In my mission memoir, I shared a story of a trainee who said she felt we should be more exactly obedient to be more successful (this actually happened a few times, LOL), and that my lax attitude about some of the rules might be costing us success. For the first time, I actually opened the “white Bible” which is the missionary rule book, and I listed out the things that I was doing wrong according to the rules, including having luggage that weighed more than 20 kilos.
The idea that we were going to melt the hostility of the local populace by thinning out my suitcase was ridiculous to me, but in her mind, these little technicalities might be the reason we weren’t successful. I didn’t think she was giving enough credit to the fact that the local members quit en masse when a missionary and a local ward member, both of whom were gay, decided to get together; the members supported their relationship, and went back to Catholicism, which was frankly as bad as Mormonism on the issue of LGBT relationships, which also made no sense to me, but whatever. None of these events had anything to do with what my luggage weighed!
I had a conversation with another missionary about how miserable I was when I was forced to follow rules that made no sense to me. The missionary explained to me that the trick was to be happy while also being obedient, but that just isn’t how my brain works. This has been an issue my whole life. It feels like a prison. I can see clearly that these things are unrelated to the outcomes they purport to control, so my compliance is a waste of energy and goodwill. It makes me resentful, and it doesn’t actually yield the desired outcome. It’s superstitious. It’s magical thinking. It’s transactional, but trying to buy something you want with something that has no intrinsic value. Here’s how the advice of my fellow missionary can play out:
- Obedient AND happy. This is what the fellow missionary recommended, and when the thing we are obeying is not detrimental or a big inconvenience, I imagine this is pretty possible. For bigger inconveniences like polygamy, I have to think this is not possible. Likewise as Bishop Bill pointed out this week, the inconvenient truth of global warming is making compliance with garments less and less compatible with happiness.
- Obedient and NOT happy. This is what happens when the thing we are asked to do are detrimental to us in some way, a waste of time, harm our relationships or reputation, or we don’t believe they are necessary.
- NOT obedient and NOT happy. This is how we feel when we believe we should be obedient but we fall short of what we think we should do; it’s guilt or shame. Scrupulous people feel this, even when they shouldn’t, and scrupulous people are pretty common in churches. I’m not usually one, but I’ve had my moments.
- NOT obedient and happy. This is what happens when we discard our programmatic thinking and make our own decisions, but the byproduct is probably loss of faith in the system or people who are making the rules we think are pointless. We can shrug and call them human, but there may be social consequences for our non-compliance.
A good friend of mine recently commented that Mormonism isn’t so much a “high demand” religion as a “wrong demand” religion, and this gets to the point of the problem. Some of the things we are asked to do are dumb or at least not beneficial, and doing them erodes happiness through the cognitive dissonance process.
Consider a time when you were asked why Mormons do a certain thing, something you didn’t have a good answer for. Did your difficulty defending that practice make you feel socially awkward? Did it make you wonder why you were doing that thing? We often do things for cultural reasons, to fit in with a social group. We do the wave at a sporting event. We wear pants in public rather than going around full monty. Some of these things carry other benefits (pants can prevent sunburn?), some only have a social benefit (nobody want to see that, ya perv). Social norms do carry the benefits of inclusion which in turn leads to other communal benefits, but mentally we have to be convinced that belonging to that specific group carries more benefits than costs. If not, these inconvenient rules start to grate.
I’ve been reading Steve Hassan’s book on cults and mind control, and listening to his podcast Undue Influence. Personally, I think he’s a little free with how often he applies the label “cult,” including to Mormonism, and yet the things he’s describing do fit the experience of many Mormons, if they are so in thrall to the system that they don’t think for themselves or have the freedom to discard what doesn’t work for them, regardless of their personal happiness or the value of the thing they have been told to do. I’ve sometimes said that Mormonism isn’t a cult, but some people sure do act like it is. Unfortunately, some of those people are in leadership positions, requiring total fealty to every whim, then enforcing it through a culture of worthiness interviews and encouraging tattling, particularly at BYU.
Tattling and worthiness interviews are examples of things few people enjoy but they sometimes do them because they are convinced it is their duty. In Chris Kimball’s book Living on the Edge of Inside, he talked about how conducting these interviews as a bishop convinced him he didn’t want to be on the leader track and didn’t want to carry a temple recommend. I said few people enjoy these things, but there are some truly awful people who do enjoy being the purity police. I’m not sure their attitude qualifies as “happiness,” but they relish the feeling of superiority and revenge in going after those they perceive as their or the Church’s enemies. They are all over Twitter, using the term “Based” to brag about their pride in taking provocative, unpopular stands, alienating others that they deem to be “unworthy” in the process (gay or trans people, feminists, apostates, Democrats). Unfortunately, this seems to be a growing trend.
Steve Hassan would say that obeying rules that make no sense means you are in a cult mindset, under the influence of an authority figure or a system that robs you of your critical thinking and personal choice. That’s obviously one reason people do things they don’t want to do. In Pride & Prejudice, there is an exchange in which Darcy (the hero) criticizes his friend Bingley for being such a people-pleaser that he would change his plans without a thought just because a friend asked him to do so, which he sees as a character flaw, but (heroine) Elizabeth reframes as evidence of a “sweet temper,” someone who cares more about relationships than inconvenience. This is a different potential reason for “going along to get along.” In both cases, it will only get you so far. Eventually you will become unhappy doing things that don’t make sense to you. You don’t want to feel you are living your life based largely on other people’s preferences and choices. Eventually you will be unhappy about your life choices.
- Can you think of a time you were asked to defend a rule that you discovered you couldn’t really defend? Did it change your commitment to that practice or not? (My go to answer when asked why Mormons do such-and-such a thing has become “Well you see, Mormons are weird”–and so are all religions).
