In General Conference two weeks ago, Elder Uchtdorf announced a new For the Strength of Youth pamphlet, designed to replace the version that has been in place since 2011. Many are hailing this iteration as a massive improvement over the last–and I agree. This is not mere wordsmithing but a very different approach both in terms of how guidance is presented (more principles than rules) and in eliminating some of the particularly problematic issues in the 2011 version.
I did a very close comparison of the two. I already talked about one troubling change last week, and now I’m tackling the rest. It’s impossible to do a line-by-line because the topics are organized very differently, but I grouped all of the similar topics together and compared the versions. Here are some of my thoughts on key topics–I left out some that were just not that interesting–and I would love to hear yours!
- Topics & Overall Approach
The first major difference is evident in the Table of Contents and throughout the text. The 2011 version is a prescriptive set of rules around 19 specific topics including Dating, Dress, Friends, Language, Sexual Purity, Tithing, etc. The 2022 version has only 7 sections that are organized around principles instead of topics and focus a lot more on principles and guidelines than on specific rules and standards. The 2022 version has a lot of sections containing questions for teens to ask themselves as they are making decisions–without dictating the answers. I really like this approach, which is by itself a huge improvement. This will be evident in some of the specific topic discussions below.
In addition, although unintentional, the way that the 2011 topics are organized alphabetically leaves the impression that Dress and Appearance, for example, is one of the top topics; repentance is buried in the last 1/3. The first several topics in the 2022 version, by contrast, are much more inspiring and encouraging than the 2011 version.
Having said that, there is still a component that is really missing here. I agree that decisions should be driven by values and principles rather than nit-picky rules. The 2022 version goes a step in this direction. But it still dictates to readers *what* their values should be instead of guiding them through a discovery process where they can determine their *own* values, the principles that support those values, and the behaviors and choices that would follow from that (and that will necessarily differ, potentially significantly, person to person). In addition, while the guide purports not to give youth answers to questions, some of them seem pretty implied with leading questions.
Here’s one similarity: neither mentions Heavenly Mother. The 2022 version uses the term “heavenly parents” one time, and “Heavenly Father” 23 times. (Relatedly, there were zero–zero–uses of the term “Heavenly Parents” or “Heavenly Mother” in the most recent General Conference, reversing a trend that had seen increase use of the terms until Renlund’s April smackdown.)
- Agency & Accountability
Both pamphlets contain a discussion of agency, and the 2022 discussion of agency is an improvement over 2011.
The 2011 version included a lot of fear-based language: “While you are free to choose your course of action, you are not free to choose the consequences. Whether for good or bad, consequences follow as a natural result of the choices you make. Some sinful behavior may bring temporary worldly pleasure, but such choices delay your progress and lead to heartache and misery. Righteous choices lead to lasting happiness and eternal life. Remember, true freedom comes from using your agency to choose obedience; loss of freedom comes from choosing disobedience.”
2022, by contrast, overall focuses on the joy and happiness that comes from making good choices; emphasizes that these are guidelines, not a list of rules; and I think overall displays more trust in and respect for the youth. I particularly like the line “Your Heavenly Father trusts you.” It’s a much more positive and encouraging message than “don’t screw up or it’ll ruin your life.”
- Dating
The 2011 version dedicates six paragraphs to dating; the 2022 version only one. There are two major improvements in 2022.
First, the 2011 version is outdated and sexist–stating that “[Y]oung men generally take initiative in asking for and planning dates.” Umm, Bumble much? Not only is this a little ridiculous, but I honestly don’t know what it’s doing in a religious publication.
Second, the 2022 version is far less prescriptive. The 2011 version sets the infamous 16 year floor on dating (“You should not date until you are at least 16 years old”) in addition to a lot of other rules: “When you begin dating, go with one or more additional couples. Avoid going on frequent dates with the same person. Developing serious relationships too early in life can limit the number of other people you meet and can perhaps lead to immorality. Invite your parents to become acquainted with those you date.”
While some of those aim towards good outcomes, I like the more principle-based approach in 2022: “The best way to get to know others is through genuine friendship. While you are young, build good friendships with many people. In some cultures, youth get to know members of the opposite sex through wholesome group activities. For your emotional and spiritual development and safety, one-on-one activities should be postponed until you are mature—age 16 is a good guideline. Counsel with your parents and leaders. Save exclusive relationships for when you are older. Spend time with those who help you keep your commitments to Jesus Christ.”
I can’t even tell you how many lessons and discussions I had growing up about “how many additional couples” or people were required to make a date consistent with these rules, or people who judged kids who went on dates before age 16 (so the poor kids who were really young for their grades missed out on a lot of social activities). Those silly discussions take away from the more important considerations in dating, which I think are much better addressed in the 2022 version: focus on building friendships, wait until you’re mature enough to date, wait until you’re mature enough for exclusive relationships. Those are all principles I can get behind and are going to differ from person-to-person.
- Dress and Appearance
The dress & grooming standards is one area getting a lot of attention, for good reason–the 2011 version was absolutely terrible. The 2022 version is a massive improvement and honestly throws into relief just how bad the previous version was.
The major issues in the 2011 version include:
- Detailed proscriptions about girls’ clothing with no countervailing counsel for boys. Girls were told, “Immodest clothing is any clothing that is tight, sheer, or revealing in any other manner. Young women should avoid short shorts and short skirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders or is low-cut in the front or the back.” Boys were told “Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance.” Apparently that means that boys can wear short shirts, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and clothing that does not cover the shoulders. This sexualizes girls bodies; there is also victim-blaming language earlier in the section that warns that a person’s “dress and grooming influence the way you and others act,” feeding into the “she asked for it” myth.
