I listened to a TED Radio Hour podcast while mowing the lawn the other day. In the show, one of the speakers interviews Edward Snowden. Snowden said something that got me thinking. He said “There is no consent without choice” He was using it in the context of using social media and the privacy (or lack there of) that is afforded by something like Facebook.
What Snowden was getting at is that some technology has become so intertwined with our lives that it is impossible to lead a normal life without it, so that we really don’t have a choice, thus we have no power to give consent for them to collect whatever data they are collecting about our lives. For example, what if your work place said we are going to do all official business with this new app that will be on this work phone we are giving you. Sure, you have a choice to not use the phone, and quit your job. Unless you have a highly sought after skill, you are not going to quit your job, you have no choice, and you can’t give consent to whatever data the app will be collecting about you.
I wonder where the line is with moral choices, and where we draw the line. Lets say you are captured, and forced by gun point to do something against your moral values. For this examples, lets say you are LDS, and you are being forced at gunpoint to drink a glass of beer. You would probably drink the beer rather than be shot in the head with a gun. What about if they threatened to break your arm? Still drink the beer? What about a punch in the nose? Give you a nasty hit on the arm? Call you a bad name?
You see where I’m going with this. Where is the line where choice begins? Sure, you still have a choice to drink the beer, or get shot in the head. But realistically you don’t really have a choice.
So what about in the church. We hear time and again that we made a choice to be baptized, made a choice to go to BYU, made a choice to take on the obligations in the endowment. But do we really have a choice? Does an eight year old have a choice to get baptized, growing up in a very orthodox family?
I was explicit given a choice as part of the endowment ceremony to withdraw on my own free will and choice. As a just turned 19 year old kid, sitting next to my father, and having multiple family members in attendance, did I really have a choice? Could I give consent to make covenants in the temple, knowing that if I did stand up and walk out when given the opportunity, that I would embarrass my parents, my family, and would not be able to go on a mission in two weeks?
Where does family, peer, or church pressure become so high that you don’t have a choice, and thus can’t give consent? What examples do you see in church that take away our ability to chose by removing our (informed) consent, and ultimately our free agency? Do you find it ironic that a religion that is so enamored with free agency as a God given right could in fact be taking away our agency due to lack of choice, thus removing our consent?
Wheat & Tares 
This is a thought provoking article.
I suspect that at least in part it explains why Jesus did not pressure either His disciples or others In His discourses with them. He simply stated the. “Good News” in simple terms that could be understood by the audience (or for those not really seeking truth He used parables that tended to separate the wheat and the weeds) and then let them make a choice. After all, true love can only grow in an atmosphere of no coercion.
I think social pressure arrives when a saint focuses his or her conversion and faith on the institution—and so many LDS worship the institution. Like fans loyal to a sports team, employees loyal to a corporation, membership loyal to fraternity. If we cannot separate institutional beliefs from gospel doctrine, then “consent” is blurred.
But I am not convinced our conception of free agency, free will, or free choice is supported by doctrine.
For me, it is evident that during the Cold War, the institution that managed the Church made special use of the idea that Soviet socialism represented something akin to Lucifer’s attack on mankind’s free agency. (The spell of priestcraft is ideology and it crept into our teachings).
The tragedy of a “free agency” lens is that it detracts from the real focus of Lucifer’s attack on Adam. It wasn’t about free agency. It was about Sovereignty. Adam was crowned by Jehovah, and Lucifer refused to recognize Adam’s legitimacy. It’s the difference between Adam-as-steward and Adam-as-King. As with Adam, so with us. The belief-trajectories of Kingship and stewardship lead to very different conclusions about our relationship with God.
Great post. I’m not sure my own baptism was ever presented as a choice. My kids’ baptisms were not – it was just presumed on my part and I don’t think they gave it a second thought.
As I was getting my endowment, when presented with the “withdraw on my own free will and choice” offer, I remember thinking “how can I make this choice now when they aren’t even telling me what the covenants are?” I just mentally shrugged. And then we got to the part where Satan told me (live-action in Manti) that I would be in his power if I did not live up to the covenants for which I had not given *informed* consent. Another mental shrug.
The ongoing challenge to free agency is that the Church largely presents itself as a package deal – all or nothing. If you agree with (consent to) 99% or 75% or 50% you pretty much have to go along with the rest of the package if you want full acceptance and priveledges. No cafeteria plan. My wife was asked to be in the Primary presidency. As an afterthought during the calling interview, the bishop remembered that we have a gay adult son. “Do you believe in same-sex marriage?” “Yes.” Calling rescinded.
I realize that many will say that you should be all-in on God’s program. I agree. The problem is that too much really isn’t God’s program: it’s top leadership’s program, policies, doctrine (yes it’s theirs – no finger of God on stone tablets), and instruction. Then there’s local leadership’s interpretation and implementation. Not saying it’s malicious – just of human workmanship.
Individual items are weighed in the balance. For many of us, we reach a point where there are too many things to which we cannot give our consent. There isn’t an attractive participation option – “we love you and will help you repent” doesn’t sit well with a moral person following their conscience and personal inspiration.
Even our practice of “common consent” has become meaningless on a practical level. Close your eyes and say “yes”.
