Sometimes several different threads from very different sources coalesce into a single theme. I’ve just finished reading one of my daughter’s library books, the final in a teen/ young adult science fiction trilogy. In a particularly chilling part of the story the main character Tom has been kidnapped. He has initial contact with a tutor at his military academy via a neural processor, with which the brains of the students and tutor have been augmented, before the kidnapper blocks the connection. This is the information the tutor gives Tom:
“Do you know about neural sovereignty Tom? … Our neural processors – Vigilant-grade neural processors – work in tandem with the human brain. That means your processor, when it’s inserted, maps your brain. It learns exactly where it accepts your conscious thought commands from. … It learns to obey your brain. That’s what happens when you first get your processor. So let’s say I hook a neural wire between your processor and mine … I couldn’t interface and take control of you like you’re a standard machine, because your processor can distinguish between my neurons and yours. It knows your neurons usually give it commands, and mine don’t, so it will reject anything that comes from me. But there’s a way around that. … Cooperation. If I hook my neural processor into yours and order you to interface with a machine you won’t simply interface on my command because your processor doesn’t acknowledge my neural sovereignty. However, let’s say I order you to interface with a machine and you cooperate: you choose to accept the command and interface with the machine. If you do that your processor begins a learning process. It will learn that it’s supposed to receive commands from my neurons as well as yours. That means it can learn to acknowledge neural sovereignty from me as well as you. This is very important for you to understand: if you let Joseph Vengerov gain neural sovereignty over your processor, he’ll be able to use your own processor to control you. … If he ever gets neural sovereignty, you will never get that back from him. … You don’t think you’re going to do anything he says, but there are ways of manipulating you, coercing you, playing into your needs or desires. There’s no scale here Tom. Something so minor as telling you to blink, and you obeying that command, begins the learning process. …” from Catalyst by S.J. Kincaid
I was reminded of Ziff’s recent post about conformity, and in which he references a Mormon Journeys podcast discussing differentiation. He quotes Rachel Brown from the podcast as saying:
“There’s not a lot of cultural room in the LDS tradition for differentiation of an individual. It’s almost like we’re set up to never differentiate as adults. And by “differentiate” I mean a couple of things, but mainly the idea that you can choose your own set of beliefs and values.”
He goes on to discuss how do we distinguish between conformity to a social norm or obedience to a commandment, and that “A complicating factor is that the line between social norms and commandments isn’t always bright. … To further complicate the issue, occasionally a social norm gets upgraded to a commandment.”
I commented as follows:
“Growing up in the church I always loved my father’s non-conformist streaks. And on this I’m my father’s daughter. The only place he wore a white shirt was the temple. He had fancy waistcoats, colourful ties, and even bow ties. And he’d grow a beard, a moustache, even mutton chop whiskers as the fancy took him. And he was a deeply spiritual man who when warned by the spirit, somewhat regretfully, that he was going to have to shave off his beard did so the evening before then Elder Packer demanded it from the pulpit during a stake conference in the 70s.”
Yes. That demand from Elder Packer, enforcement of a social norm or upgrading to commandment, what was that? As these things happen sometimes, I was involved in a conversation with a family member who recalled that very event just this week. They also remembered my father had shaved his beard beforehand, and must therefore have been in tune. They also recalled that another previously bearded member attended church the following week clean-shaven. They suggested that these things are an opportunity to exercise or demonstrate humility by obedience to small things when larger things may be just too hard. I responded that it sounded to me that some people just enjoyed a power trip. “If it’s a small thing that doesn’t matter, why do you want me to do it?” would be my natural response. Maybe I am being a little too hard on Elder Packer here. I’ve always been extremely leery of the following idea:
“Now, the key to our freedom lies in an apparent paradox: we must give up our freedom voluntarily in order to know the freedom that only Christ can give.” Jack H. Goaslind The Rewards for Obedience BYU Speeches Sep 26, 1982
In his address Elder Goaslind also quotes Elder Packer as follows:
“Perhaps the greatest discovery of my life, without question the greatest commitment, came when finally I had the confidence in God that I would loan or yield my agency to him—without compulsion or pressure, without any duress, as a single individual alone, by myself, no counterfeiting, nothing expected other than the privilege. In a sense, speaking figuratively, to take one’s agency, that precious gift which the scriptures make plain is essential to life itself, and say, “I will do as you direct,” is afterward to learn that in so doing you possess it all the more. . . .