- Vague advice to avoid “extreme” or “inappropriately casual” styles, which is vague, will vary tremendously by culture, and tends to a lead to a lot of judgment (i.e., judging harmless things like boys with long hair, funky-colored hair, etc.).
- The infamous, totally ridiculous, injunction against more than “one pair of earrings.”
The 2022 version is centered on guidelines and principles. It no longer includes prescriptive rules about girls’ clothing and earrings (or even tattoos! I wonder if that’s also a cultural thing). It doesn’t even use the word “modest”! Instead, it focuses on the principle of showing respect for our bodies.
I really can’t believe how bad the 2011 version is. I am glad it’s changed, but I am also mindful that there are many women speaking about how much those “standards” harmed them. (Here and here are good examples if you want to understand this more.)
- Entertainment, Media, and Pornography
Both pamphlets devote a fair amount of space to this topic–although the 2011 more. The 2022 changes focus on principles and guidelines and giving teens questions to ask themselves so that they can make their own decisions rather than more prescriptive advice: “As you make choices about what to watch, read, listen to, or participate in, think about how it makes you feel. Does it invite good thoughts?” The 2011 version, by contrast, seems more focused on warnings people about all of the ways that Satan uses the media to trick us. The 2022 version never even mentions Satan, and instead focuses primarily on using media in positive ways.
I like that the 2022 version addresses social media—not only that we should share uplifting content, but also that we should not compare ourselves to others on social media: “Social media can be a powerful communication tool. If you use it, focus on light, faith, and truth. Don’t compare your life to what other people seem to be experiencing. Remember that your worth comes from being a child of heavenly parents, not from social media.” And I like the 2022 advice to take breaks from screens to spend time in real life, but without shaming the use of screens.
The pornography portion is significantly improved. The 2011 version is incredibly discouraging to anyone who feels they have a pornography problem: “Pornography in all forms is especially dangerous and addictive. What may begin as an unexpected exposure or a curious exploration can become a destructive habit. Use of pornography is a serious sin and can lead to other sexual transgression. Avoid pornography at all costs. It is a poison that weakens your self-control, destroys your feelings of self worth, and changes the way you see others. It causes you to lose the guidance of the Spirit and can damage your ability to have a normal relationship with others, especially your future spouse. It limits your ability to feel true love. If you encounter pornography, turn away from it immediately.”
This is in my view an extremely fear- and shame-based way to talk about pornography and I think would leave people with the impression that they can never love or have a relationship if they view pornography–how discouraging and destructive! While I’m no fan of pornography, I think these claims are overblown and counterproductive.
The 2022 version is much shorter and somewhat less alarmist: “intentionally viewing pornography is sinful and harms your ability to feel the spirit. It weakens your self-control and distorts the way you see yourself and others.”
My one big issue with the 2022 version is the way pornography is defined: “Pornography is a representation, in pictures or words, that is designed to arouse sexual feelings.” I do not think that is a standard definition of pornography. I believe pornography is typically defined as printed or visual material that contains an explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity. To me this is an important distinction and a miss for the FSOY pamphlet for two reasons.
First, this is an over-inclusive definition that in my view may feed into the idea of girls-as-walking-pornography. Many things might “arouse sexual feelings” that are not pornography. An attractive person in a perfectly appropriate photo or film, or chaste but romantic song lyrics, or any other number of things could “arouse sexual feelings.” It is an imprecise and confusing definition that may end up causing more harm than good, particularly in people who struggle with scrupulosity and shame around sexual feelings.
Second, I just don’t see how we can say that we must avoid sexual feelings at all costs (by avoiding this loose definition of pornography) while at the same time saying that sexual feelings are sacred and God-given. Yes, I understand the arguments around channeling and controlling, but this remains somewhat shame-based and shame and sexual health cannot coexist.
- Friends
I love the changes to the discussion on friends and friendships. The 2011 version focuses on needing friends with the same “values” or standards as us so that we aren’t corrupted by friends:
- “Everyone needs good and true friends. They will be a great strength and blessing to you. They will influence how you think and act, and even help determine the person you will become. They will help you be a better person and will make it easier for you to live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Choose friends who share your values so you can strengthen and encourage each other in living high standards.”
- “As you seek to be a friend to others, do not compromise your standards. If your friends urge you to do things that are wrong, be the one to stand for the right, even if you stand alone. You may need to find other friends who will support you in keeping the commandments.”
I think that concept has led to a lot of ostracization in the Book of Mormon belt with parents and kids thinking their kids can’t be friends with people who aren’t Mormon / don’t follow every rule. It also focuses too much on using friendships as missionary work, as if the only reason to befriend people of other faiths is to convert them.
I love that the 2022 version doesn’t focus on the need for friends to help us uphold standards but instead focuses on loving other people and explicitly calling out the need to be kind and inclusive to everyone (without a missionary focus).
- “All people are your brothers and sisters—including, of course, people who are different from you or disagree with you. Heavenly Father wants His children to love each other. When you serve His children, you are serving Him.”
- “Treat everyone as a child of God. As a disciple of Jesus Christ, you can lead out in treating people of all races and religions and any other groups with love, respect, and inclusion—especially those who are sometimes victims of hurtful words and actions. Reach out to those who feel lonely, isolated, or helpless. Help them feel Heavenly Father’s love through you.”