This is a raw and vulnerable, but honest, response.
A few years ago I realized that I was “spiritually manipulated and threatened” (quoting myself) into motherhood by Mormon doctrine/rhetoric and culture. It has been quite the journey since then to find a place of choice for myself, to own my relationship to these three little people who can really be selfish jerks a lot of the time. Of course they can be wonderful sometimes too, but that is not what this comment is about. It is about the soul-wrenching, ugly, self-sacrificing thing it is to have unalterably committed one”s life to something so huge and difficult as motherhood (x3) without any kind of informed consent.
It is getting better, but it has taken me a few years to feel like I have a little choice in the matter today, even if I didn’t really have a choice at the inception of this journey. Unfortunately or not, coming to that place of choice means staring down lots of other paths and realizing that yes, I really could up and leave, or really could end my life, or really could send them away to someone else to be raised. The choices are much uglier today than they would have been at the beginning, before getting pregnant.
I made the “choice” to be a mother at the peril of my eternal salvation and happiness, threatened by the disappointment and rejection of generations of family elders’ and their hopes and dreams for me, manipulated by layers and layers of teachings presented as infallible truths about gender roles, etc. I wish I would have chosen out of better awareness of my career aspirations, the changes to the relationship with my husband it would cause, the financial cost, the emotional toll on someone with a history of depression, all balanced with the good that comes out of parenthood. But no – such thoughts and advice and awareness were basically “anti-Mormon” to my black-and-white thinking my mind. It felt like the only righteous choice was rose-colored glasses, faith and obedience.
Others’ experiences coming into Mormon parenthood are certainly different. This was mine, and it all came upon me one morning in my late 30s when I woke up and realized that I had sacrificed so much of my own hopes and dreams to give three selfish little people their lives – for the benefit of others and what they thought my life should consist of. Well, those other people for whom I had children – they aren’t raising the children, now are they?
“If you agree with (consent to) 99% or 75% or 50% you pretty much have to go along with the rest of the package if you want full acceptance and priveledges.” Some have managed it otherwise. Depends a great deal on both (a) the individual’s own honest private definitions of words, willingness to keep them private in certain contexts, maybe willingness to decline to answer irrelevant questions, and (b) local leadership roulette.
Re the “withdraw on my own free will and choice” offer in the absence of any disclosure of what the endowment covenants were to be, some take decades to get to the “mental shrug;” some never do. Re Satan’s warning — it’s either a condemnation of all or one must consider the source — the “father of lies”. John 8:44. Some also take decades to get to that “mental shrug”. Again, some never do. Sounds like BeenThere reached a healthier attitude rather early.
Baby Blessing. Baptism. Deacon. Priest. Seminary. Elder. Endowment. Mission. BYU. Marriage. Children. Graduate School. High Priest. Leadership roles. Give time. Give money. Give.
That chain of events has become the equivalent of a religious conveyor belt that has become more about tribalism and support of an institution than it is about God.
To fall off of the conveyor belt at any point, that person is dropped into a reject pile to be carefully inspected and scrutinized by LDS society. LDS society will decide if that person deserves to be put back on the conveyor belt, or if they should be labeled as almost-as-good seconds that function in ward society as simply someone to fill a pew.
Is that last paragraph harsh? Yes it is, but it does not make it any less true.
The lack of explaining what covenants you will be making and what happens in the temple is temple prep class is full on dishonest.
In no way are you prepared for the emotional roller coaster of what happens with washing endowment etc
Damascene’s post is harsh, but absolutely spot on. For all that Mormons talk about (and supposedly value) agency, there is an extraordinary amount of spiritual and social arm-twisting to get especially our young people to get on and stay on the conveyor belt that Damascene mentions. And really, we shouldn’t be surprised by this at all, since Mormonism is still a distinctly American religion. We also talk about choice and freedom in America; freedom and liberty are supposedly (theoretically?) the foundations upon which are country is based, but large swaths of America refuse to recognize the way that economic, ethnic and gender identities impact and constrain choices. The same for political elections. We’re told that voting is one of the most precious freedoms/rights we have, but the system produces absolute crap candidates most of the time, so that exercising our “choice” basically means choosing between dog poop and cat poop. Presenting two kinds of poop as our choice degrades the importance and value of choosing. Same with church: If “choosing” means choosing either all of the supposedly awesome things that get us into a heaven where, because of some kind of screwy, divine patriarchy, women eternally produce babies and we’re surrounded by our families (and apparently never have any alone time?) or being eternally separated from God, our family, people that we love, than that, too, degrades the value of the choice, esp. for people like me. I don’t really want to participate in an insidious, patriarchal and crowded heaven, nor do I want to be separated from my children and good friends for all of eternity. So the agency that the church so cherishes is thus compromised and belittled by the absolutely absurd lengths to which Mormonism goes to “ensure” that we all get to the celestial kingdom. Once outside pressure is applied, freedom, choice and consent are immediately and permanently compromised until that pressure ceases.
For most of my life I wasn’t a big believer in determinism. I’m now in my late 40s and think chance, luck, serendipity, fate, whatever places a huge role in our lives. Things we have no control over influence us in ways we often don’t understand it’s too late to change, if ever able to be changed.