“We should put ourselves in a position before our Father in heaven and say, individually, “I do not want to do what I want to do. I want to do what thou wouldst have me do.”[“Obedience,” BYU Speeches of the Year, 7 Dec. 1971, p. 4]”
At least Elder Packer specifies to whom he loans or yields his agency: to God. That’s very different, in my own mind, to expecting obedience to Elder Packer’s direction on what might be deemed small things in a stake conference. I have to wonder why we fought a war in heaven over the importance of agency, if we’re going to abdicate all responsibility here on earth. My father obeyed the spirit and shaved off his beard, prior to the conference. Sometime later he regrew one. I don’t believe Elder Packer’s stance on beards ever changed. I regard my father’s experience of the spirit to be a merciful warning that protected him. It meant that he was not in a position where he would be seen to need to obey Elder Packer’s directive. Unfortunately the idea that any pronouncement by a general authority is de facto the word of God is all too prevalent in my view. Towards the end of last year we were visitors in a gospel doctrine class where the teacher stated we were to have faith in prophets. I protested. Last I checked it was faith in Christ we were meant to be preaching. And at the end of January a speaker in our sacrament meeting said isn’t it great we have prophets, so we just need to do what they tell us and don’t have to think about it. I’m not sure the Nuremberg defence is going to play well at the final judgement. Many members seem to be habituated to simply following orders, the risk Tom faces so starkly outlined in the opening quote.
I have always bristled against an authoritarian style of church leadership. Short term it may yield results, but I don’t believe it helps anyone in the long run, and can prime for abuse:
“At it’s most transparent, authoritarian style is simply dictating to others what they will do. This has been called the ‘drill sergeant style.’ But an authoritarian style can be less obvious. Being ‘an authority’ in a relationship is a way of disguising personal wishes as principles. First comes an insistence on framing matters of preference or opinion as matters of right or wrong. Second comes the insistence that the primary aggressor’s preferences and opinions are the right ones. Third comes an insistence that the survivor do “what is right.” This is a particularly effective and devastating form of abuse against survivors that are dedicated to doing what is right, such as survivors raised in strong faith traditions.” from abuseandrelationships.org retrieved 08/02/17
I’m much happier with the description of humility outlined by Elder Stephen E Snow, which focuses on our own behaviour and our attitude to others:
“The Savior taught His followers that they must humble themselves as a little child in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. As we raise our own children, we need to help them remain humble as they mature into adulthood. We do not do this by breaking their spirit through unkindness or by being too harsh in our discipline. While nurturing their self-confidence and self-esteem, we need to teach them the qualities of selflessness, kindness, obedience, lack of pride, civility, and unpretentiousness. We need them to learn to take joy in the successes of siblings and friends. President Howard W. Hunter taught that “our genuine concern should be for the success of others.” If not, our children can become obsessed with self-promotion and outdoing others, jealousy, and resentment for the triumphs of peers. I’m grateful for a mother who, when seeing I was becoming too full of myself as a boy, would say, “Son, a little bit of humility right now would go a long way.”
But humility is not something reserved to be taught only to children. We must all strive to become more humble. Humility is essential to gain the blessings of the gospel. Humility enables us to have broken hearts when we sin or make mistakes and makes it possible for us to repent. Humility enables us to be better parents, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, neighbors and friends.