- Honesty & Integrity
This topic is a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, I like that it moves away from a more fear-based approach from 2011 (“Dishonesty harms you and harms others as well. If you lie, steal, shoplift, or cheat, you damage your spirit and your relationships with others”) to a more positive approach about loving truth and being the same person in public and private.
That said, there’s something off in the way that the 2022 pamphlet defines integrity. It defines integrity as “lov[ing] truth with all your heart” and “doing right simply because it is right.” In other words, integrity is following all of the Church rules even if others are choosing differently. While integrity is often understood as moral rightness, I think a more expansive and helpful definition of integrity is “the state of being whole and undivided”–i.e., living in harmony with your own values.
Jennifer Finlayson-Fife describes how at Church we conflate “integrity” with “obedience”, but that they aren’t the same thing–and “obedience”, unlike integrity, is not inherently valuable:
Choosing to conform to something that you believe or sacrificing what you want immediately for something you believe is more important is a divine principle—I absolutely believe it is. But we use the word “obedience” to talk about those kinds of moral actions—actions based in our integrity—and I don’t like the word because it obscures personal responsibility and also elevates obedience in and of itself—which I think is problematic. Many times in my life, I have deferred to a principle or a person I trusted, and it was a smart choice to do it. For example, heeding the wisdom of a doctor, or the wisdom of a parent—there’s clearly moral value in being willing to borrow wisdom, and conform to that wisdom. You learn in the process of doing it and you can avoid costly mistakes; you develop your moral thinking in the process. However, what I find problematic is when we value obedience, as though obedience were in and of itself a moral good. The problem is that we put responsibility onto someone else for our moral choosing; we frame it as if God values “just doing what you’re told” and if your leaders get it wrong, they are responsible for your wrong action. I’m not sure that is true.
Jennifer Finlayson-Fife
By contrast, integrity is:
To be able to stand before God with a clean enough conscience to say I really was challenging myself to do what I believed was right—I had integrity. Integrity is being true to what you believe in, even when it’s hard, when it’s uncomfortable, when you give up positions or prestige or privilege in a relationship. I believe that my integrity is a gift to my marriage, to my family, and to my community. I am most believing when I am seeking truth, because that is a fundamental value of the Restoration.
Jennifer Finlayson-Fife
To me, and this relates to the point I made earlier, rather than telling youth that integrity means following rules that are given to them by an external person or organization (Church), we should help them develop their own values and moral code and commit to living according to that. Living by someone else’s moral code–especially if it is counter to what I feel in my heart to be true–is actually the opposite of integrity. It leads to a divided self, rather than a whole self.
- Language.
I like the changes in the guidance on language, which have moved away from a focus on “clean” language (“Clean and intelligent language is evidence of a bright and wholesome mind. … Choose friends who use good language. Help others improve their language by your example. Be willing to politely walk away or change the subject when those around you use inappropriate language … Do not use profane, vulgar, or crude language or gestures, and do not tell jokes or stories about immoral actions. These are offensive to God and to others.”) to a focus on using kind language (“Make sure your language reflects love of God and others—whether you’re communicating in person or virtually. Say things that uplift—nothing that might be divisive, hurtful, or offensive, even as a joke. Your words can be powerful. Let them be powerful for good.”)
- Music & Dancing
The 2011 version had a lengthy section on appropriate music and dancing. The 2022 advice is similar, but much abbreviated, and focuses on asking youth how entertainment they are listening to or viewing makes them feel and encouraging them to step away from entertainment “not consistent with the spirit.” Gratefully, it eliminates the concept from the previous version that music can encourage immorality or violence through its “beat, or intensity.” That one was always a headscratcher for me.
Do not listen to music that encourages immorality or glorifies violence through its lyrics, beat, or intensity.
- Physical & Emotional Health.
These sections are quite similar as they both focus on the Word of Wisdom. One interesting difference (which is probably not intended) is that the 2011 specifically says not to use marijuana; the 2022 version states, “But remember that alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, and other harmful drugs and substances are not for your body or your spirit.” Depending upon how one defines “harmful drugs,” this arguably doesn’t preclude marijuana! And limiting to “tobacco” wouldn’t preclude “vaping”, although IMO that one is a lot more clearly harmful than marijuana.
I doubt the intent is for the Church to start approving the use of marijuana but I don’t read the Word of Wisdom as precluding it
- Repentance
The biggest change here is that in the 2011 version, repentance is one of the last topics addressed (because it is in alphabetical order) whereas it is one of the first in the 2022 version. The 2022 version also strikes a more positive and hopeful tone than the 2011 version. The 2011 version contains warnings such as:
- “If you delay repentance, you may lose blessings, opportunities, and spiritual guidance. You may also become further entangled in sinful behavior, making it more difficult to find your way back.”
- “Some people knowingly break God’s commandments, planning to repent later, such as before they go to the temple or serve a mission. Such deliberate sin mocks the Savior’s Atonement.”
The 2022 version is more optimistic:
- “Even when you try to do your best to make good choices, sometimes you will make mistakes. You’ll do things you wish you hadn’t. Everyone does. When that happens, it is easy to feel discouraged or wonder if you will ever be good enough. But there is good news—wonderful, hopeful news! Because God loves you, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, who took upon Himself your sins so you can repent and keep progressing.”