I was adopted into a strict Mormon household. Good parents but sometimes even mean when it came to enforcing orthodox belief. Lower middle class in a rural farming community. It wasn’t until my faith crisis in my early 40s that I realized I would have made entirely different life choices if I would have known then what I know now. But I can’t go backwards…
I try not to dwell on it too much because my birth lottery results statistically should have been less favorable. But oh how sometimes I feel opposed. Two examples that are perhaps superficial but illustrate the conundrum.
I dislike wearing garments but my wife expects it and it makes her happy if I wear them. Life is simpler if I wear them. I feel coerced to do something as a result of a decision I was groomed for years to make when I was 19 (almost 30 years ago). Another example – I want a small tattoo on my lower leg to commemorate an important event in my life – but my wife and my church friends would disapprove.
It is absolutely ironic that our culture of free will resorts to various forms of peer pressure and even coercion to promote the wellbeing of the organization over the individual.
P. S. Thanks to Jessica for an amazing and searingly honest post.
I think our choices can be both real and symbolic at the time.
Yes, an eight-year-old can make a choice to be baptized. And later, if he or she believes an error was made, he or she can make another choice to un-do the baptism choice.
Yes, many choices are made in view of others, who want to encourage certain “right” choices to maintain family and societal hopes. That doesn’t mean the choices aren’t choices — they are, but part of the choice includes pleasing or disappointing others. Still, it is a choice.
If a Latter-day Saint had a choice of drinking a beer or receiving a gunshot to the head (the example of the original posting), well, it’s a choice — a forced choice. I would not want to criticize him or her for whatever decision he or she felt forced to make in that circumstance; rather, I would want to support and sustain.
In the biggest picture, all of mortal life comes down to a choice: which will we choose, eternal life through our Savior, or something else.
You’ve got to be a little careful here not to conflate two issues. It’s one thing to choose to do something because you know the consequences of not doing it, and another to choose to do something because everybody else is and you don’t fully understand the consequences. It would not be good to compare the guy who’ll get shot if he doesn’t drink a beer with an 8-year-old getting baptized. Most 8-year-olds are not getting baptized out of fear. You can argue whether or not they have a choice (what else are they going to do?), but they’re not being threatened. Most of them are excited and happy to follow Jesus, because that’s what they’ve been taught. Do they understand all the weight we associate with that decision? No, of course not. That’s part of a learning process. Might they feel they were manipulated later on? Of course. Some of them might have been, and some might be ascribing best-intentioned counsel and parenting as manipulation. Is telling such a person they’re going to hell if they break those covenants manipulation, when the person doing the telling really believes it? Do you take away the choice to touch the stove when you tell them they’re going to get burned, or when you tell them they’d better not because you’ll box their ears? I think there’s a fundamental difference.
And I think this applies to Jessica’s comment as well. I’ve felt the way Jessica felt. Obviously, I’m male, so the rhetoric I was exposed to was different, but I too felt trapped in the assembly line and didn’t feel happy about it. Mid-life crises are real and powerful. I wasn’t manipulated into it — I was taught what other people thought best, and I had as much choice as anybody given the circumstances of my life. But marriage, parenthood, and a lot of other things are just like the 8-year-old getting baptized — you can’t understand what you’re getting into without actually getting into them, and then you’re committed or you’re not.
“ … lets say you are LDS, and you are being forced at gunpoint to [imbibe a mild barley drink].”
Very interesting example, Bishop Bill.
Let’s start with the basics. In the law, a coerced confession will not be admissible. An action or decision taken under duress (well short of having a gun pointed at your head) may be revoked. A patient must give not merely consent, but *informed* consent, to a medical procedure. That’s the society we live in and the norms that apply to all of us. How does this play out in the LDS context?
Baptism of 8-year-olds. Well, they don’t have legal capacity to form contracts and if they commit a criminal act they will go to juvenile court, not criminal court facing criminal penalties. An 8-year-old doesn’t have the capacity to fully recognize (be informed) about what they are promising in accepting LDS baptism. Lots of family encouragement, sometimes pressure. So it is simply wrong and inaccurate to tell an LDS kid or an LDS adult who was baptized as a child that “you agreed to this” or “you made a covenant.” Now many LDS stay active as teens and young adults, and as such they ratify that not-really-fair decision of their 8-year-old self. But if they choose differently (go inactive; leave the Church) they are not “breaking a covenant,” they are simply declining to endorse that earlier action — one that isn’t or shouldn’t be seen as binding until endorsed by a fully informed adult. Consider what we ask lots of adults to do when they leave their current church and join the LDS Church. But we don’t call them covenant breakers; we call them converts.
For the temple, it is simply appalling how uninformed first-time participants are. And let’s be brutally honest: The Church bends over backwards to *not* inform people what happens in the endowment out of concern or fear they would decline to participate if the details were known ahead of time. It’s manipulation, pure and simple. And if a temple Mormon later leaves the Church, they are not covenant breakers, they are simply following their conscience, or at least making their own free will decision to disassociate from the Church.