- Which of the obedience / happy continuum descriptions fits you best? Has it changed over time? Does it depend on the rule?
- Have you felt you were under undue influence (as Steve Hassan describes), giving away your moral choice to an authority, or have you done so in order to get along or belong to a group like people-pleaser Bingley?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
My thing about not following the rules is very basic and practical. I have tried to follow them, seriously, and it’s not possible. Why? They conflict with each other. That’s a fact. Show me any set of rules and I will show you how they conflict with themselves.
On my mission I did try to follow the rules with exactness. I was charged to be co senior companion with a sister who was struggling with depression. Her family was inactive and unsupportive of her mission. She was doing some good things in the ward she was charged with, but she couldn’t maintain and improve her mental health while keeping the rules. She was gonna do what she was gonna do, and my obligation under the rules was to stay with her and never leave her alone.
Since she would take a walk after 9pm in her sweats, there was three rules broken: being out after 9pm, being outside without proper missionary dress when it isn’t preparation day, and not following the bed time schedule if we didn’t get back timely. To me her safety was more important than any of that. I walked with her. She would watch TV in the laundry room of our apartment building. I had to break the rule against watching TV in order to stay with her, so I did. Fighting with her would have been ineffective and caused the spirit to flee.
She finished her mission successfully. We taught plenty of folks. No regrets.
This applies all over the church. You can’t do all the rules with “exactness”, I promise you. If you try too hard to follow them all it will make you mentally ill. This is why it’s necessary to pick and choose among them like you might carefully pick your food at a cafeteria or buffet. It just isn’t possible or healthy or right to eat it all. Carefully pick the most healthy items for your unique nutritional needs. Good, better, best. You have the Spirit and personal revelation and personal authority to help you decide. Others may find fault, but they have different nutritional needs and different personal revelation. They should shut up about what is and isn’t on your plate because they don’t have the information they need to get revelation on your behalf. If they fill up your plate you may not be able to eat it. Even you may misjudge this sometimes, but don’t hand these decisions over to someone that has no basis to know what you can and should eat! We are all fallible humans. We can consider the rules and advice of others, but in the end we each decide for ourselves.
My thing about not following the rules is very basic and practical. I have tried to follow them, seriously, and it’s not possible. Why? They conflict with each other. That’s a fact. Show me any set of rules and I will show you how they conflict with themselves.
On my mission I did try to follow the rules with exactness. I was charged to be co senior companion with a sister who was struggling with depression. Her family was inactive and unsupportive of her mission. She was doing some good things in the ward she was charged with, but she couldn’t maintain and improve her mental health while keeping the rules. She was gonna do what she was gonna do, and my obligation under the rules was to stay with her and never leave her alone.
Since she would take a walk after 9pm in her sweats, there was three rules broken: being out after 9pm, being outside without proper missionary dress when it isn’t preparation day, and not following the bed time schedule if we didn’t get back timely. To me her safety was more important than any of that. I walked with her. She would watch TV in the laundry room of our apartment building. I had to break the rule against watching TV in order to stay with her, so I did. Fighting with her would have been ineffective and caused the spirit to flee.
She finished her mission successfully. We taught plenty of folks. No regrets.
This applies all over the church. You can’t do all the rules with “exactness”, I promise you. If you try too hard to follow them all it will make you mentally ill. This is why it’s necessary to pick and choose among them like you might carefully pick your food at a cafeteria or buffet. It just isn’t possible or healthy or right to eat it all. Carefully pick the most healthy items for your unique nutritional needs. Good, better, best. You have the Spirit and personal revelation and personal authority to help you decide. Others may find fault, but they have different nutritional needs and different personal revelation. They should shut up about what is and isn’t on your plate because they don’t have the information they need to get revelation on your behalf. If they fill up your plate you may not be able to eat it. Even you may misjudge this sometimes, but don’t hand these decisions over to someone that has no basis to know what you can and should eat! We are all fallible humans. We can consider the rules and advice of others, but in the end we each decide for ourselves.
I think the most challenging part is recognizing the ways that I was conditioned to “please” to “keep the peace” and to “trust the priesthood leaders and the priesthood authority”.
I have come to the conclusion that a large part of my problem was that I took as “literal commandments” (which is what they were explicitly branded as) instead of “aspirations delivered in a voice of authority” (because I missed the nonverbal reasoning changing the actual tone intent) over and over again. Some of the nuance was my perspective was very literal-based (so what I was looking for). Some of it was that I “talked a good game” so others thought I already knew the information and/or were intimidated from telling me what they knew. My final conclusion is that I am a survivor of lots of humans being dishonest with themselves and collectively hiding from an explicit (actual word-based, literal) reality. The best I can do is try to be honest with myself and my values, gather information on what is creating my perspective, and be as compassionate as I can while other people do the same.
When asked to speak in church, invariably I’m invited to choose my own topic. Even if assigned a topic, I usually choose my own topic anyway. As part of this, I’m able to think about “what is the next talk I should give?” I’ve been rolling a particular topic in my head for a while now that touches directly on this question of obedience and happiness. My question is “Why do we have commandments?” and by extension, “Why do we have rules?”
The Sunday School answer is “it’s for your own good!”, but that seems a little disingenuous. I think the real answers are much more complex and interesting. Certainly that is a big one, but not the only one. I’ve come up with a few more reasons and would be happy to hear anyone else’s additions to the “why’s” of commandments. Here’s what I have:
1) It’s for your own good. Some commandments are there to protect us from unsafe or dangerous behaviors. I’m thinking of the scene in Groundhog Day where Bill Murray lists all the rules he’s no longer going to live by because there are no consequences and one of these rules is “don’t drive on the railroad tracks” which his drunk companion points out “I happen to agree with that one”
2) It is to protect others. This is similar to the first item, but instead of keeping us from harming ourselves, it prevents us from harming others and vice versa. Consider commandments regarding theft and murder.