- “Repentance isn’t punishment for sin; it is the way the Savior frees us from sin. To repent means to change—to turn away from sin and toward God. It means to improve and receive forgiveness. This kind of change is not a one-time event; it’s an ongoing process.”
I particularly like the “ongoing process” piece in the 2022 version. When I was growing up, I was taught that if you sinned and then repented, and then committed the same sin again, it was doubly bad, harder to repent and gain forgiveness, and eventually you may be beyond forgiveness. This led to a lot of unnecessary shame and concern (how would you define “same sin”?), particularly since a lot of “sins” are just habits that we are working on but can’t immediately flip the switch on.
- Sexual Purity
This, along with dress & grooming standards, is one of the most significant topics addressed in the pamphlets. I am also admittedly running out of steam, so this will be a shorter treatment.
Overall, the 2022 version gets rid of some of the more harmful / threatening language. Some language 2011 includes that 2022 does not is:
- In God’s sight, sexual sins are extremely serious. They defile the sacred power God has given us to create life. The prophet Alma taught that sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost (see Alma 39:5).
- Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.
The 2022 version omits reference to Alma 39. It also removes the reference to “passionate kissing” or “l[ying] on top of another person,” which IMO are vague and led to a lot of consternation over whether one had “crossed the line”, instead saying, “Outside of marriage between a man and a woman, it is wrong to touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body even if clothed.”
The 2022 version is an improvement, and my criticisms of it have more to do with the Church’s position on chastity generally than the specific language of the pamphlet. Nevertheless, those criticisms are:
- As described more fully here, I think guidelines around physical intimacy should be grounded in emotional maturity & readiness and caring for one another and treating others with respect–not on purity. I think sexual purity is a destructive, harmful, baseless framework.
- The more I read it, I honestly think it’s creepy to talk so much about what kind of sexual relationships God “approves” of. Seriously, does God really just sit around thinking about what kind of sex is appropriate? Likewise, I am kind of sick of hearing about how “sacred” sex and sexual feelings are. While I understand this is an improvement over some religious traditions that treat sex as carnal and dirty, flipping the script and calling it “sacred” is a little over the top for me. This is beyond the scope of the post, but I think it sets people up for disappointment if they feel their sex life doesn’t live up to this “sacred” promise.
- Relatedly, the Church is constantly speaking out of both sides of its mouth: sexual feelings are “sacred,” but we should avoid any activity that arouses them. As a friend said in response to this, “Do not do anything that arouses sexual feelings? From ages 12 to 20-something, that means to cease existing as a normal human being because sexual feelings and arousal can come naturally and unbidden.” Not to mention that we are frequently exhorted to use these standards as adults–so as married adults we should avoid anything that arouses sexual feelings? Hmm.
As much as the Church is trying to get away from shame-based approaches to sexuality, so long as it uses a purity model to define sexual conduct and essentially tells people to suppress their sexual feelings, the problems of sexual shame in the Church are not going anywhere.
My final comment is about the treatment of homosexuality. The 2011 pamphlet said:
- Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin. If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction or you are being persuaded to participate in inappropriate behavior, seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you.
This is terrible–truly terrible–because (1) it does not define behavior, so a queer kid may worry that any number of interactions qualify as a “serious sin”); (2) it does not distinguish between “same-gender attraction” and actually violating the law of chastity or clarify that sexual orientation, alone, isn’t sinful; and (3) it suggests that homosexual / lesbian sex (whether or not between married people) is somehow way worse than heterosexual premarital sex.
The new one says:
- “I am attracted to people of my same sex. How do these standards apply to me?” Feeling same-sex attraction is not a sin. If you have these feelings and do not pursue or act on them, you are living Heavenly Father’s sacred law of chastity. You are a beloved child of God and a disciple of Jesus Christ. Remember that the Savior understands everything you experience. Through your covenant connection with Him, you will find strength to obey God’s commandments and receive the blessings He promises. Trust Him and His gospel.
While it’s an improvement insomuch as it doesn’t suggest that homosexual or lesbian “behavior” is somehow MORE BAD than regular old pre-marital sex, it still tells gay people that Christ will help them stay celibate for forever and that this is the way for them to obey the law of chastity and retain a “covenant connection” with God. Presenting celibacy as the only option for queer people totally sucks.
***
What do you think?
- What’s better about the new FSOY pamphlet? Worse? The same?
- Do you feel like these changes are too little, too late?
- Many are convinced that people are just going to continue to refer to the old pamphlet as the “real” set of rules that fill in the blanks for this one. What do you think?
- I’ve never shown my kids the older version of the pamphlet; I probably won’t show them this one, either, but it’s definitely better. Will you show this to your kids?
- Did you notice the overwhelmingly male nouns and pronouns used to reference God in the pamphlet? How do you think this impacts young readers?
Wheat & Tares 
In your second sentence of the third paragraph under dating, you say, “The 2022 version sets the infamous 16 year floor on dating…” when i think you intended to say, “The 2011 version sets the infamous 16 year floor on dating…”
Thank you for taking the time to go through this–currently none of my children choose to affiliate with the Church, so I don’t think they will see this, but I agree, it is better…
@ender2k thanks for catching that! Fixed.