Not convinced the lack of information about covenants prior to the endowment is “out of concern or fear they would decline to participate if the details were known ahead of time.” I expect it’s more out of habit grounded in the false assertion included in the former “lecture at the veil” and reinforced by various leaders who experienced that lecture that they made a covenant not to speak of what happens in the temple outside the temple. While that assertion was made in the lecture at the veil, I think there never was any such covenant. The covenants of nondisclosure are much more limited and specific than that. There are enough scripts and comments publicly available, in addition to my own experience of both the lecture at the veil and the endowment decades before the 1990 changes, that I think my understanding fairly well grounded.
It seems likely, however, that, if thought through, there should be concern that some people would decline to participate if they knew the wording of the covenants prior to participating. Many, however, would participate anyway for social and family reasons and because they don’t take the words of the covenants particularly seriously anyway. No “loud laughter” indeed!
What’s needed is at least both disclosure and instruction on history and meaning and on finding one’s own meaning in archaic language. Since we had a Church president as recently as Gordon B. Hinckley repeating that old saw from the lecture on the veil as if it were true, I expect we’re generations away from appropriate temple preparation, if it ever happens.
I remember being told by many different people in many ways growing up that girls should always accept first dates. Reasons given or implied were that boys did a brave, vulnerable, and righteous thing by asking; that rejection would be a horrible experience for him; that the boys most likely to be rejected were most likely to have the most negative responses, perhaps even including suicide, for which you wouldn’t want to be culpable; that turning down someone decent enough but unattractive to you is selfish and shallow; and that since righteous marriage is the point of my existence, any other priorities above dating were disappointing to God. There were debatable exceptions if the boy in question weren’t sufficiently orthodox (but missionary opportunity!!!!) or, hypothetically, if you were confident about preemptively accusing him of intent to assault. But of course, it would also be traumatic for said boy to be suspected of something he hadn’t done. And of course, once you’d gone on a first date, unless something was blatantly dangerous or perhaps impious, and you weren’t too embarrassed to name it to justify a rejection, then all the same arguments apply to subsequent dates. There were no meaningful exceptions. I can’t remember anyone ever suggesting that I should decide whether to go on a date by whether I wanted to.
This is how I ended up going on so many miserable dates with guys who –for example– used the first date to list ways I should be different, suggested that I should never mention graduate school because it’s unattractive, and told me that not agreeing to a second date was preventing them from following the prophet’s instruction to date and marry. Very repetitive psychological abuse. I remember having gone on a couple dates with an RM ex-seminary president with high grades. He talked a lot about himself and once on a long drive, after talking about himself for more than an hour straight, he said he was tired of talking and put on a tape with some GA talking about men’s potential for godhood, which he said would help me understand him better. I always felt that the time I spent with him would go the same way if it were a cardboard cut out of me instead. My mom asked how it was going. I said it didn’t feel very good. She said I’m just not very good at relationships and that I’m not capable of feeling good, and that I would regret it if I didn’t keep agreeing to his invitations. I can’t really remember ever feeling happy about being asked out… even when I had liked the guy, there was also always a bit of a feeling like claustrophobia and some resentment. It felt like being informed that I would go with him.
I remember being insistently asked out by an RM BYU “FHE brother,” at FHE. He said I didn’t really have such important studying to do, and that it would be prejudicial of me to turn him down–mirroring my conditioned beliefs–and also groped my leg. It didn’t occur to me that the rest of my group might think he was harassing me, I thought that they would see and disapprove if I refused, even though it was late and I disliked him. I stopped back at my apartment before going and strongly considered cancelling, but my roommate began saying how it’d be emotionally and socially good for him if I went. Then at the movie he drugged my popcorn. Then in the foyer he told me that I wasn’t walking straight and laughed at me. Then all memories are hazy and intermittent.
So yeah, I’d say I’m pretty clear proof that community expectations can coerce choice, even if the actions are like sanding off your own face.
Personally, I’m not a fan of Snowden. I think he is a bit paranoid
As to what constitutes adequate preparation (Informed consent) for the temple. I was baptized at the age of 22, coming from a non liturgical evangelical background. I spent two years attending “low church” LDS meetings, with no rituals except the LDS versions of baptism, confirmation, and communion.
So when I went to the temple two years later, I was quite unprepared for the heavily liturgical nature of the endowment. Except for a suggestion from my District President that I read the Book of Moses in the POGP, there was zero preparation. It was all a bit of a shock. I also know of many instances of “temple culture shock” for people raised in Mormon culture.
I have come to appreciate and enjoy the Temple, over the years, but in my opinion the Church can and should do a better job of preparing people for the temple. Temple Preparation classes have made the situation better, but are of limited use, when they bump up against Bishops and SPs and other leaders who are so worried about saying something they shouldn’t, that they simply clam up, and leave us to fend for ourselves.
I do NOT ascribe cynical or ulterior motives to LDS reticence to talk about the temple, but hope that some day, Church leaders will realize that excessive reticence can harm more than help.
As to Been There’s comment about Satan: it is my personal belief that his warning is one of his many lies, designed to gull people into feeling helpless, because he knows that we will fall short, and must rely on Christ’s atonement. Satan does not want us to rely on Christ: Christ clearly tells us, in his comment to Peter, that God wants us to forgive 70 x 7–as He does.