3) Some rules are there to make sure society can function–it’s a framework of how to interact with a group larger than a band of nomadic hunter-gatherers. How much of the OT Law of Moses was actually just a bunch of rules to make sure a camp of refugees could function properly? All the rules on hygiene and disease certainly fit this model.
4) Some rules are there for the convenience of the rule maker. Consider Moses calling the 70 to handle the day-to-day details rather than answering every little thing by himself. It was no longer convenient to deal with everything so he had to create a framework for things to get dealt with.
5) Some rules are artifacts of historical exigencies that just persist and no one knows why. No phone calls for missionaries except Mother’s Day and Christmas?
6) Some rules are just there and no one knows why.
Back to the OP’s questions and thesis, stopping and looking at the why of a particular commandment or rule lets one reflect on how important “obedience” is to that particular commandment. This is even more appropriate when one considers as LWS states that “perfect obedience” is impossible. If it were possible, they’d just keep adding rules and commandments until it broke. Commenters readily point to missions as those are probably the most rule-bound periods of one’s life in the church. My advice to my kids on their mission was “don’t get too hung up on the rules”. Remember the main purpose. You weren’t called to “follow the rules”. You were called to preach the gospel. If the rules are preventing you from teaching the gospel, give up the rule, not the gospel. If you’re out of miles on your car, don’t skip your appointment, break the rule.
I had a beautiful experience many years back. I was away from my family across the country for an extended period of time. I flew back in to perform my son’s baptism. The bishop pulled me aside at the Saturday baptismal service and commented how glad he was that I could come back and how happy he was for me, etc. Then he told me “I know you’re only back for the weekend. You should skip church tomorrow and spend it with your family.” I guess I’m tattling on him now, but he looked at the conflicting rules of “keep the Sabbath/Honor thy Mother and Father” and helped me to choose which one to keep and which to break.
I’ve become a little long-winded but request any help to add to my list of reasons for commandments.
Squid, one reason for a rule that you left off is to benefit an organization. Tithing benefits the church. Women having lots of babies leads to church growth. Women being full time homemakers/mothers benefitted the church big time when many callings fell on weekdays, but is still a benefit because church callings take time that working mothers don’t have. These thing may not benefit society in general, and they don’t benefit the particular GA who preaches about them, but they do benefit the church.
With these rules, we have to look at them to see if benefit to the church is really worth the sacrifice to us personally. Go on the feminist blogs and read about how women followed the church’s advice to not put off marriage and babies, and they woke up at 35-40 to the fact they had given up too much of themselves, and all career development and were now stuck totally dependent on a husband, with no way to survive if anything happened to him, and were unhappy because they had given up all the things that made them an individual and happy. Too many women found that following church advice was terrible for their financial security and happiness.
I cannot do everything that everyone wants me to do, how they want me to do it, when they want me to do it, and why they want me to do it. Most of what we get from our pulpits and religious leaders should be taken as counsel, not as commandment. Commandments should be fairly few and important. How each of us lives the commandments is, generally speaking, up to individual and family decision. The commandment is to honor the sabbath day; there is no commandment about taking a walk, or watching a ball game, or even cutting the grass. The commandment is to offer tithing; there is no commandment to pay on the gross, or to pay with every paycheck, or to pay tithing before buying food for the children. As a people, we are sickeningly obsessed with how our neighbors live the gospel, when we should worry much less (if at all) about the mote in their eyes, because we have beams in our own. We should love our neighbor by helping him, not by pointing, scoffing, and deriding.
Call me a loser if you like, but I have found that I cannot keep up with everyone’s expectations for me. Between the bishop, his counselors, the EQP, the ward mission leader, other ward people, the full-time missionaries, stake people, activist area presidencies (in Utah; my area presidency has never sent me a letter about anything, thankfully!), Seventies and general officers at general conference, and many more, all proclaiming to speak either on behalf of the Lord or on behalf of his prophet, all giving that they consider to be commands–it is too much. What if all of those leaders stopped commanding, dictating, ordering, challenging, and judging, and started inviting, persuading, and encouraging with love, building and edifying instead of using commandments as cudgels. I need to figure out how to live the gospel in my own life, and I need people who will support me as I try to figure it out, more than I need people who will judge me and criticize me for some failing, and who will give me more rules to follow and boxes to check. Most of what we get at general conference in a week and a half should be considered as general counsel that if offered as a suggestion, for us to use if it fits, but also to reject if it doesn’t fit.
We need fewer rules, and less demand for exact obedience to those rules. I think that the Lord would rather have the pews filled with people who err but who strive and who love and who help each other, over having the pews filled with people who check a lot of boxes and are exact in keeping long lists of purported commandments, but who have little love for their neighbors. To me, we make the burden heavy and the yoke onerous. Sin is still sin, and there are commandments, but the real “rules” are not nearly as numerous as one might be led to believe.
Squidlover – Great list.
I am a lifelong control resistor, which is not a particularly good temperament for a high demand religion whose primary focus seems to be on “Obedience”.
I was sitting in a meeting about a year ago where they streamed the message from our area authority here in Utah. The area authority said, and I quote,
“Our goal is to get people to make and keep covenants”. I was so triggered by this statement that I had to walk out and take a lap. What? Our goal, as a church
is to get people to comply with some rules? He never mentioned anything about that being a secondary goal to assist a primary goal of helping us develop as
human beings, live fulfilling lives, grow in our capacity to love and care for others, etc. Nope, our goal is to get people to do what we want them to, or what
we believe God has told us they should do. While I can understand the possibility that keeping covenants may contribute to a better life, why do we shy away
from stating the actual goal?