I haven’t taken the time to read the new FSOY pamphlet, but based on your post I agree that it’s a vast improvement. Personally, I most appreciate the changed language about dating. In Utah public schools with a majority Mormon population, the old language was tremendously exclusionary towards anyone who was not a gregarious, outgoing male with a large group of friends. Moreover, the advice against steady dating in the 2011 and previous versions of FSOY prevented a generation of faithful Mormon youth from enjoying the kinds of relationships that greatly enriched the lives of my parents’ generation, in which it was common for high school sweethearts to marry and enjoy decades together. Good riddance, I say – the authors of FSOY may have had good reason to give their own personal dating advice to their own children, but to proclaim that their own personal dating advice (or its aggregate by committee) applied to everyone, and then to publish it far and wide as if it came from God Himself, was hubris and arrogance that hurt many people.
@pontius python, agree. In addition, it’s nice that kids who are young for their grade won’t have to miss out on social activities that most in their grade are participating in just because they haven’t reached an arbitrary age for which a line was drawn. As if the day before you are 16 you aren’t ready to date and the day after you are.
Of course I agree that the 2022 version is a major improvement over the previous version. But here’s what I don’t get: I continue to hear the message from the Brethren that the youth of today are a chosen generation saved for the last days because they are so valiant and strong and righteous. But if that’s the case, why do we keep on watering down the rules to make life easier for them? Shouldn’t this, the strongest generation, be receiving MORE strict instructions and rules instead?
I was in high school in the 80s and I was told the same thing and think of what I had to deal with that today’s LDS youth don’t have to:
1. youth: strict and specific guidelines via FSY
2. mission: calling home from my mission only twice a year
3. marriage: having to choose between a temple marriage which would exclude non-members or a civil marriage which would make me wait one year for a sealing
4. membership: 3-hour bloc with monthly home teaching and tithing “settlement” and strict garment rules
The more I think about it, the more I believe that WE (80s kids) were the tough ones. 🙂
“Outside of marriage between a man and a woman, it is wrong to touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body even if clothed.”
The key here is another person’s body. The text is silent regarding one’s own body.
Thank you Elisa for this post. I have so many thoughts here so thank you for those who take the time to read my entire comment.
First I want to note what Elder Uchtdorf said in his speech when he introduced the new guide: “I suppose the guide could give you long lists of clothes you shouldn’t wear, words you shouldn’t say, and movies you shouldn’t watch. But would that really be helpful in a global church? Would such an approach truly prepare you for a lifetime of Christlike living?” This really chaps my hide. I grew up in the 90’s when the church was global and yet I was subjected to a do and don’t list. And no that approach did not prepare me for a lifetime of Christlike living and was not entirely helpful. But the way this is framed does not take accountability for the past. It’s shameful that we cannot say sorry.
As for the last point, our queer kids deserve better than this. I’m truly worried that many of them will say “yes I can do this” because right now they can still have a social network of friends so celibacy doesn’t seem so bad perhaps. Over the next decade, their friends will marry and move on and they will become truly lonely. It does not have to be this way. I really hope for the day when we can provide a plan for our queer peers. I’m convinced God has one for them. The leaders to need to step up and figure this out.
Otherwise I do really appreciate the progress, notwithstanding my critiques above. The new pamphlet is better than nothing, truly.
I, too, like the greater emphasis on principles. I think a lot of the “success” of this new approach will depend on how we deal with past, more rulebased ideas. Are we actually going to “disavow” them or not?
The example that comes to mind is Pres. Kimball’s proscription against oral sex in marriage in ’82. Even though the church “rescinded” it less than a year later with a don’t ask don’t tell policy and has tried in the intervening years to remove Pres. Kimball’s letter from official sources/archives, we still see newlyweds come crawling out of the woodwork claiming that a parent or priesthood leader told them that oral sex is wrong even in marriage.
The reasons that were perpetuated for the priesthood seemed to stay a part of mainstream LDS thought (as evidenced by the Randy Bott incident in 2012) until the Race and the Priesthood essay was published in 2013, in spite of Elder McConkie telling us to forget everything everyone had said about the ban.
Removing references to multiple ear piercings does not remove or disavow Pres. Hinckley’s conference talk. A lot of the success of this new approach, IMO, is whether or not we can tell our youth that this principle based approach really and truly allows them to make a choice that a recent prophet of God counseled against. Part of me is not very optimistic.
Thanks so much for doing the work of analysis and writing. This is a tremendously helpful post.
I have a child currently attending BYU. The big question a lot of BYU students are asking is whether BYU will adjust the Honor Code to be less prescriptive and rules-based to reflect the recent changes to the new FSOY pamphlet. I certainly hope so. That said, I will note that I have visited my student at BYU, and it appears to me (and my child verifies this) that BYU is currently looking the other way with respect to *a lot* of Honor Code dress and grooming standards. I’m mostly talking about what I’ve seen female students wearing at BYU–lots of skirts, dresses, and shorts well above the knee, lots of bare shoulders and midriffs. It’s scandalous! My observations are all based on what I’ve seen on BYU’s campus. Joking aside, it seemed really nice to me that students were being allowed to dress how they wanted to dress. I’m well aware that a crackdown could happen at any moment if the wrong administrator or GA decides they don’t like that status quo, but for now, dress code enforcement seems pretty lax.
