The Origin of Standards?

Within every religion lives a tension between authority and personal spirituality. If you veer too much towards the authoritarian side, you have a cult. But if you err too much on just personal spirituality and opinion, you have scrambled, decentralized New Age mumbo-jumbo, not a vibrant religious community. Now, some people like cults (as Creed says in The Office, being a leader is more profitable, but being a member is more fun), and some people really like decentralized New Age stuff, but for most of the people I know, people want a sense of belonging and community, but don’t like it when religious leaders try to tell them what to do with every single aspect of their lives.

Mormonism is no exception when it comes to this tension, which leads to many people trying to define where to draw the line. The recent General Conference tackled this issue in a variety of ways, but of all the talks, I believe Elder Oaks’ talk on “Priesthood lines of communication” and “personal lines of communication” will stand the test of time. Elder Oaks built a model of communication with God that involved two basic lines of communication – Priesthood and personal. Priesthood lines involve how God dictates church-wide changes and instruction. For example, only annointed, faithful leaders have a direct channel to the Priesthood line for changes to their stewardship to prevent any kind of miscommunication or power struggles within the flock. However, for personal situations, circumstances, and instructions, the personal line of communication with God is always open. People can contact God and through the Holy Ghost, they can receive instructions for their own specific lives.

Elder Oaks, of course, presents some caveats. For one, the personal line shouldn’t ever contradict or fight with the Priesthood line. So if God tells the prophet to tell members to say x, you really shouldn’t be getting y. But Elder Oaks also provides some specific instructions to the members not to demand instructions from leaders on every little thing, and also to not abdicate moral decision making to the Brethren. This accomplishes a lot of things – mainly, it forces members to make decisions on their own, but it also (hopefully!) prevents leaders from passing down erroneous, man-made advice as doctrine at the request of members.

This brought up an interesting question to me. What about our “standards”? Are they derived from Priesthood lines or personal lines of communication? My wife says, immediately, “It’s a personal thing.” But what about the For Strength of Youth pamphlet, which encourages members to follow certain standards? Some of the advice is pretty specific, like the (in)famous one pair of earrings only rule. And these standards are most definitely handed down from Priesthood authorities (and most members expect themselves and others to keep those rules).

Others I ask say immediately, “It’s a Priesthood thing.” After all, that’s the whole reason why we have a prophet, right? But then how do we parse Elder Oaks’ talk? What exactly do we have jurisdiction to say that our personal line is more relevant than the Priesthood line (if at all)? The Brethren encourage us to make our own decisions. Are these just empty words, lip service to the concept of agency?

This tension is nothing new; in fact, this last General Conference reeked of it. Despite Elder Oaks telling the members to explicitly not look to the Brethren for specific, individual advice, especially on how to run their families we had:

David M. McConkie of the Sunday School Presidency, who told us that we shouldn’t ask questions that have already been answered in the manuals or scriptures;

Elder Claudio R. M. Costa, who based his talk on a previous talk by Elder Benson, which took a fairly conservative, Priesthood-line-oriented stance on following the prophet (basically, you better if you want to be faithful in any sense of the word);

President Boyd K. Packer, who now infamously warned members to not vote to “legalize immorality”;

and Several other speakers of the Church who warned against, among other things, the “addictive” power of video games (one suggested hiding controllers from the children) and sleepovers, both fairly specific advice.

So where do “standards” come from? We have some pretty official rulings in the Church when it comes to things that require obedience. Faith in God and the Atonement is one thing. Baptism is pretty important. Temple marriage is a huge deal. Church attendance is heavily encouraged. But then we have all of these, for lack of better terminology, “minor” rules, most often refering to dress, how we conduct ourselves, and what various activities are appropriate or not for children. For example, grab a random subset of Mormons and ask them what activities are or are not appropriate for the Sabbath day. You will get a myriad of answers.

Sometimes, we like it that way. After all, personal flexibility is always a good thing when it comes to individual weaknesses and strengths. My wife doesn’t care about earrings or swearing, but she really likes playing video games with her dear husband (as nerdy as it sounds, she feels like our marriage grows closer when I keep her out of danger by healing her in raids), and she hates gore in media (and wishes everyone would stay away from it). That’s just how her spiritual personality operates. And that’s where the trouble comes in. We say the Church should not have to legislate in every little thing. So how come they do, and how come the cultural majority expects us to follow them without question or regard to circumstance? Couldn’t we do away with the rules and stick with our “personal line” interpretation, or shouldn’t we expect our religious community to follow the rules and have specific expectations?

Sometimes, navigating or reconciling the divide seems impossible. But still, we try.



Filed under religion

5 responses to “The Origin of Standards?

  1. dteeps

    I truly believe the answer is in the combination of the Priesthood and the Personal line. The leaders of the Church have long counselled every member to personally pray about what is taught over the pulpit. Each person needs to develop a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, through the Spirit, so that they can know when they are in tune with the will of God. And then people need to mind their own goshdarn business. There are Church-wide standards and there are personal standards, but people should not tell me what standards I should or should not be living.

  2. Ted

    I totally agree that there must be some middle way to this problem, but, as is per even the most disciplined of organizations, our real actions are all over the place. We counsel members to do what they think is best for their families, then counsel strongly against specific activities that don’t pose any inherent danger on their own (sleepovers and multiple earrings). This kind of mixed signal, I believe, provides the most confusion when it comes to standards and what our attitudes should be towards the “small” rules.

    And, of course, if we all followed your advice to mind our own goshdarn business on the small stuff, we’d probably be a little bit less neurotic as a people. :p

    • dteeps

      For me, this is all similar to doing homework in high school. (Metaphor time!)
      In high school teachers are always hounding on students to do their homework. Sometimes students see the benefit of doing homework, sometimes not. But why do teachers care about students doing homework? Because they want students to be successful when they graduate and go to college. In college there is no one forcing students to study. There is a larger degree of freedom, and a lot of students can’t hack it because they did not learn the study habits they need to be successful. In high school, it is very rigid trying to help students learn the patterns of successful studying, so that in college, where there is so much freedom, students will still do those necessary things.

      Some commandments we see the necessity of, others not. But obedience, or maybe even more important, relying on a personal relationship with the Spirit is the higher standard that we are trying to learn.

      • Ted

        A most incredible response! I defer to your wisdom and knowledge. Perhaps you should write the rest of the posts for Cohab Standards Week. 🙂

      • dteeps

        That would be a problem — I’m too ‘flip-floppy’. I see both sides of almost every argument and try to defend both sides. I’m a middle ground kind of guy, not given to extremes in any direction.
        I’m good at commenting and providing the other viewpoint, but to write the post myself – it would be so full of ‘back-and-forth’ readers would get whiplash.
        There’s an old joke that Eisenhower wanted to cut off one hand of his chief economic advisor because he kept saying, “But, on the other hand ….”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s