On the other hand, unnecessary pride can dissolve family relationships, break up marriages, and destroy friendships. It is especially important to remember humility when you feel contention rising in your home. Think of all the heartache you can avoid by humbling yourself to say, “I’m sorry”; “That was inconsiderate of me”; “What would you like to do?”; “I just wasn’t thinking”; or “I’m very proud of you.” If these little phrases were humbly used, there would be less contention and more peace in our homes.” Steven E. Snow, Be Thou Humble GC April 2016
When it comes to our humbling ourselves as a little child I am always reminded that children ask why. Their humility comes in recognising that they do not know and expressing that they are willing to learn, not in obeying every whim without question.
- Do you believe we can learn humility by obedience in small “unimportant” things? If so how and why?
- Do you think there are dangers to demanding compliance about things that are unimportant? Or do you think the small things are important and why?
- What do you think about the idea that we should yield our agency?
- How do you feel about authority?
Discuss
Wheat & Tares 
Do you ever wonder if you learned you are just confirming to your father non-conforming? (semi serious question – I wonder deep philosophical things like this about myself all the time, and only occasionally give myself good answers)
I -love- Elder Snow. he’s been an amazing Historian and Recorder, and I hope we get to hear from him again at other Conferences.
For me, the problem does not sit with whether I will give up my will for God’s will in an effort to learn and become a better servant, but it lies in how to know if it is God’s will or the power trip of a mortal church leader.
Multiple bible stories teach the principle to give up one’s will and obey, to be humble, to submit. The story of Naaman healed of leprosy is often used. A small, insignificant thing is a large teaching tool.
To me, the difference is if God is asking me to do some small obedient act, or if an organization is asking it because standards and rules are easier to manage than personal ministration.
It is part of the journey of me being mormon. I think it requires discretion.
I think there are times that NOT shaving would also teach important lessons to our children. If the reasons are pure and valid…not just being obstinate.
There must always be a higher purpose in our actions.
But that is how I feel about authority…trust is never 100% in church leaders based on my personal experience. I think God understands what I’ve been through.
Interesting point Frank. I don’t think so. It isn’t as if my father made a big fuss about it. I probably only noticed his non-conformity because it was something that was important to me, and because I’m someone who watches. I was able to talk to my father about it his experience a few years ago, and I’m glad about that, but we only had that discussion because I raised the subject, mentioning that I remembered that conference and direction, even though I was very young at the time. It was then he told me of his experience before the conference. Perhaps an inherited personality trait. A child of a different temperament might have found him embarrassing instead.
The relationship between authority and humility is one I’ve been pondering a lot lately. It seems to me that we make a mess of this in the church by conflating the ‘church’ with authority and the need for members to be humble toward that authority.
We call our leaders General Authorities. But are they really? Not for me. For me they are fellow mortals given work assignments. Personally, I feel no need to seem them as authoritative outside the work they are doing in their assignment. The small obedience are to whims of these authorities, not God and thus makes me roll my eyes. However, for other people these small obediences are clearly important to their faith, so I won’t say that my way of thinking about it should be universal. The problems arises when they think their way of seeing t hings is universal (lack of differentiation) and I should be having their experience rather than my own.
I think we’re making a huge mistake in focusing so much of our energies on authority. Outside of the church, I can’t think of a single situation where I exist in any type of authority situation. And in the few situations where I’ve found myself in a situation with an authoritarian ruling over me, I quickly get myself out of it. I’ve found myself wondering if one of the reasons the Millennials are leaving the religions of their fathers is because of this as well.
True humility is something totally different to me. It’s my relationship with God (not the church). It’s my relationship with my fellow man. And it’s my relationship with myself. The last is the hardest and possibly the most important. Here I find myself saying ‘Self, a little bit of humility right now would go a long way.”
Heber13, yes. How to distinguish requires the spirit and isn’t always easy, particularly when it’s something we have strong feelings about.
The story of Naaman is a different situation, to the shaving of beards though I think. There Naaman has specifically come with a request to be healed, and is given instructions on what he must do to be healed. The instruction to bathe in the river wasn’t a directive issued out of nowhere, and to what purpose.
Totally with you on the trust issue.
