cross and stop asking other people, even God, to tell them what to do, then they can exercise their free agency.
Nope. The church does not take away free agency. A person can actually ignore them unless they decide it brings value and meaning to their life.
This reminds me a lot of my time at BYU with all the ridiculous rules that don’t have anything to do with anything. It really rubbed me the wrong way because my parents gave me more trust to make good decisions for myself when I was 16 than BYU did as a 22 year old RM who hadn’t done anything to demonstrate that I was untrustworthy. For me, it took much of the joy out of being obedient. I felt like I was doing it because I had to, rather than because I wanted to.
Aaron – no kidding! I felt the same way when I went on my mission. I had lived on my own for 3 years, and so many of the “white Bible” rules were not even hedges about the law. I broke them accidentally all the time.
Brian – “I respectfully disagree with the fundamental association between rules and limiting free agency.”
If you disagree, then you do not understand. 😀
Actually, I think rules (if followed) can give someone more options. Individual agency, however, is not the whole story. There is also proxy agency, and collective agency. We, whether we like it or not, have to depend on others for things we can’t do ourselves, for example. We rely on the collective power of systems, organizations, etc. as well. Agency to me is in part the ability to make something happen, i.e. to be an agent. With the Word of Wisdom, for example, one is not free (as one would have been in earlier days) to drink coffee and be considered “obedient” or whatever. Anyway, perhaps my definition of agency is warped by all this psych wizardy I’ve been immersed in.
Aside from my years at BYU, I’ve never lived in Utah. I think part of that is my perception that I was surrounded by busybodies who were policing the rules, or gossiping about people who were not following the rules, or hypocrites who weren’t obeying the rules but who wanted to pretend that they were following the rules.
Maybe that was my immaturity at the time, but I’ve always known that I do better being out amongst the heathen. 😉 Somehow, it makes me feel like I don’t have anything to rebel against. And there’s less of the cultural stuff that has nothing to do with the gospel.
I’ve also frequently wondered if the Lord put me in a semi-active, part-member family on purpose, given my rebellious streak. In a way, rebellion was getting real involved in the church, saying “no thanks” when my dad offers me a beer. He’s stopped doing that now! My church activity has made me different from everybody else in my family immediate family. I had a roommate in college from a GA family. The only way for her to rebel was to go the opposite way. I think that might have been me.
@30 – I must think God’s got some reverse psychology going on for me.
I was called to standards at BYU for not wearing socks to take a test. Things like that irked me so much that I gave up a full 4-year scholarship to transfer schools after my mission.
While you can apparently not wear socks there now, there are a number of other equally inane rules. It is truly a bizarre place.
(Plus their football team isn’t doing so great right now)
@AdamF. I get what you are saying overall. I was only looking at the term “Free Agency” in its Mormon lingo context, as a synonym for freedom to choose. I agree there are other dimensions to “agency” and “freedom.”
AdamF: “With the Word of Wisdom, for example, one is not free (as one would have been in earlier days) to drink coffee and be considered “obedient” or whatever.”
This makes for a great example of the point I wanted to make. You propose that someone is no longer free when a new rule is established that coffee is against the Word of Wisdom.
Like you said, one is not free to drink coffee *AND* be labeled “obedient” by their peers. That isn’t a limitation on free agency. Someone can still decide to drink coffee. All they have to do is ignore the rule. They just won’t be able to make that decision AND get approval from their peers.
We are blessed with the power of free agency (choice). We are not blessed with freedom from results, whether the results are fair and just, or unjust.
I agree – we are free to choose, while the consequences of such choices vary from being natural consequences, to consequences decided by others. I also think that the strict definition of agency as just “the ability to choose” is simple, but limiting.
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
“Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.” — Douglas Bader
The big problem with too many rules is that the lesser rules begin to trivialize the greater rules.
One interesting effect of this is that as it becomes increasingly easy to break rules without any consequence it brings into question the rationale of other rules.
Another effect is that silly rules such as the no-multiple piercings trivializes the rule giver. God doesn’t care if someone has multiple piercings and if it were that eternal of a rule, it would have already been given long before many good and righteous people had multiple piercings. The conclusion is inevitable; the giver is trying to control others for trivial reasons.
Rules in and of themselves don’t convince anyone of the ‘rightness’ of the rule. What happens instead is that many people look for the exceptions, loopholes, and reasons to break or ignore a rule when inconvenient. Examples: Income taxes and traffic laws.
