How Gospel Legalism is Holding Latter-day Saints Back

WARNING:  This post contains several mentions of a word and subject which is probably unsuitable for children.

I spend a great deal of time writing, speaking, and answering questions about religion, so I tend to encounter the whole spectrum of doubts and problems (as well as the best that we have to offer) as I get to know people across the world and the church.  As I have interacted with other Latter-day Saints on questions of religion, I have noticed a certain tendency that I find especially disturbing.  Specifically, I have noticed that some Latter-day Saints like to ask some variation of the “Is [blank] a sin?” question, which is usually accompanied by phrases like “It isn’t expressly forbidden by the general authorities,” or, “it isn’t spelled out in the scriptures (or the policy or manuals of the Church),” with the implication that unless it is spelled out explicitly as a sin, then it must be OK to do.  I have also noticed that the same people often also ask about what the minimum requirements are for any given commandment in order to get into heaven, or avoid hell. These individuals tend to be preoccupied with what exactly constitutes a sin in the eyes of God and the church. This attitude can only be called legalism, and it can be very dangerous.

“Legalism:  Noun.  usage: strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit.”  (http://thesaurus.infoplease.com/legalism, n. d.)

Case in point, the following question was posted in a Facebook discussion group for Latter-day Saints in order to solicit responses for a podcast:

“I got into a downright weird conversation with someone on whether or not the LDS Church teaches masturbation as breaking the Law of Chastity.

His defense was that there isn't a section in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual or some such work (you know - the Fifth Standard Work) about masturbation and so it isn't a sin” (Joe Rawlins, Facebook post, April 9, 2015).

In response, one person stated that she has never viewed a proscription against masturbation to be part of the law growing up, and that she still doesn’t, and then she posted a link to the Wikipedia definition of the Law of Chastity (as taught by the LDS church).

Another person posted a talk from President Spencer W. Kimball which specifically stated that the law of chastity forbids “all sexual relations outside marriage,” including masturbation, to which the first person replied that she did not see anything expressly forbidding the practice in the youth booklet.

Several individuals argued back and forth about whether or not pornography addiction is an actual or fictional condition, and others made statements criticizing the church’s stance on the subject as being a relic of Victorian era hang-ups about sex, and/or misconceptions about the sin of Onan (as it is often referred to) in the Bible, even going so far as to post a link to an article from Wiktionary defining onanism (see Genesis chapter 38 if you really care to know more).  There was also a protracted argument among several individuals concerning the severity of the sin, and its ranking in comparison to the severity of certain other sins.  Of course the crux of the entire argument had to do with the fact that teachings forbidding the practice of masturbation are not clearly spelled out in scripture.

This whole argument is an example of the irritating legalism that has crept into the attitude of many church members:  "If it isn't specifically spelled out, then I don't have to do it, and if it isn't expressly forbidden then I can do as I please."  Or, more subtly, ranking or defining sins so that some seem less severe than others, or finding ways to fulfill the bare letter of the law without concern for the spirit of the law.  Legalism is a problem for members of the church because it can cause us to miss the whole point of the gospel (and commandment keeping) and the atonement of Jesus Christ, and cause us to become lost in a maze of petty bickering over tiny points of the law. Worse, "by looking beyond the mark" (see Jacob 4:14) we may cause ourselves (and others) to "stumble" and "fall" because of confusion over what is and isn't sin.

Abuse and Forgiveness: Reconciling Safety and Sainthood.

Q:  Have you ever had to cut ties with someone because they were either abusive, unhealthy or manipulative? How have you applied the Atonement and forgiveness?

A:  When I was young I experienced years of systematic emotional and physical abuse at the hands of my father.  After my mom threw my dad out and we got a protective order, many members of my ward kept putting pressure on me to forgive my dad and let him back in my life.  They even went so far as to help him to violate the protective order on several occasions.  I kept insisting that I had forgiven my dad, but they would invariably and solemnly declare that I hadn't truly forgiven him, the implication being that I was a bad person because I (and my family with me) would not allow him to return to our home.  As a teenager I experienced a lot of self-doubt and wondered if I was sinning because my local church leaders whom I trusted and respected had basically informed me that I was a bad person for not allowing an abuser to return to a position of power over me. (Included in this group were young mens leaders, bishop's counselors, etc. but NOT the Bishop--thank God for a righteous judge in Israel!)