As to Sceptic’s observation that some do not take the temple covenants seriously: Yep. I am Personally aware of several instances in which people simply abandon their temple garments, immediately after taking out their endowments, or more commonly, just never go back. There is much social pressure, whether actual or perceived, to have a temple marriage.
Commisserations Jessica, My wife and I were married in 1970, 5 weeks after I finished my mission. There were conference talks advising young men that their next responsibility after mission was marriage, not education, not employment. There were also conference talks about the evils of birth control, but didn’t realise the consequences of that.
My wife had complicated deliveries (2 months in hospital). After the third in 4 years we were advised she would not survive another pregnancy. Somewhere in there we started questioning whether this was Gods word or not. We spent the first 10 years of marriage in poverty, because we were being obedient to the teachings from conference. Agency = questioning.
So understand where you are coming from Jessica.
My feelings now are that there is the gospel of christ, and it comes packaged in conservative american culture, and the personal hobby horses of the leaders. This makes up the church.
Some of this culture is more obvious from outside.
I live in Australia, we have a conservative government at present. There is no political party that questions universal health care, a womans right to an abortion, gay marriage, that carona virus is real. We do have some that question climate science, and we do have a coal lobby. The conservatives still govern for the wealthy, and for business, while Labor is more focused on the workers. I am a member of the Labor party, because their care for the poor, and general populace.
I am having a bit of a debate over at times and seasons, about whether you can/should use your vote to bring your country closer to a zion society. Appearently republicanism requires that governments could not manage healthcare, and could not care for the poor, so can’t expect governments to create zion.
So you can only create zion individually by being charitable to those you know while at the same time voting to make the rich richer, and the poor can fend for themselves in a system stacked against them. Except there are countries with lower overall income, but better distribution, and very little poverty. These countries are also closer to the top of the happiness index. Can you imagine trying to sell the church (including republicanism) to people who live in and vote for a society so much closer to Christs teachings?
These ideas are part of the culture of the church, and if you use your agency to question them, your lack of faithfullness will be showing.
Interesting post. I definitely think religions can be and often are coercive. Perhaps moreso than most other institutions, and agree that it’s a bit hypocritical for a church to preach the importance of agency while undermining that very gift with scare tactics and pressure.
But in reality we are rarely if ever truly free from some level of coercion – social cultural familial economic – and we also frequently lack accurate or complete information about choices.
I think religion can be beneficial in offering up a set of choices that we might not otherwise consider. I was thinking about this post today during my ward’s “devotional” during which graduating seniors talked about important choices they’d made in high school. Were those choices truly free? Probably not. Were they harmful? Probably some might have been, but probably many were actually quite helpful.
So I guess I am saying – we can appreciate that religion offers pathways we not otherwise take that can be really beneficial. But that we need to do better to remove coercion and misinformation from those paths.
@jessica, I feel for you and totally get that. I’m sorry. We need to do better.
I would like to come back to participate in the discussion again, after a beautiful day on the beach yesterday with my little family. There are absolutely fun and joyful moments in parenthood. Children are not always selfish jerks, as I dramatically called them earlier. (Although childhood is intrinsically selfish, so I am not taking it back!) But that is not what I came here to talk about, as I already disclaimed in my first comment.
I fully understand that there is simply no way to have full, informed consent before choosing some things, and parenting is absolutely one of those. Some choices we just have to jump into and hope for the best, and deal with the worst. But I do not think you can at all equate baptism at age 8, receiving the endowment, and parenthood. The other two are reversible decisions, maybe with some leftover regret and programming, but parenthood is not. The consequences are much, much, much more grave.
Here is where I object to the approach taken in church culture around getting young women to buy into motherhood as if their salvation depended on it: if a woman had made a comment in a SS lesson, for instance, that sounded anything at all like the comment I had written above, in most SS classes she would be hushed quite quickly. Raw, honest and vulnerable comments are simply not allowed, culturally. A woman who dared rock the boat that much, who dared to speak truth to pain, would be a pariah. She would not be allowed a calling in YW for sure, and in RS, she would be taken aside, out of the observation of most, when she needed to express her pain.
I am not blaming well-meaning individuals who express what they themselves have formed strong and sincere beliefs around. But there is a bigger cultural phenomenon that we are mostly unconscious of, much of the time. I hope there is not an orchestrated movement from headquarters to pull the wool over women’s eyes. But I really do think there is a tendency to make sure that the messaging in the church around parenthood, motherhood in particular, is kept very idealistic, and this does start from the top. So even though there are lots of women in the church really struggling with motherhood in various aspects, their stories are either silenced or framed solely in faith-promoting ways. Informed consent is purposely avoided by keeping less-than-ideal stories from being heard. Motherhood, as talked about in the church, is always the right choice for everyone. It is talked about in general terms as being difficult, but it is always disclaimed as being worth it. Well, is it? Why are we scared to let women decide if it IS worth it for them, or to let them choose motherhood in a way that works for them and their spouses, even if it isn’t the *sacred* ideal? (Like one or two children only, or children later in life, or spaced a particular way, or using nannies and daycare.)