I have heard numerous talks attempt to address the risks of the “Prosperity gospel”, the quid pro quo contractual arrangement we make with God as a way to
manipulate him to do as I want or, at least, suspend his punishment. But it’s nothing more than lip service, because the transactional language is baked into
our religious narrative. We say things like, Obedience brings blessings, and suggest that God’s care is restricted by my relative obedience on any given day.
The superstition is so thick that we suggest to missionaries that their arising from bed at 6:32 instead of the prescribed 6:30 will inhibit God’s arm from being
stretched out. In my experience, mission success was far more a matter of charisma than exact obedience. Sure, if a missionary slept til noon, never knocked
any doors, did no finding efforts whatsoever, the law of the harvest will show its head.
Every time we preach obedience as a standalone virtue, we undermine the principle itself. If obedience is just about following orders, complying with the powers
that be then it becomes entirely disconnected from what it’s intended to achieve. H.L. Menken articulates it well, “Morality is doing what is right regardless of what
you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told regardless of what is right”. We often use the expression that, the law points to Christ, but never really discuss
what that means about the law. IMO, it’s stating that the law is insufficient of itself, it is always pointing to something greater, something beyond its mere compliance.
Which is why Jesus consistently breaks the Sabbath day, as written in the law, to show that the law was always intended to challenge our ability to discern and to choose
to do what is good and moral and right. The Dalai lama said, “Learn the rules well so you will know how to break them properly”.
I am a lifelong control resistor, which is not a particularly good temperament for a high demand religion whose primary focus seems to be on “Obedience”.
I was sitting in a meeting about a year ago where they streamed the message from our area authority here in Utah. The area authority said, and I quote,
“Our goal is to get people to make and keep covenants”. I was so triggered by this statement that I had to walk out and take a lap. What? Our goal, as a church
is to get people to comply with some rules? He never mentioned anything about that being a secondary goal to assist a primary goal of helping us develop as
human beings, live fulfilling lives, grow in our capacity to love and care for others, etc. Nope, our goal is to get people to do what we want them to, or what
we believe God has told us they should do. While I can understand the possibility that keeping covenants may contribute to a better life, why do we shy away
from stating the actual goal?
I have heard numerous talks attempt to address the risks of the “Prosperity gospel”, the quid pro quo contractual arrangement we make with God as a way to
manipulate him to do as I want or, at least, suspend his punishment. But it’s nothing more than lip service, because the transactional language is baked into
our religious narrative. We say things like, Obedience brings blessings, and suggest that God’s care is restricted by my relative obedience on any given day.
The superstition is so thick that we suggest to missionaries that their arising from bed at 6:32 instead of the prescribed 6:30 will inhibit God’s arm from being
stretched out. In my experience, mission success was far more a matter of charisma than exact obedience. Sure, if a missionary slept til noon, never knocked
any doors, did no finding efforts whatsoever, the law of the harvest will show its head.
Every time we preach obedience as a standalone virtue, we undermine the principle itself. If obedience is just about following orders, complying with the powers
that be then it becomes entirely disconnected from what it’s intended to achieve. H.L. Menken articulates it well, “Morality is doing what is right regardless of what
you are told. Obedience is doing what you are told regardless of what is right”. We often use the expression that, the law points to Christ, but never really discuss
what that means about the law. IMO, it’s stating that the law is insufficient of itself, it is always pointing to something greater, something beyond its mere compliance.
Which is why Jesus consistently breaks the Sabbath day, as written in the law, to show that the law was always intended to challenge our ability to discern and to choose
to do what is good and moral and right. The Dalai lama said, “Learn the rules well so you will know how to break them properly”.
Georgia – I have concluded that one of the major problems with the Christian story is that we tell it backwards. As Adam Miller states, “Love is a law, not a reward”. One of the hardest things we may do is to stop trying to keep a commandment he never gave. Jesus never commanded us to use the law as a way to “be loved”, but only as a way “to love”. We have tragically centered the story of salvation as a summative test, where the goal is, by way of my own efforts (obedience) and Jesus’ help (Grace), I can be made acceptable to God again. The gospel of Jesus Christ is not our ticket out of this God forsaken world, it’s the way to respond to it. Christ came to show us what mercy and Grace do with a broken, imperfect world, it sacrifices itself for it. And he is
inviting us into a fuller way of life, which he calls “Eternal life”, where we follow him and learn to care for even the least of these. The gospel is about “Loving” not getting God to love me.
I appreciate your remarks, toddsmithson. (Georgis, not Georgia–it’s an old Greek name, woth both g’s pronounded hard, in three syllables.) The Lord commanded certain sacrifices in OT times, and offering those sacrifices was obedience–God had commanded it. But Solomon said “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice” (a), and Hosea said “For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (b).
Is what we now call the covenant path, the checking off of certain necessary boxes, perhaps like the sacrifices of the OT? The sacrifices offered at the temple were the key visible elements of the covenant path, and God had commanded them, but they were insufficient. God wanted something more: justice, judgment, mercy. John tells us “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (c). Obedience for the sake of obedience is grievous, but doing right by people and showing mercy, is that not the heart of God’s commandments? I think that when Jesus said to His disciples, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (d), He was talking about His higher law. Jesus’ commandments weren’t about stealing or bearing false witness or idolatry–that was a given. Jesus’ commandments were to love your neighbor, to preach truth, to forgive.
I appreciate your Mencken quote. Morality, or personal righteousness, is more important than exact obedience: this sacrifice at this hour with this animal, performed in this way. As most readers here will know, justice, certainly as used in Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and many others, isn’t a legal term regarding punishment of the wicked; it is an attribute of God, meaning, steadfast love, compassion, kindness, and ultimately salvation, and it was intended for all of Israel, including those without power–the poor, the widows, the orphans, the diseased, the disabled… In judgment, we see a call for fairness and equity, not insisting on the letter of the law but on what is just, meaning morally right. Paul called the Corinthians to repentance for their lack of obedience, and properly so, but he also taught them about charity (e). Obedience as a stand-alone principle isn’t right.