Interesting comment lehcarjit. I agree there’s a lot of unnecessary and even harmful conflation going on. Good point on millenials; a generation on the whole raised by a very different and less authoritarian parenting style, for starters.
Love your description of humility.
I’ve never had quite the same relationship with authority in the church since our Bishop required us to force our daughter to meet with him every Sunday on pain of losing our temple recommends. We lost our recommends.
It was only when I complained of his behaviour to the Stake authority that he changed his position. He clearly felt our liberalism needed to be challenged.
I’ve never recovered, and it damaged our relationship with our daughter.
I now feel that I would never give away my own power to any authority.
As I read this discussion on authority, I’m reminded that authority is a very fraught issue for this church. Our truth claims are based entirely on a belief that humans who made poor choices caused God’s authority to cease existing on the earth while simultaneously accepting that poor choices on the part of modern day leaders do not negate their God given authority. We frequently refer to the problems of the high medieval Catholic church as proof of wickedness, and therefore false authority claims, but we hesitate to apply those same conclusions to our own church’s past failings.
I’m not really trying to argue for or against the authority of the church. I think I’m just exploring the point at which I become uncomfortable with authority: when loyalty or authority discourages acknowledging the missteps of the group and its leaders, I’m uneasy.
I think the authoritarian culture of the church (at least in some areas) started with Brigham Young. After Joseph’s death, which Brigham felt was precipitated by the acts of dissenters and apostates, he wasn’t going to tolerate disobedience. He whipped his followers into line, from his fellow apostles on down. At that time of the church, loyalty was considered among the greatest virtues (compared to the modern liberals, who wouldn’t consider it a virtue at all). Nowadays, we talk about it the spiritual benefits of being humble and obedient, but back then, it was more of an existential question. The bishop of a podunk Utah settlement had similar authority to a captain of an ocean-going ship for very similar reasons.
I think that culture has persisted to some extent, but I also think it’s fading. I personally haven’t had much experience with being bossed around by priesthood leaders, but I’ll bet most of the current GAs have (from their seniors), and they probably feel they’ve grown spiritually from learning to submit. So, some of them have probably passed it on.
Children are being raised in a different way nowadays too. My contemporaries are a little appalled at how ungoverned kids are now. Their parents don’t discipline — they re-direct, they distract, they try to teach kids to act better and be nicer. My kids got a little more “this is how you act or else”. They could argue unless the decision had been firmly made, at which point they were expected to obey. That isn’t done so much anymore, and there are those that would argue their kids will therefore learn to do the right thing for the right reasons and because they decided, not because they were told. They might be right. They might not.
I will say that one day I was watching my twins running down the street back home when my neighbor across the street came charging out of his house and into his car, away from his wife who was in full fury. Seeing the imminent danger, I used my sternest dad-voice ordering my girls to “Stop right now!” Both girls came to an abrupt halt with “why daddy?” shock on their face just as my neighbor’s car peeled out of the driveway right in front of them. I have never been so glad my girls were trained to react immediately to that tone of voice. This is an extreme example, but there is some value to being obedient to trusted authority.
What if the test of whether or not someone is ready to be a god in a world of their own making is whether they need to be lead around in this life or have the backbone, character and intelligence to discern what is essential and what is immaterial? I don’t believe I would want to live in a world created by someone who couldn’t determine the difference and wasn’t compassionate enough to make it comprehensible to humans working out their worthiness in their mortal lives.
Good post. And alice, your question is exactly the question I find myself asking when I hear absurd pronouncements like “obedience is the first law of heaven.” Obedience isn’t a law, it’s just sort of a general behavioral guideline.
My further thoughts: I think there are absolutely dangers about demanding compliance in the small, trivial things. The dangers are many, but one danger is that obedience to trivial things has the unintended consequence that people become smug and self-righteous because they’re doing even the “small and simple things.” That’s bad. The metric of Christian discipleship isn’t whether one wears a white shirt to church; it’s whether one is willing to sacrifice one’s own needs to lift other people who are suffering. And you can do that no matter what color shirt you wear, how many earrings you have or whether you’ve got the starship Enterprise tattooed on your back. If the goal of obeying these small things is to help us obey the mandates of Christ, I’m just not making that connection. One’s got nothing to do with the other.