My own mother was completely emotionally absent from the birth of her third child onward. (I was the first child, I remember her glaring absence.) She was deeply depressed for decades, but never talked about it. It is still not safe for her to say anything contrary to the party line about motherhood and the sacrifices we ask of women in order for them to embrace it the Mormon way. It is not okay to give the full picture of motherhood in this culture.
I have documented spiritual musings from my young adulthood, in journals and in notes made during conferences, that to be Celestial meant to be completely selfless. As in without self – no needs, no wants, except to serve others – and the best way of all to do this is through motherhood should the opportunity present itself. This was the messaging I picked up. This was my aspiration. This is the messaging that just about killed me in midlife when I realized how much I had lost myself.
But yes, I did make choices. I chose to not follow ticklings in my mind that there was more to the story. I chose to judge and distance myself from women who were not doing motherhood the ideal way, so they wouldn’t influence me in unrighteousness. I chose to believe that I was not made in my mother’s image, because I resented her image. I chose obedience and faith in what I thought was God’s will directly for me, from the mouth of his ordained prophets. And motherhood came hand-in-hand with those choices. (I recognize my privilege that I was able to marry while still fertile, and that my fertility was never really in question – many women carry different burdens here.)
I think I would have chosen motherhood in a fully informed scenario, but it would have looked very different. The biggest difference is that I, as an individual, would have mattered too. Repeating “I matter too” saved me from running away from motherhood at the worst. It was the exact opposite of what I believed when I entered into motherhood.
P.S. vrp’s comment is spot-on! Thank you for describing so clearly what I have been thinking about lately, as I am now raising a daughter and I want her to know that SHE MATTERS TOO!)
Is “agency” the same as “free will?” Are either or both of these concepts the same as “freedom?”
Very thoughtful post and comments. I wish I were as good at expressing myself. I know our leaders are good people and mean well but there definitely is coerciveness in how ‘The Plan’ is presented and not a lot of informed consent. My husband who attended BYU many years ago was often amused by a Joseph Smith quote that’s was prominently displayed – “We teach men correct principles and they govern themselves”. (Something close to that at least!) Of course – it’s far from the truth as there is so much cultural policing we do to ourselves and others. I’m an older mother of six. I didn’t really expect to have that many children and know now in part that it was mostly due to church teachings and culture. I love all my children and wouldn’t wish for any one of them not to be born but I have often suggested to my children that they not have as many and have admitted to them that if I had the opportunity for a do over that I wouldn’t have had more than four. I’m glad to see that none of them have. No – I wasn’t adequately prepared for baptism with an understanding of the atonement or forgiveness. I thought I was going to hell for getting into a brawl with a friend a few months later. Teachings about chastity and morality was a mess – thought I was going to hell for some very minor things there too. So much guilt inducing stuff. Prep for temple – nada! Was getting panicky thinking I’d have to remember everything at the veil – not knowing there were people there to help me. Informed consent? Definitely not. I’m in such a different place now – barely hanging in because of history, women and the priesthood, racism and harmful teachings and policy on LGBTQ issues. These things have made me question if this is a God I want to believe in? I continue on the inside for the sake of the fully active members in my family as I don’t want to confuse their children. But it’s hard – I think about it every single day – and it’s painful.
Vajraz:
“ Is “agency” the same as “free will?” Are either or both of these concepts the same as “freedom?”
Some years ago, Dallin H Oaks in a talk made the point freedom is not the same as agency.
Specifically he said our freedom can be limited here in our mortal lives, but that agency cannot. Agency is a condition granted to all mortals that live and have lived on earth.
For example, there are laws and commandments. Here on earth there are laws that prohibit speeding, murder, stealing etc. but agency involves what we choose to do and choose to think no matter our circumstances.
I’ve noticed fewer and fewer Church leaders are using the phrase “free agency” and opting more to use “moral agency” or just “agency” when applying the term. The fact that we can make a choice but not choose the consequences is probably a large part of it. For me personally–even though it was a willing choice on their part that made them sons and daughters of perdition–I did lose one third part of my brothers and sisters over retaining it as well, which I’m sure at the time felt like it was some type of price to pay in order to do so.
I understand the point, and have no doubt many are coerced or feel undue pressure at different ages and progression, but I would also give children (and maybe their parents) just a little more credit. Although it wasn’t until my teenage years that I could adequately express and vocalize the thought, the spiritual reality of the gift of the Holy Ghost was impressed upon me even before I was baptized. Take any two men or any two women with all other things being equal–how they treat their spouse and family, how they treat their fellow humans, the standards they live by, their attitude and respect towards Heavenly Father, and most any other good and precious qualities–but with the added factor that one of them has the Gift of the Holy Ghost while the other does not, and the difference between the two, mainly in terms of aura or countenance, then falls somewhere between noticable and stark. Again, even though I had difficulty vocalizing it, I honestly felt this was an observable phenomenon as a child. I think children are probably more receptive to it in general, and that as adults a slightly greater effort has to be made to aid in the distinction.