(a) Prov. 21:3, (b) Hosea 6:6, (c) 1 John 5:3, (d) John 14:15, (e) 1 Corinthians 13.
Georgis, Toddsmithson,
I love your comments. Covenants are symbolic. They aren’t the actual thing we try to achieve. A temple sealing isn’t the same as a celestial marriage anymore than a marriage license means a couple have a strong partnership.
Words themselves are just symbolic, and are not what they represent. We get wrapped up in focusing on the symbols instead of trying to achieve the actual goals. Covenants can increase commitment to the things promised. But if all we do is a symbolic ritual, it is worth nothing. “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me…”
Covenants are not the goal, and believe it or not, many people achieve the goal without the covenants.
Discussion questions:
1. I learned as a bishop that many Mormon rules are indefensible. For example, an active ward member was suffering from leukemia. Her oncologist prescribed two large cups of coffee daily because medical science supported such a practice. She confessed this grievous sin to the SP and was denied a TR due to her “lack of faith”. I was able to talk some sense to the SP and he eventually signed her TR. Fortunately, she is still managing her condition well. It is indefensible that the Church demands obedience to discredited WoW policies – as well as other arcane rules.
2. Count me in the NOT obedient and happy category. Strict obedience is the stuff of pharisees and unthinking orthodoxy.
3. I regret the misspent days of my youth when Mormon moral authorities had an outsized influence. Fortunately, life experiences have taught that moderation in all things works well. I am worried about falling into the pattern I observe in many boomers – as they age, they become more conservative and dogmatic. It is like their critical thinking skills diminish with each birthday.
If you could prove that the Church is literally true, literally what it claims to be, I could see you making the case for following all the rules literally. But since it’s much easier to prove that the Church is NOT what it claims to be, it makes much more sense to NOT follow the rules literally, if at all. I say this as a former Mormon who really tried to do everything they said I should do. For example, it would not even occur to me to live without a valid temple recommend back in the day. But that’s because I believed everything they said (note: until I figured out what they say often contradicts what they say and what they’ve said). To me obedience is all about truth in sourcing.
Interesting post, hawkgrrrl. I feel like I’ve definitely moved from disobedient/unhappy to disobedient/happy over time. My actual compliance with most Mormon commandments hasn’t changed much. Like with others, I almost certainly peaked in my obedience attempts as a missionary. But overall, I’ve just found it difficult to worry about more than a subset of all the commandments we get. (And like lws329 says so well, there are lots of contradictions in there, so it’s not really even possible to follow them all.)
Two scriptures come to mind with this discussion. One is the bit in Alma 41 where Alma is scolding one of his sons and he says “wickedness never was happiness.” We Mormons love to quote this. But of course it’s manifestly false. I think we like it because it feels like a handy way to keep people in line (“you’ll never be happy if you aren’t!”) and we hope that people won’t learn from their own experience that they can be perfectly happy being “wicked” by the definition of the Church and all its commandments.
Another scripture that I think is relevant is Jesus’s point that “the Sabbath was made for [humanity], not [humanity] for the Sabbath.” I think this applies to every last freaking commandment we hear about at Church. It’s lovely that the FTSoY has been revised to maybe be more principle-based, but this type of change needs to be made wholesale through every part of the Church. So many commandments are just repeated and enforced because that’s what we’ve always done, without any concern for or checking of the effect on actual people and whether it’s actually making their lives better or their love for one another increased.
This topic is where all the stickiness of Mormonism happens. There are covenants, there are rules, there are guidelines, and then there are tradition and culture…people inside the church can barely keep them all straight, much less people on the outside. On top of that, you have local leaders imposing their specific views on their local unit.
A funny microcosm of this is the church-sanctioned dances I went to as a teenager in Utah. Each ward or stake was in charge of overseeing each dance each month, and each one had a different view on what was or wasn’t acceptable attire, music, or behavior at a church dance.
I remember one dance that was overseen by an exceptionally old ward. Girls whose skirts couldn’t pass the “kneel test” and boys without ties were turned away; the music was terrible, most of the lights were on, and anything closer than arm’s length was a chastity violation. Meanwhile, another dance was run by a much younger ward, who happened to have a professional DJ in their ranks; kids wore what they wanted (within reason), the gym was dark and loud, and nobody checked if you could fit a BoM between you and your dance partner. Even though ward and stake leaders were at every dance, the enforcement of “standards” varied wildly just within a 5-mile radius.
Regarding mission rules and the “white bible,” I remember a conference where the MP brought up rules and specifically curfew being broken (some missionaries had snitched about some others staying out a few minutes late). The MP asked, “Do you think that God could inspire you to stay out 15 or 30 minutes past your curfew to meet someone?” Predictably, many of the missionaries replied, “Absolutely not, God would never want us to be disobedient!” He responded by saying, “Wait…you’re saying that it’s not possible for God to inspire you to go against the rules because he has something more important for you to do??”
He then went on to rebuke the missionaries for being too obedient to the letter of the missionary rules. Then he said, “Exceptions to rules happen and are okay – it’s when exceptions just become bad habits that it’s a problem.” A lot of missionaries still disagreed with him. Obviously, not all MPs have this same attitude…you’ll see that same range in people all the way from dance chaperone up to the Q15.
This topic is where all the stickiness of Mormonism happens. There are covenants, there are rules, there are guidelines, and then there are tradition and culture…people inside the church can barely keep them all straight, much less people on the outside. On top of that, you have local leaders imposing their specific views on their local unit.