I’m not sure that the guidance to homosexual youth could be worded any better than it is in the new FSOY since it obviously has to adhere to the Church’s current position. While the FSOY doesn’t explicitly state this, it implies (and the OP rightly reminds us) that the Church’s current position is that LGBTQ youth need to remain celibate their entire lives. I have an idea…Is it just me, or has the number of “invitations” we receive from top Church leaders to do various things (sometimes stupid things like having the women stay of social media for awhile) multiplied exponentially under Nelson’s regime? I didn’t used to get invited to hardly anything, but now I just feel so loved since I just keep getting invitation after invitation from Church leaders! As a follow up to the new FSOY, I would love to see Nelson issue a new “invitation” to the Church’s youth around the world. In order to increase our youth’s empathy for the celibate lifetimes that we are expecting our LGBTQ youth to commit to, the prophet could invite all the youth of the Church–straight and gay alike–to follow the FSOY pamphlet’s guidance for gay youth for the next 12 months by not “pursuing or acting on the attractions” they have to any other person, regardless of sex. Yep, no dating, holding hands, kissing, etc. for all church youth (whether they are straight or LGBTQ) for a year. I’d love to see Nelson issue one of his “invitations” to do something like that and see how that went down. Most of our youth could never do that for one year–much less a lifetime–yet we expect that of our LGBTQ youth.
Unfortunately, I feel that the statement: “one-on-one activities should be postponed until you are mature—age 16 is a good guideline” is going to mean that there are still going to be kids who have a birthday later in the school year unable to go to homecoming or prom because their birthday is a few days before their 16th birthday. If the Church says something is a good guideline, then many parents are going to *exactly* stick to the guideline just as they have in the past–we aren’t going to shake the “exact obedience” teachings anytime soon.
I think that it will take a long, long time (at least a generation) for the other old FSOY rules to completely fade–at least in Mormon dominated communities. It will be a slow gradual transition. Over 50% of Mormon women work outside the home now, yet we still have the occasional YW leader teaching the girls in our ward that they don’t need to get a college education since they should plan on staying home. The Q15 hasn’t railed against women working outside the home in a long time (decades, I think?), but they haven’t renounced the fiery talks about this given by “prophets” in the 80s and 90s, either. Without renouncing the old teachings, it takes a long, long time for the Church to completely change to the new teachings. I think it will be the same for the FSOY changes. Enforcement of the old rules will gradually fade over time, and enforcement will just depend on who the local leaders happen to be at any given time.
OK, I read the new FSOY again, and I found something I do have a problem with that wasn’t mentioned in the OP: “If you have made serious mistakes, such as breaking the law of chastity, meet with your bishop. He won’t condemn you.” Why is confessing to the bishop required to repent of breaking the law of chastity? When in Mormon history did the Church start insisting that it was mandatory for people who break the law of chastity to confess to their bishop? This requirement doesn’t seem to align with my understanding of Christ’s teachings at all. When did Christ say, “Yeah, I’m good with you repenting of most sins directly with me, but I’m afraid if you’re a 16-year-old who fooled around with your boyfriend, the bishop has to hear about it.” Sure, if someone would like help repenting of any sin, including sins involving consensual sex, then that’s fine, but I believe deep down in my heart that most people can repent of most sins, including consensual sex, without confessing to a bishop. Repentance for almost any sin, and this is certainly true of consensual sex, is solely between God and Christ and the sinner–no middle man is required.
On the bright side, this sentence from the 2011 FSOY was removed: “Do not arouse those [sexual] emotions in your own body.” This may have been the most direct mention of masturbation in the 2011 FSOY. This statement appears to be gone in the new FSOY. Thank goodness! Perhaps the Q15 could issue special guidance to local church leaders to go along with the new FSOY that goes something like this: “Bishops and Stake Presidents: We love you and are ever grateful for your faithful service. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles has concluded that the solo exercise of the sacred procreative power is a natural and healthy activity. Over 99% of you–and, uh um, us–exercised our sacred procreative powers in this way to their limits when we were young men, and a large number of us continue to supplement our marital intimacy with this wholesome practice. As such, the First Presidency and the Quorum off the 12 Apostles prayerfully ask that you no longer ask church members under your stewardship, both men and especially women, about their solo exercise of their sacred procreative powers as part of worthiness interviews. In fact, we humbly ask you to extend a special invitation to the youth to gain further understanding of their earthly temples through regular solo sacred procreation practice sessions. We have received further light and completely disavow the doctrine of the ‘Little Factory’.”
I particularly like the removal of the idea of surrounding yourself with righteous friends. To me this idea is an enormous problem. It’s hierarchical, and up and down and exclusionary. To me it is a complete disavowel of Christ like friendship, kindness and missionary work.
If we all go looking for people who can pull us up, there will be no one available to lift others. Relationships shouldn’t be up and down in any case, they should be between equals.
We all make mistakes and we should all support and encourage each other. We should include everyone, especially those who struggle. Those are the people who need inclusion most.
I’m pleased to see the positive direction the guidebook is taking. Have the youth ever loved this guidebook, or is it more the adults loving it for the youth?
The 1965 FSOY was no picnic. I’m old enough that I had begun dating before it was published, so my dating at 14 was not proscribed. In the 1965 version, young women were counseled to dress “to enhance their natural beauty and femininity” (and not wear boy-style clothes). They were told to never wear strapless dresses because “few girls or women ever look well in strapless dresses.” And, girls, never wear pants to go shopping, to school, in the library, in cafeterias or restaurants. Also, no hair curlers in public (not a bad idea to avoid being embarrassed if you run across the cute guy you like, but ridiculous to elevate it to a religious standard). Young women were encouraged to wear make-up to enhance their natural beauty, but not too much, of course. And yes, keep good posture when you dance. In the end, the pamphlet says “The world judges the whole Church by the actions of its youth.” No pressure there.