Sort of on the other end of the spectrum of the question of choice, as I learned what I was taught in primary and by my parents, and started connecting the dots with the phenomenon I was observing, I began to ask myself, in very childlike terms, my own version of “What choice do I really have?” when it came to baptism. Obviously I had a choice, but it was a fairly easy one at the time. My testimony at that point was mainly of the Holy Ghost. I obviously had to do a little more wrestling with all other Church doctrines as I got older. Even with the first couple of times at the temple, the Spirit was still there buried underneath the sensory overload and still testifying of truth. It’s a measuring rod that’s great to have, but one we can lose grasp of all too often.
Children are smart. Choices are real. Chalking most of it up to coercion feels pessimistic, but the optimist in me feels we have have the power to end the coercion for good.
Eli: “Take any two men or any two women with all other things being equal–how they treat their spouse and family, how they treat their fellow humans, the standards they live by, their attitude and respect towards Heavenly Father, and most any other good and precious qualities–but with the added factor that one of them has the Gift of the Holy Ghost while the other does not, and the difference between the two, mainly in terms of aura or countenance, then falls somewhere between noticable and stark.”
Nope. Too many temple-recommend holding LDS high priests who verbally and emotionally abuse spouse and children and too many good non-LDS people I know who do not. The Gift of the Holy Ghost (as described in the LDS teachings I grew up with) simply doesn’t make any noticeable difference. Now, you may say that those abusive LDS men either did not in fact “receive” the Holy Ghost or failed to follow its promptings, but that’s a quibble with those leaders who made them high priests and gave them temple recommends and continued to promote them to positions of ecclesiastical authority in the Church. Those non-LDS men who treat their families appropriately apparently do not need the Gift of the Holy Ghost to be able to do so.
Glad your experience has been different, but with my experience I can’t believe it’s attributable to the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Neither does aura or countenance correlate to any noticeable degree with the Gift of the Holy Ghost as taught in the LDS Church. I wonder if you may need to get to know good non-LDS people better.
My mother has complained throughout my life that the first time the nurse placed me in her arms she knew that I was a very independent soul-translation I didn’t accept everything that I was told at school, church and at home as gospel truth and that I would always push back with the question “What makes X true?” When I got to YW the only other girl in my group that felt the same way I did about sappy activities and more chastity lessons than I can count joined me in asking the bishop why we were subjected to such intellectually stunting stuff while the YM played sports in the gym or went out on cool activities. He had no answers for us. When I got to BYU I was horrified to hear so many girls talk about not taking their education there seriously because their goal was to get married ASAP. My friends and I scandalized our families, friends from home and church leaders when we stated that we hoped that we wouldn’t be married by the time we graduated. And we weren’t. The pressure to get married was intense. I got at least one lecture a week from my mother or supposedly well meaning relative or friend about being too picky and having unrealistic standards. However when I looked at the girls from college and high school plus my YW group who had all gotten married by age 20 and saw how sick and/or unhappy most of their marriages were I was fine with being single. As a professional musician I had the opportunity to date men who weren’t members of the church, and they always treated me much better than the “good” returned missionaries that various people would line me up with. I finally got engaged at age 28 to a guy that everyone told me was a prince among LDS men. He turned out to be emotionally, verbally and spiritually abusive. After that I decided that I was just fine being single even if my family and ward treated me like I was a terrible embarrassment to them all and not living up to the covenants that I’d made in the temple when I received my endowment. A year later I met my husband who was inactive at the time but also the kindest and most spiritual man that I’d ever known. We didn’t get married in the temple (though we were later sealed) which brought on more shaming. We were only able to have one child. More shaming because we were depriving little spirits from having earthly bodies. It never dawned on anyone that I might have a health problem that made another pregnancy impossible. What I am trying to say is that I DID go into most of the BIG decisions that church members make with knowledge and consent, but because I chose to do these things according to the best time for me as an individual vs. what the church deems is the best time for everyone (their standard one size fits all approach which I loathe and disdain) I dealt with more than enough scorn and shaming to last a lifetime. I absolutely agree with those that advocate for better temple preparation, and I dearly wish that the leaders at the top as well as mission presidents, YSA and all other bishops would realize that not every person is mature enough and financially ready to marry in their late teens and early 20’s.
“the difference between the two, mainly in terms of aura or countenance, then falls somewhere between noticable and stark” I’m going to have to disagree with this as well. Some of the greatest people I’ve ever known in terms of how they live their lives, how their generosity shines through as goodness, how kind they are in deed and countenance (glowing expression, etc), were not even Christians let alone baptized Mormons. And a whole lot of Mormon’s are very good at presenting a beatific face while their lives are a mess. (And a whole lot of Mormons are wonderful, admirable, faith-filled as well)
There’s been a whole ton of research about how the human brain sees/judges other people. We are very, very, very bad at it. If you haven’t read it, take a look at Gladwell’s ‘Talking to Strangers.’
Wayfaring Stranger’s narrative brought back a lot of memories for me. Bravo to her for having a strong enough sense of self to stand up to self-appointed right hands of God, letting them gallop themselves dead with their certainties about what she should do, and going forward with what she knew was right for her.
I went on a mission at the age of 25 as an adult convert. A lot of Church members were certain that I should get married, instead. A lot of Church members reacted negatively to my untypical age as a missionary, until they learned that I was an adult convert, and then they said, “Oh, then that’s okay.” My answer to them, repeated often. did not win me any friends: yes, it is okay—regardless of whether you think so or not.