A funny microcosm of this is the church-sanctioned dances I went to as a teenager in Utah. Each ward or stake was in charge of overseeing each dance each month, and each one had a different view on what was or wasn’t acceptable attire, music, or behavior at a church dance.
I remember one dance that was overseen by an exceptionally old ward. Girls whose skirts couldn’t pass the “kneel test” and boys without ties were turned away; the music was terrible, most of the lights were on, and anything closer than arm’s length was a chastity violation. Meanwhile, another dance was run by a much younger ward, who happened to have a professional DJ in their ranks; kids wore what they wanted (within reason), the gym was dark and loud, and nobody checked if you could fit a BoM between you and your dance partner. Even though ward and stake leaders were at every dance, the enforcement of “standards” varied wildly just within a 5-mile radius.
Regarding mission rules and the “white bible,” I remember a conference where the MP brought up rules and specifically curfew being broken (some missionaries had snitched about some others staying out a few minutes late). The MP asked, “Do you think that God could inspire you to stay out 15 or 30 minutes past your curfew to meet someone?” Predictably, many of the missionaries replied, “Absolutely not, God would never want us to be disobedient!” He responded by saying, “Wait…you’re saying that it’s not possible for God to inspire you to go against the rules because he has something more important for you to do??”
He then went on to rebuke the missionaries for being too obedient to the letter of the missionary rules. Then he said, “Exceptions to rules happen and are okay – it’s when exceptions just become bad habits that it’s a problem.” A lot of missionaries still disagreed with him. Obviously, not all MPs have this same attitude…you’ll see that same range in people all the way from dance chaperone up to the Q15.
@Ziff – I think you’re right about all the facets of the church needing to move away from specific rules and towards principles.
My view of rules is that they’re generally in place for the least-common denominator who can’t function on principles and self government.
The WoW is a prime example. Does God care if you have a cup of coffee or a beer at a BBQ with friends? Seems like there’s bigger things for God to worry about (and beer was fine under the original WoW). Now would God care if you’re a raging alcoholic who abuses your children? Yeah, that’s a real problem. So, for those who can’t handle discerning that difference for themselves, there’s a very specific rule to follow. Those who can, just do it.
This is an interesting post, and I appreciate it. I have two comments to make:
1. When I was a missionary in Taiwan 1977-1979, we operated in a very difficult political climate. All missionary work suffered, because Jimmy Carter de-recognized Taiwan as the legitimate government of all China, and switched diplomatic recognition to Mainland China. Because the missionary force was then 90 percent American, we experienced a lot of hostility, because people wanted to discuss politics with us, and we were forbidden to do so. Baptisms were in the toilet., for ALL missionaries, both the obedient and disobedient. The Church bureaucracy did not comprehend the situation, and give my Mission President a hard time. But I had already learned that the most successful missionaries were not necessarily obedient, but had the most self-confidence, which made people more open to our message.
2. I have been heavily involved in a program with the Family History Library to develop software that can accurately read and translate Chinese clan genealogies. (This ability to automatically computer-read Chinese with full accuracy has eluded our intelligence agencies for many years.). We accomplished this by NOT listening to directives from the FHL, but instead trusting in our own instincts.
For what it is worth.
Thanks again for your post.
Taiwan Missionary
lws: “Covenants are not the goal, and believe it or not, many people achieve the goal without the covenants.” Yes, and for many, the covenant (or rule or policy) becomes the mark, the finger pointing at the moon (rather than the moon), the thing that we focus on instead of the actual thing. When this happens, they are counter-productive, a distraction. They render the sacrifice or the act meaningless, which maybe it was to start with.
Pirate Priest: Your comments about the stake dance brought back a crazy memory of my own. At some point in my teen years, our stake came up with a guideline that the music could not have a “beat” or a “rhythm that was stronger than the melody,” whatever the heck that was supposed to mean in practical terms! You literally cannot dance to music that doesn’t have a beat. Did they think we were doing ballet? It was the dumbest rule I ever heard! It was, I believe, an overreaction to Michael Jackson’s song “Beat It” which some stake leader claimed was a reference to masturbation and banned the song from all dances. My friend’s dad, a college professor from Guyana, heard this leader give this explanation at a stake dance when the song was requested, and he immediately said, “Aw Hell no!” and walked out. It was madness!
As an adult, I felt similarly when I was asked to take notes at the stake Trek committee, and the stake rep said that the girls had to wear bike shorts under their bloomers under their floor length skirts on the Trek, just for modesty sake. I stopped and said “So you want them to walk around a cell phone tower in the desert wearing 4 layers (including their regular underwear) below decks? Am I hearing this right?” She acted like I had suggested an actual orgy. “What if they fall? Someone might see something!” I mean, really. The handmaid’s tale has the women wearing fewer layers than they were suggesting.
Anna: Brava for an excellent comment. Many, many rules are there to benefit an organization, and the Church is no exception. The “rules” for women are an excellent example. So many women feel that they’ve sacrificed their whole lives for other people without actually considering that their happiness, needs, and mental and physical health might matter. Especially since our rules & policies are made without women having decision-making power, women are often (unintended?) casualties of these decisions.
SquidLoverFat: A lot of my mission memoir was devoted to this internal struggle with trying to convince myself to be obedient when my own values told me otherwise. A non-LDS friend who read my memoir told me, “I don’t even recognize the person in your memoir. You’ve never behaved like that.” I can see in retrospect just how much the culture influences (undue influence according to Steve Hassan) our thought patterns and norms until we subordinate who we are and willingly pretend to be who we are not. Hassan considers this the hallmark of a cult (whether religious, political, military, or whatever). I balk at the idea that the Church is a cult, but it certainly can be, and missionary culture is probably the peak cultiness.