Also, a thought about the emphasis on obedience: I’ve spent the last few months trying to really listen to the testimonies on the first Sunday of every month. What I’ve noticed (and what I see echoed in a lot of Sunday school lessons) is that we seem to spend an awful lot of time trying to convince each other that this is the ONE TRUE CHURCH and a lot less time learning from each other about how to take the teachings of Christ and use them to make the world a better place. Maybe that’s supposed to be the ultimate goal, but I’ve yet to hear, in my thirty years in this church, anyone make an explicit connection between “this is the true church” and “therefore, here’s how to be like Jesus.” So I actually think the emphasis on obedience is misplaced and misguided. In Mormonism, obedience isn’t about helping us to become better people and to make the world a better place by lifting others; it’s about making sure we all believe exactly the same thing, that everything is correlated and that we’re all in lockstep. It’s no wonder most people think we’re a cult. We sort of are. IMHO, this is the great tragedy of Mormonism: We’ve sacrificed a life of humble discipleship on the altar of restorational zeal. That’s a trade-off that I don’t think Christ wants us to make.
Two words, “church broke”
Interesting comments folks, thank you.
handlewithcare, that sounds awful. Our experiences with authority certainly colour our attitude towards it, and willingness to recognise or defer to it.
Elizabeth: “We frequently refer to the problems of the high medieval Catholic church as proof of wickedness, and therefore false authority claims, but we hesitate to apply those same conclusions to our own church’s past failings. …when loyalty or authority discourages acknowledging the missteps of the group and its leaders, I’m uneasy.”
Excellent points.
alice, quite so.
Brother Sky, smug surely isn’t humble, so a misfire if that’s the aim then. My very first post on W&T looked at the whole obedience as the first law of heaven thing.
Happy Hubby, also a consequence, and not a good one.
Martin, that’s an interesting idea re. Brigham Young,
I’m glad your daughters were safe. I do think there are less authoritarian ways to train children to stop however. Teaching them ahead of time that such things can occur, and if I shout stop, then stop because it is for your safety, occasions where they need to obey first and have their questions answered afterwards. It also requires that we as parents don’t set up a cry wolf scenario.
I believe God wants our obedience as a sign of where our hearts lie. If we are broken to the point that we comply automatically to any authority figures, the gift is pretty meaningless. I found myself at a point once where I had to start saying “No” to almost everything, just to prove to myself that when I said “yes” it was really my choice.
I now believe that God really does want us to learn from experience. Growing up in an environment where we are protected from mistakes and simple preferences has spiritual consequences that are not easily seen and recovered from. We believe that our obedience is what saves us, and may go our whole lives without ever coming to know God. Meanwhile, it is really easy to judge others, putting ourselves in jeopardy of the final judgment.
Your story of Elder Packer reminded me of a similar experience our area had with him in the late 90s (or maybe early 00s). He spoke to the men at a regional or area conference. He kept asking the guys sitting in the back to come closer. When they didn’t after several requests, he ended the meeting early with a rebuke. For years to come, his actions were used as a cautionary tale about disobedience to the small things. But if the fruit of disobedience is a long meeting cut short, it can’t be so bad.
The Church has an infantilizing effect upon spirituality and is the spiritual equivalent to a straight jacket for many. There seems little room to truly explore one’s spirituality. We are the spiritual Borg and stand in stark contrast to what we know of 1st century Christianity.
In my view, if we want our religion to remain relevant to future generations and to a world in which they will live, we need to grow up and allow members to become spiritual adults. Unfortunately for our family, we don’t have 40 years to wait around for this to _maybe_ happen – our kids need that freedom today if we are to pass a meaningful spiritual heritage to them, so we have reduced our activity in the Church.
orangganjil, what changes do you think should be made for members to become spiritual adults?