Is it better to spend more time explaining the reasons for and against a given course of action rather than making arbitrary rules?
What happened to teaching the people principles and having them govern themselves?
I think just teaching principles involves too much anxiety or need to control the outcome by those who are coming up with extra rules.
When rules are for the benefit and convenience of the rulegiver (my tongue in cheek list as a parent makes the dividing line clear above), then the rules cease to provide for the long-term welfare of the governed. Instead those types of rules only provide unsustainable homage to undeserved authority. As soon as authority seeks its own interests and convenience, it becomes misguided at least, or even unjust.
While it may be inconvenient for the governed to make mistakes, it’s essential to individual learning. Parents and all sorts of leaders will be wisest to remember this.
The essence of the issue:
In any organization, people want to get notice/leave their mark/etc. This occurs at all levels. A YM President might not be content with just repeating what the prior YM President did, but wants to add something new. A mission president might want to “do better” than his predecessor. A president might not just want to talk for the twentieth time about “belly shirts”, but adds a comment about earrings. Avoiding “hard liquor” might be changed to “all alcoholic drink” then maybe “not a drop”, again, all in a natural attempt to “be better” than what was before. This is natural, and not just in a church environment.
The thing that makes it somewhat unique and self-sustaining, however, is that we are also taught to “sustain our leaders” and not question a thing they say. We are taught that even if they tell us something to do that is wrong, that we won’t be punished for it. And it is extremely rare to find a church leader who will question another current or former church leader, so that it not “sustaining”.
Combine the natural organizational instinct to “out-do” the previous group, with the unquestioning nature in the hierarchy, and it is obvious why the church gets rule upon rule upon rule.
So instead of a “principle” of modesty, we now: shouldn’t show our shoulders, even for little girls; shouldn’t have multiple sets of earrings; shouldn’t wear 2-piece swim suits; should keep our knees covered; shouldn’t get a tattoo; etc. Instead of a principle, we get minutae of rules. And we get an attitude where unless what someone determines is “modest” for them happens to coincide with the “group-think” mentality of “modesty”, someone’s willingness to “follow the prophet” is questioned.
Mike – that is one of my favorite comments in a long time. Thanks. You’ve inspired me to write a post about this concept that each new leader has new rules and absolute obedience is the norm, yet the new rules are different from the old, and the new leader never says the old rules were wrong… it’s one thing for things to grow “line upon line” or etc. but it’s another when rules are reversed back and forth… suddenly the “the current leader is the most relevant for us” line just seems to jerk us around. 🙂
AdamF: That would be a great post – looking forward to it. And while there is much on the topic that is implicit, there is much explicit as well. As quoted twice in the recent GC:
…
Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
…
Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
…
Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency–the living prophet and the First Presidency–follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.
…
So it basically says that living trumps dead (or even scriptures); one level of the hierarchy trumps a lower level, with the First Presidency trumping all; scripture can be anything the prophet says, not necessarily just is he specifically says it is scripture; and if we don’t agree, we suffer.
Though IN GENERAL I would share the late GBH’s view on “earrings”, were I a bishop of a YSA ward I wouldn’t deny a temple recommend to a young brother sporting a post in his earlobe (or even a hoop through the eyebrow), nor harp on a young sister for earrings “up and down” her ears. However, I’d advise them that the temple workers may ask them to remove their jewelry and not to raise a stink about it.
Rather than heap “commandments” and “rules” upon us, methinks GBH was counseling the youth not to pierce and/or mutilate their bodies merely to be fashionable. Rather than get rebellious, couldn’t his words be taken as that of a kindly, grandfather old fellow that deeply cares about the youth (as indeed he did).
One of my contractors is my age and a Captain in the Naval Reserve. When not on duty, at times he does sport a single earring. On him it looks becoming. However, I’ve also seen him in his “Ice Cream Suit”, and he looks like someone the Navy would willingly post a pic of on its website.
Rules may restrict one’s “fun” but at times they can save your hiney. Recently in my job I erred badly. I let a contractor commence work in the field before their work plan had been fully approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies due to oversight on my and the contractor’s part. The mistake itself is not of a serious magnitude, but it was damaging to the relationship and to my professional credibility. Moral of the story? Usually “rules are rules” to save yer butt.