When prop 8 was being considered in California, congregations here in AZ were asked to oppose it, knowing it would eventually impact AZ. Everyone in our ward was asked to put up signs and even carry signs at the polls the day of the vote. I (to my now shame) agreed to carry a sign, but at 6am in the morning in the dark so that people wouldn’t recognize me as easily. It was the beginning of me recognizing cognitive dissonance.
On my mission an elder was tragically killed in an accident while hiking on pday outside his area – without permission. It was implied that his eternal salvation was in question even though all he was doing was hiking in a mountain a few miles outside his area. As a greenie I was absolutely terrified of this happening to me. But what a great way to extract obedience from scrupulous 19 year olds!
As someone now in the 2nd half of life I’ve committed to reduce the need to people please or do things I’m not comfortable doing. At work it’s tricky sometimes but at least my boss isn’t saying I’ll burn in hell and lose my family if I disagree with a decision. Cult like mentality can occur at work or anywhere. Part of the tremendous power the LDS church wields is because it turns church rules into family rules. I may be able to tell my bishop no but it’s really hard to tell my wife or my parents no.
I teach Gospel doctrine in my Utah county ward and when I was called I told the Bishop, who is a good friend that, I will be a YES man, I will not follow the correlated material and I will teach my way. I didn’t say it in a demanding way, but more a way so he could choose whether he wanted me leading the 2nd hour discussions. Needless to say, in the two years I have taught, I have quoted our Q15 maybe 3 times, and have not yet had any pushback.
One Sunday, we had a discussion around the complexities of “Obedience” and where some of our cultural language breaks down, think Book of Job. I gave a rather simplified scenario to prompt some thought about the purpose of commandments (The Law). The scenario went like this. In our home, we held a curfew rule of around 12 midnight, which we were not all that strict about enforcing, but it was the prescribed rule. I posited the situation of my son being on his way home at 11:55 PM and coming upon a bike accident.
I asked, what is the obedient thing to do?
What is the moral thing to do?
Are they different or the same?
I brought up President Nelson’s statement, “Obedience brings blessings and exact obedience brings miracles”.
I suggested a possible alternate way to view “exact obedience” and the miracles it produces. What if “exact obedience” is the discerning capacity my son showed that night to stop and help the biker. He appealed, not to the letter, but to the spirit of the law, which in my estimation, is what one’s personal inner voice (or spirit) is whispering in the presence of contradiction. The real miracle occurs when we choose to do what is moral and right instead of what the stone tablets say. The law is flowing from “inside”, pointing us to something beyond the external source. This is also what I think Mosiah 3:19 is making an appeal to, learning to yield to my true self, the holy spirit that is in me, rather than the false (ego) self that always performs to be seen as good, rather than actually being good.
I meant, I will NOT be a yes man. Bad typo there.
This is Adam and Eve all over again.
Recognizing that emphasizing obedience is just rehashing Eve taking the forbidden fruit might be another helpful way of looking at it for someone who is stuck in scrupulosity.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I was an exact and enthusiastic rule follower for most of my life. EXACT. Hawgrrl, you would have hated me as a mission companion. I was neurotic about rules. Judgmental. Curious as to why other people didn’t like rules. I LOVED rules.
lws329 said this: “You can’t do all the rules with “exactness”, I promise you. If you try too hard to follow them all it will make you mentally ill.” you speak truth, my friend!
Okay so, I finally did a full psych exam, and came *this close* (holds thumb and finger 1/4 inch apart) to being diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder. Huh, what? I don’t wash my hands or obsessively organize stuff. My OCD behavior is rule following. Seriously, that’s a thing. I followed the rules so rigidly because that was the only way I could prevent terrible things from happening. I full on believed that breaking a rule would ruin something. It’s the same thinking behind OCD, where the person with OCD has a compulsive need to wash hands or go through a certain routine, because that’s the only thing that can prevent a Bad Thing from happening. It’s also called scrupolosity.
With journaling and therapy, I’ve been able to let go of this rigid part of my personality. As everyone has noted, it is not healthy and it doesn’t make you happy. It didn’t make me happy either. Keeping all those rules made me feel safe, but that was OCD and not happy obedience.
@Angela: The hypothetical chain of events here is amazing: “OMG she’s not wearing a fourth layer! What if she trips in a way that makes her ankle-length dress flip over her head, THEN there’s a catastrophic failure of two more layer, THEN some ‘poor’ boy gets a glimpse of her lower thigh, THEN he falls into temptation and can never serve a mission?! We MUST have a fourth layer!”
“No rhythm stronger than the melody” is pretty hilarious/ridiculous too. This is exactly what I mean that people can’t seem to sort covenants, commandments, guidelines, and traditions…and apparently plain ludicrousness. It’s no wonder we’re stuck with stupid specific rules instead of living by principles.
Taiwan Missionary, “Baptisms were in the toilet.” That sounds very uncomfortable and impractical!
“Every time we preach obedience as a standalone virtue, we undermine the principle itself.”
toddsmithson shared many wise insights and this declaration is the summation. Rules and guidelines are necessary and helpful. But when people allow rules to become more important than doing good and doing right than the people and culture suffer.
A great irony with Christians and rule following is Jesus was a cultural rebel. Jesus did not just break the rules. He looked for opportunities to break them in the most defiant way possible. Consider the account of Mark 3 where Jesus enters a synagogue and challenges the religious leaders if it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath. Jesus then proceeds to heal a man’s withered hand.
“And [Jesus] saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.”
The question Jesus poses informs us of what really matters – doing good. This is the essence of Christianity. It is claiming the power and ability to improve lives and better society.