Fortunately I am older now, and I am able to understand that these brethren had no idea what they were talking about.  I can say this because I have researched this subject on my own and I am happy to report that the church holds the opposite of that bad counsel to be true, and that the church rightly acknowledges that to allow such a person back into your life could be potentially dangerous, and detrimental, even in the name of forgiveness.

Is the Church Sexist? Are Men and Women Equal in the Church?

My friend K.M. sent me this thought-provoking question.

Q:  How come there aren't women in higher callings of the church?  I suppose I'm somewhat already convinced that the church is sexist. Based both on what I've observed and experiences I've had.

A:  The article that I have included, and which follows this brief preface, is the revised and somewhat shorter version of one that I wrote in 2010 to address a more general question about sexism in the church.  But as far as higher callings go: the young women and relief society and primary general presidencies are some of the highest callings in the church, and all of them are filled by women.

One other thing that is not in the attached article that I feel that I should point out is the person who asked me the question that prompted the article was a woman who was an elder in the Presbyterian church when I met her.  Obviously she was somewhat disconcerted to find that she could not be an elder in our church.  She asked many questions on the subject, but it was only through attending our church that she came to see that women do many things in our church that nobody but the ordained pastor, or special people whom he (or the congregation) appoints, do in many other churches (Those special people may include people like the youth pastor, or deacons (which is a position which is typically accorded greater prestige in other churches), or the church elders, etc, depending on the church).

Women teach church classes, both in relief society as well as to mixed groups such as sunday school, youth classes, and primary.

Women address the congregation: in prepared sermons and also in witnessing (what we call bearing our testimony) and prayers given over the pulpit.

Women hold all manner of callings, from ward librarian to Stake geneaology specialist (or whatever they call it), and everything in between.  Some of these callings involve leadership on the ward or stake level with the youth, with the women's organization of the church, the children's primary, etc.

Women who are leaders are a major component of ward councils (which meet at least monthly to make decisions and assignments that effect the good and the progress of the ward), and in this capacity they are to act and serve as one among equals.

Women are entitled to all of the blessings of temple worship and covenants, and in the temple they usually participate in ordinances alongside with, or at least parallel to, men.

In the final analysis, this friend of mine found that she could do more things as a simple member of our church than she was allowed to do as an elder in her old church. In the following video, Sheri Dew, who is president and CEO of the Church-owned Deseret Book Company, and a former counselor in the general Relief Society Presidency (that means for the whole church), explains quite eloquently the contrast between LDS women and women of other faiths when it comes to opportunities to serve and to lead in the church.

By comparison, many Christian churches are much less progressive in their treatment of women, especially those that conform to groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention (for example), which "ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service."  (Jimmy Carter, "Losing my religion for equality", National Times, July 15, 2009).  In fact it was after hearing about controversy over this question that my friend asked me the question that initially prompted me to write the attached article for my blog.

A woman who follows my facebook page (Studying The Scriptures) posted this insightful comment in response to this article (the one you are reading), and I felt that it applied so well to the subject that I needed to go back and incorporate what she said into my article (I do so with her permission).  After all, when discussing gender equality in the church, it would probably be wise to consult an actual Latter-day Saint woman on the issue.

"There is no calling greater than Mother, in my personal beliefs.   Not even the Prophet can carry and bear children.  And for those women who are unable to have children in this life; the innate characteristics of nurturing, compassion, organization and unconditional love are as powerful an influence as any calling. The General Presidencies of the Relief Society, Young Women and Primary are influential, carry great responsibility and spiritual power. I do not believe there is any sexism in the organization of the Church, but I do believe there are men AND women within the Church that are selfish and do not have any idea what "Christ-like" is all about."  (Michelle Lenz)

Someday I plan to write an entry on my blog about the divide between the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ (in any age) and what I call "mormon culture" which usually bears little resemblance to actual church doctrine.  I do not deny that some mormons persist in a culture of sexism, but you will find that those that do so are acting contrary to the teachings and practices of the Church.  I think that if you will examine the evidence that I have provided below you will see that if someone is actually living according to the Gospel, and according to the teachings of prophets both ancient and modern, then they will know and understand that to place women in a 'subservient' role is to come out in bitter opposition to the truth and the will of God.

Here is where the edited and slightly shorter revised version of my blog article begins.  HERE is a link to my original article.