Is the no dating before 16 rule still being preached out there? I grew up in Utah in the 90s where it felt like that expectation was everywhere. I can’t say I have specific, firm memories of hearing it in church, but it was definitely A Thing. Sophomore year of HS everyone seemed to be keeping track of when everyone would enter the dating pool. But I haven’t seen any emphasis of the rule in years, and as near as I can tell, many very active families aren’t enforcing it. Perhaps as culture continues to shift from dating to “hanging out” the no-dating rule just gets more and more meaningless? (When I was at BYU, the Brethren seemed very concerned that none of us youngsters were dating correcting and were hanging out far too casually.)
Thanks so much for the run-down. This is encouraging, but it also just points out to me that Uchtdorf is generally a “gospel is half full” guy, unlike all the “gospel is half empty” guys running things.
I agree that the message to queer youth is the most distressing to me (and did we just not mention trans/non-binary? Maybe that’s good because I can’t imagine the church saying anything worth hearing on that topic). While the church’s stance is the core problem, what could have been said that wasn’t:
– something specific about gay & straight kids, cis and trans, all befriending one another and sticking up for each other. No bullying or belittling specifically called out.
– an equivalence between chastity before marriage for both if that’s how we’re going rather than making it out that gay stuff is the worst, but I agree with Elisa that the church doesn’t do a good job with sex in general.
I’d love to see the bishop guideline gone, and instead they could just soften it with something like “You may find comfort in seeking advice from a trusted leader or parent in repenting. The idea that bishops won’t judge is aspirational at best. They often misunderstand non-consensual actions, particularly when girls “confess,” applying penalties to victims. Let’s quit believing every random thought bishops have, with their biases and blind spots, and start teaching youth to trust themselves (and the spirit) more.
I also could not agree more with the dangerous thinking that “obedience” is a moral good. It only is if the thing we are doing is morally right. That’s probably the most pernicious problem in the church today.
Big improvements here, at least a B- overall, but that’s up from the F+ it was in 2011.
@DaveW–The no dating before 16 rule is still very much a thing in my Mormon dominated community in the Mormon Corridor. Yes, there is a lot of hanging out, but as my kids went through high school, I was aware of a number of families not allowing their sophomore go to homecoming or prom if they hadn’t turned 16 yet (and I was aware of cases where the kid was within a few days or weeks of 16 years old and still being denied going to the dance). I realize they are trying to make FSOY work for people all over the world where the education systems are quite different from the US, but since they decided to least the 16 year old “guideline” in the new FSOY, they perhaps should have made a footnote along the lines of, “The guideline is no longer to wait until you’re 16 years old to date. Instead, please wait until the *school year* that you will turn 16 to date.” This change would allow all sophomores to attend all the formal dances at their high schools no matter when their birthday was, and it is kind of similar how some 11 year olds are now allowed to become deacons and pass the sacrament.
Also, even though there is still a lot of hanging out today, kids do still “date” (which is what my high school kids seem to call “going steady”–it’s confusing because “dating” to them is “going steady” which is different than just going on a “date”), but many families in my Mormon community won’t let their kids have a girlfriend/boyfriend like this until they are 16 while others simply won’t allow it at all until they go to college (based on the group dating rules in FSOY). The funny thing is, I’ve noticed that some of the families that are the strictest about the 16 year old or group dating rules all the way through high school also seem to be some of the families that are the most delighted when their kid gets engaged after 3 months at BYU. They relentlessly enforce the high school rules through high school graduation and then send their kids off to college hoping they find “the One” as a freshman and get married during the summer between their college freshman and sophomore years. I mean, these kids have had to completely repress their feelings for members of the opposite sex all through high school, so no wonder they just let it all out and want to marry the first person they meet at BYU once they are finally free of all of the rules.
I love the new changes. It’s definitely too late and could go further, but I’ll just celebrate it as a step in the right direction.
As for people referring to the old pamphlet as the “real” set of rules, we’ve already experienced this. My teenage daughter has a friend (*the stake president’s son) who loves to “encourage people to come to Christ”. Before the change in the pamphlet, he would take it upon himself to “help” my daughter by reminding her of the standards when they made different choices (Hanging out with non-member friends, clothing choices, music choices, Sunday activities, etc…) . She’s pretty good about firing back that she feels good about her choices and that she is following her standards, and that his interpretation of the standards isn’t the only one. (it’s a friendly repartee).
After the new pamphlet came out, he proudly declared that he was going to follow the old pamphlet and encouraged her to do the same. She responded by saying that she was going to Follow the Prophet and do what it says in the new FSOY pamphlet, suggesting to him with a grin that maybe sticking to the old standards isn’t actually “following the prophet”. She felt like she bested him at his own game.
(*He sort of sounds like a prick from my description of him, but he’s actually a really nice and great kid. He has a heart of gold.)
So glad to see the changes. I especially liked the line under the section of Make Inspired Choices that says “It’s between you and the Lord.” I think that sums it up for me and what I really want to teach my kids. It’s between you and the Lord.
Thanks for putting this post together, Elisa. The inclusion of quoted language made it easy to see the changes and I appreciated your evaluation of the changes.
LHCA – those rules from the 1965 FSOY are mind-blowing!
DaveW – about the dating age limit. The Brethren assume that everyone wants to date, so they set an age limit of 16. Then they realize no one is dating at all, but the hanging out that’s okay for 15-year-olds is becoming the norm for 20-year-olds, and then they have to encourage dating. Kind of ironic. It sort of reminds me of the news stories I see about the Japanese govt basically begging people to have sex and make babies as their population ages and fertility rates stagnate and decline. Be careful about discouraging people from dating and sex, because you may get what you wish for.