Prosperous societies have a respect for laws and rules. Unhealthy societies either don’t have standards of civility or they impose unproductive standards. Prosperous societies are willing to change rules – they are willing to recognize when rules are unhelpful. Unhealthy societies support bad rules as a means of demonstrating authority and exercising control over others.
Jesus denounced rigid rule following as unrighteousness. He saw the worship of rules as a false god used by the powerful to profit themselves and to justify their neglect of others. Read John 10 and be amazed at the bluntness of Jesus’ words. Who is the “all that ever came before me”?
“All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them… The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”
The final words of the prophet Mormon are in a letter presented in Moroni 7. Mormon witnessed the collapse and destruction of the Nephite society. What does he conclude? What does he teach matters most?
(1) The Spirit / Light of Christ helps us discern good from evil.
(2) We must possess Faith Hope and Charity
These principles will keep us individually and collectively safe. Not handbooks. Not “white bibles”. What matters is we do good. Our ability to do good rests on us having the Light of Christ to discern what is right and that we have the Faith, Hope and Love to do what is right.
A Disciple – beautifully said. I copied and pasted your words into a word document for future reference.
I have been most struck this year, as I have read the New Testament, by the direction of Jesus’ criticism. You sum it up above saying, “Jesus denounced rigid rule following as unrighteousness.”
Now that is truly something to contemplate. He didn’t do what most of religion does, denouncing and condemning the supposed sinners (rule breakers), No, he pointed the label of “Sin”, capital S Sin at those who professed to be the most holy (the rigid rule keepers). I’m not sure many orthodox LDS members would even see that most of Jesus’ efforts were accusing the rule keepers, pointing out how Sin had seized the opportunity, hijacking religion and then repurposing it for personal gain.
I am a happy rule-breaker. For me, the key is to discern between policies, local ward customs/traditions, one person’s “inspiration,” versus doctrine, principles, and my own thoughts and instincts through my moral agency. This church knows Nephites and Lamanites. They fail to recognize “Programites” who terrorize many individuals and families needlessly. “Check the box” people. “This is what the manual says” people. “This is how we’ve always done it” people. “Your child has to fit in with the other kids” people. “We’re a ward family” people (I already have enough family). There is an appropriate lane for “rule-breakers,” totally within the mainstream of the church…and President Nelson gets it. In fact, in many ways, President Nelson is a rule-breaker when it comes to countering nonsense he sees in the church. He has shortened our Sunday meeting time and he has invoked “Home-centered, Church-supported.” Those are two huge things for people who are just asking for the moral agency to live the Gospel.
Hawkgrrl, I think we could be siblings. I too HATE rules that have no foundation in reality. Just last week I was running at lunch around the Navy base I work on. I have run the same path for over 40 years (yes I’m that old). A Navy police lady stopped me as I was running in a far off corner of the base. She asked why I was there. I explained I was running the same rout I have been running for 40 years. She said I can’t be in that area. I asked when the rules changed, and she said it had always been that way. I asked what harm I was causing and she had no answer, it was just the rules. I bit my tongue to keep from getting thrown in the brig!
Also, you need to do a post now with the title “Wrong Demand Religion”!
Paul Mero: Hear, hear!
Bishop Bill: Yes, I have always considered you a kindred spirit in this way. I can’t imagine how I would have fared in the military, although let’s be honest, corporate life is also full of dumb rules.
All of you happy rule-breakers out there beware! Someone is bound to come along, discern your high level of happiness, and then do everything in their power to make you less happy.
Old Man: Believe me, they already have which reminds me of a Tweet Eli McCann did about his elderly aunt who whispered to him that she (looks both ways) *approved* of his gay marriage, prompting him to Tweet that she had gravely misjudged how much authority she had in his life. That’s pretty much how I feel when I encounter folks who have an opinion about my choices for my own life.
As I’ve thought about this, I remembered that there have been studies about the correlation between rule breaking and power. Essentially, powerful people can break the rules, so people who break rules are perceived as powerful…so strategically breaking rules can be used as a tool.
In biblical terms, just think of David vs Goliath. What if David had followed the typical rules and tried to fight on Goliath’s terms?
Rules are often made by the powerful, and many rules are made just to perpetuate that power. If you want to enact change in any organization or society, people need to be willing to break rules that hold them back. We need to be willing to make “good trouble” as Senator John Lewis used to say.
Pirate Priest: Huzzah to that!
I’m perplexed by a common occurrence here on W & T. I realize this is a blog dominated by contrarian views, more progressive ideas and thoughts, but without fail, as comments are shared over a number of days, the inevitable “thumb downer” shows up towards the end of the conversation. While I am perfectly fine with a disagreement, it’s to be expected, I don’t understand why, whoever it is giving negative votes never shows up to present their own argument. I’m confident that I have blind spots and I’m willing to explore those, but I need those with a different opinion or idea to engage in an adult conversation, where we can come to see each other more wholeheartedly, rather than as enemies, that only deserve my care after they join me in my dogmatic beliefs.
toddsmithson: It’s interesting that your last comment (about downvotes) has 5 downvotes. Maybe the first rule of Fight Club is don’t talk about Fight Club.
The four bullet points in this essay, in my view, represent a progression. I spent a brief time in BP1, a lot of time in BPs 2 and 3 – miserable, and probably doing incalculable damage to my kids in the process. BP4 is fairly recent, and is a refreshing change.
It took me more or less 30 years to get over the feeling of having failed on my mission. That’s a long time to tote that load, and in the face of more than one blessing asserting otherwise, and a ton of objective evidence to the contrary. I should not, as a convert of 13 months, have expected that much of myself, but I did and continued to.
For as big a PITA as I’ve been in my progression since I started commenting on this blog, Hawk, I am grateful to you and a number of others for helping me get to BP4. The weather is nice here.