I had to take an unplanned emergency leave of absence for three weeks while on my mission, to help my father in a crisis. Thank goodness for a supportive MP. More clucking of tongues and tut-tutting from fellow missionaries, and disapproval from Church members. My answer to them, cleaned up for this comment, was “buzz off.” They were quite surprised when I reappeared in the Mission 3 weeks later—they automatically assumed that I was looking for a way to end my mission early.
I have had members disapprove of my constant reading, non-ultra-conservative political views, drinking of Diet Coke, Sabbath observance—well, the list could go on and on.
I didn’t and don’t care—and these scolds knew it and wound up leaving me alone. I am going to be a Mormon on my terms, not theirs. I don’t ask for others’ consent. I exercise my agency. I am blessed that I have been able to do that, and wish the same for others.
Eli, I postulate that your ability to pick those who hold the Gift of the Holy Ghost out of a line-up is actually an ability to recognize those who speak your same spiritual language, walk your same walk, and make you feel at home on a deep, visceral level, because of the familiarity you have with their culture/background/word choices/style of dress/etc. They glow differently to you because of the filter through which you view them. That is not necessarily a bad thing – we are wired to recognize our tribal members. I also postulate that anyone who is trying to stay in touch with the divinity we share as humans, who is paying attention to deep intuition, who is honoring goodness wherever they see it, has as much access to what we call the Holy Ghost as anyone who has had hands laid upon them for an official bestowal of the Gift.
Link to Oaks talk:
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dallin-h-oaks/free-agency-freedom/
I remember being very disappointed when I was baptized and confirmed at age 8. I didn’t feel any different than I did before I got baptized. I was a letdown. Same with the temple. At least with baptism you have some idea of what it involves and what is going to happen. Not do with the temple.
Thought you might enjoy this https://m.facebook.com/watch/?v=1036347323427552&_rdr
Let’s not forget the Doctrine & Covenants 132 version of consent, highlighted in the Reed Smoot hearings in Joseph F. Smith’s testimony.
Senator PETTUS. Now , what is the meaning of the word “destroyed,” there, as interpreted by the church ?
Mr. SMITH. I have no conception of the meaning of it more than the language itself conveys, that the woman who disobeys is in the hands of the Lord for Him to deal with as He may deem proper. I suppose that is what it means.
Senator FORAKER. Has the church ever construed that language to give authority to it as a church to destroy the woman ?
Mr. SMITH. Never in the world. It is not so stated. It is that the Lord
Senator FORAKER. The church construes it, as ‘I understand, to mean that she is in the hands of the Lord, to be destroyed by the Lord.
Mr. SMITH. By the Lord, if there is any destruction at all.
Senator PETTUS. Have there ever been in the past plural marriages without the consent of the first wife?
Mr. SMITH. I do not know of any, unless it may have been Joseph Smith himself.
Senator PETTUS. Is the language that you have read construed to mean that she is bound to consent?
Mr. SMITH. The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord will destroy her, but I do not know how He will do it.
Senator BAILEY. Is it true that in the very next verse, if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent ?
Mr. SMITH. Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent.
Senator BAILEY. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement?
Mr. SMITH. Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law.
Senator BEVERIDGE. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing ?
Mr. SMITH. It amounts to nothing but her consent.
Geoff-Aus, That made my day. Thank you so much for sharing!
wondering, lehcarjt,
Please note again I said “All other things being equal.” None of the situations you described met that criteria. I’ll readily concede things are rarely equal. I know plenty of good non-LDS people. One of my best friends is an Evangelical who often gets mistaken for LDS. You’ve got me likewise wondering if you know enough good LDS people.
Jessica,
I totally understand where you are coming from, but at the same time, I’ve heard too many stories of non-LDS of various levels of spirituality being able to make the same distinction (in terms of actual membership rather than the Holy Ghost), so I’m hesitant to attribute this to spiritual language alone.
Eli, I think I misunderstood your sentence structure and what things you hypothesized as equal. Sorry.
I know plenty of good LDS people. All things being equal as to how they and non-LDS people treat their families, etc., I would still have to say the Gift of the Holy Ghost makes no reliably noticeable difference in countenance or aura. The differences in countenance and aura I see have to do with love, kindness, service, and some form of spirituality (which may not even be Christian, but certainly does not need to be LDS/Gift of the Holy Ghost). Apparently you see something different.
Eli
I totally understand where you are coming from. True story: we were at a Seattle city park while on vacation, casually started a conversation with another family there, only to find out that they were on vacation, too, and their kids attended the elementary school next to ours.
I’m sure the connection had nothing to do with everyone down to their two year old wearing shirts with sleeves. In July. Oh yeah, they also had one more kid than we did. Tribes, not HG.
Wondering,
It turned out to be quite a run-on sentence so that’s understandable. I need to work on that. I wasn’t trying to imply LDS have a monopoly on goodness either, mainly just the reality of the Holy Ghost and a child’s ability to discern and choose it.
Sasso,
I get your point. It’s also easy to make light of. Tribal cues aside, I still find it difficult to dismiss the Holy Ghost.
Eli
Sorry for my snarky comment. There are better ways to communicate. Thanks for a kinder response.