I haven’t had much interaction with the FSOY pamphlet and don’t remember much from it from my teenage years. I had the modesty, dating and music lessons and so forth as a teen, but I don’t remember reading the pamphlet. As an adult, I mostly only look it up when I want to gripe about rules.
Janey: I did a post about the 1965 FTSOY pamphlet (highlights anyway): https://bycommonconsent.com/2013/07/12/for-the-strength-of-youth/
Thank you Angela. That was horrifying.
Thanks for a great post, Elisa.
Hands up who felt guilty in their youth by previous incarnations of FSOY? Wow, that’s a lot. I went through youth in the 90s so not sure exactly which version haunted my existence (I still have a dog-eared copy with my seminary scriptures, I think) but there are still certain phrases which are burned onto my memory and which always made me feel terrible at the time. Thankfully they are no longer there…maybe you can guess which ones? 🙂
Just more generally, I recently had a conversation with a friend about his experiences as a youth growing up. He told me how throughout his entire youth his parents and most youth leaders were constantly finding fault with the way he looked (long hair and untucked shirt on a Sunday), what they perceived as him being ‘lazy’, and some of his actions. Anything he did or didn’t do was pretty standard for a teenager. As someone who has struggled with self-confidence he expressed just how distressing it was to be constantly beaten with the stick of ‘standards’, to be made to feel nothing he did was ever good enough. Relating to ‘understanding bishops’, he was threatened with excommunication when he was 17/18 for having sex and was given a ultimatum that either he tell his parents or the bishop would do it. The bishop also held meetings with the three of them to talk about it all. It’s no surprise then that my friend still holds resentment towards that former bishop even though many years have gone by. My friend spent years attending the same ward after becoming an adult. And that is a weird dynamic , how we often have to continue well into adulthood to interact with people who may have done a lot of damage to us as youth leaders. Without it ever being acknowledged. It can be bad enough when there is ‘history’ between members who were both adults at the time of the bad experience; but when it’s a youth–leader dynamic, and then those youth grow up to serve alongside those leaders as leaders themselves…
On a positive note, the changes regarding friends and reaching out and helping others was actually very moving to read. That’s the Gospel of Jesus Christ right there.
I mean, I think the “young men generally take the lead” thing was/is just a recognition of fact. From what I’ve seen the vast majority of the time it’s the still the guy doing the asking out part. I (as a guy) really wish that wasn’t the way it is, because having to ask people out is awful, but there it is.
Are unordained people still required (de facto) to wear garment covering sleeves?
Minus the terrible LGBTQ standards it sounds so much more reasonable. Make good choices that respect yourself and others. That’s a good standard for everyone. The old pamphlets were just so terrible…. so much sadness for every kid who grew up referencing them.
The FSOY pamphlet is a complete and utter waste of the Church’s time, energy, and resources, and a criminal misuse of Elder Uchtdorf’s talents. I’m a ‘90s child who had the FSOY foisted upon me constantly, and yet I never read it once. Well-meaning Bishops and Youth Leaders would keep giving me fresh copies, yet despite being a voracious reader and an otherwise obedient child, I would keep throwing them in the garbage the moment I got home.
And guess what? By the Church’s standards, I turned out fine! RM, BYU grad, temple-married, tithe-paying, stake calling, all that nonsense. But this all came about in spite of, not because of, that useless FSOY pamphlet I never read. Meanwhile, as shown by this very thread, innumerable LDS Youth who *did* read it suffered profound emotional, mental, spiritual guilt and pain, and would’ve better off never reading it too.
So, if the FSOY is at best utterly irrelevant towards keeping someone active, and at worse actively damaging and counter-productive, then why keep it around?! Drop the whole thing in the dumpster where it belongs, and give Dieter something useful to do. What a waste.
@Philo, I agree that men typically take the lead in relationships. I believe it will contribute to more egalitarian partnerships when women also begin to initiate dating interactions including paying for an equal share. The system where men ask women on dates and pay for the dating expenses lays in place a foundation where the man may continue to be dominant in the relationship. It benefits women to take a less passive role in choosing life partners.
Is there not a section on consent? Here outside the church we are told that enthusiastic consent is the gold standard.
Thanks so much for your comprehensive review of the changes, Elisa! Outstanding post! The new version sounds so much better.
Like you suggested, though, my fear is that the principles-based version will just make youth standards more a case of leader roulette. If you have reasonable leaders, you can follow the principles in ways that make sense to you. If you have hardliner Packerite leaders, you’ll get a healthy dose of explanation that the only change in the new version is to change the written order of things to the unwritten order. The rules are still the same, and the righteous who have eyes to see will know this! I think MrShorty is spot on with the comparison to Spencer W. Kimball’s oral sex ban. The Church’s refusal to ever disavow anything or say “we were wrong” means that every past teaching lives on pretty much forever, depending on what leaders want to push.
@Geoff -Aus thank you for pointing out the lack of information about consent. That is a direction we need to be going, where we fall unfortunately short of the broader society. We do our youth no favors by failing to engage them in discussions of consent. Thank you!
Years ago in an institute class, the teacher asked how we should decide what music to listen to. I suggested focusing on how it makes you feel. He embarrassingly shut me down and asked someone else who gave the correct prescriptive answer. I’m equal parts amused and annoyed that the FSY pamphlet now says exactly what I said. Maybe I should be the prophet.