Laurel, yikes. Maybe I should stand by my people on a power trip view. I’ve never understood requests for people to move forwards. Being long-sighted myself I don’t find it comfortable at the front. If folk have made the effort to attend the meeting can it not be assumed that given there is choice they are sitting where they are most comfortable to hear the message. They didn’t have to be there afterall.
Ranae, interesting point. Not sure I’d want to call it obedience, but I seem to be developing an allergy to the word, so…. With you on our needing to be conscious of and own our choices.
Hedgehog, that’s a good question. I suppose stepping back from the creedalism we foist upon everyone. I don’t know how it is in your neck of the woods, but where I’m at you can think whatever you’d like so long as you don’t talk about it, and I’m not speaking of being “that guy” in Gospel Doctrine or something. Based on the talks given at General Conference, the manuals, lessons, and local expectations, we love our creeds and expect all to fall in line with them.
I think church should be where we talk about Jesus and how we can be more like him. We should focus on building a community and strengthening each other in our own individual paths. Nobody’s spirituality looks like that of anyone else. We should support and accommodate that, which means we can’t simply practice catechism each Sunday.
I see a continuum of faith in our communities, going from athiests agnostics theists liberal Mormons moderate Mormons fundamentalist/conservative Mormons, with overlaps between them all. We all, at different times of our lives, find ourselves in different places on that continuum. If we are to be one, as Jesus has asked, how do we accommodate such wide ranging beliefs? Through compulsion? Persuasion? How tolerant should we be of those among us at different places on that continuum?
I believe we should be quite accommodating and tolerant of letting people explore their faith and spirituality. Your spirituality will look different than mine, and my neighbor’s different still, yet I would gladly like to sit next to you both and offer my support as you walk your paths. You can’t do that while clinging dogmatically to creeds, which is why, I believe, creeds are an abomination to God.
I find it ironic that in the Church we use the story of Uzzah steadying the ark as a lesson in blind obedience to our leaders. In fact, the tale can be seen as the opposite. Uzzah was following his leader David’s request to move the ark. Uzzah’s mistake (his first mistake at least) was not trying to steady the ark; his mistake was actually not standing up against David’s plan to move the ark.
orangganjil, Thanks for that very interesting response. I like what you describe. Looking at what you’ve written I think we may have a little more room for manoeuvre in our individual expression of beliefs where I am. There’s certainly recognition that we don’t all get revelation in the same way at least. Not so sure on the expression of beliefs. Some people treat the articles of faith as a creed of sorts. I do like your description of tolerance and exploration.
MTodd, I always found that a very strange story, and in the way we represent at church have always felt Uzzah was rather hard done by. You describe a refreshing way to look at the story. Thank you.
I have often ponder Christ’s words where he says he has always done God’s will and not his own will.It is repeated often in his word’s. I remember the army of Helaman who obeyed every commandment with exactness and how they were blessed and protected. I remember the council of a mission president who would ask “elder, is the Church true? Then what else matters.” I often think it may be more important to be obedient to church leaders in these small things then we realize. I’m not saying that it is OK to do something wrong or illegal, but commands to kill “Laban” are almost nonexistent. Most of the things mentioned are small things, beards, white shirts, ear rings and tattoos, does it really matter weather it is from God or from man. Can being obedient to the small things help us become one?
“Can being obedient to the small things help us become one?”
I think commanding in the small things, unnecessary things, can actually be divisive. It’s creates unnecessary expectations to which others see us as being required to meet or else we fall outside the group. Far better to cultivate inclusivity and appreciation for the different gifts, strengths and perspectives that we each bring to the table.
“I remember the council of a mission president who would ask “elder, is the Church true? Then what else matters.””
This can just as easily be turned around to say, and here I am at church, so why do you find it necessary to make a fuss about my beard/ attire/ tattoo etc.
“does it really matter weather it is from God or from man”
Yes it does.