Thought Questions on Hedges
Posted by Eric Nielson on June 19th, 2007
One of my favorite blogs has been PonderIt. Bradley Ross sent me this email and asked me to post this.
The Pharisees set up a hedge of rules around the law of Moses that helped them avoid even getting close to breaking the law. We pick on the Pharisees a lot, but are these rules necessarily a bad thing? In our day, is the prohibition on watching R rated movies an example of such a hedge?
Spencer Kimball advocated making certain decisions only once. “Right decisions are easiest to make when we make them well in advance, having ultimate objectives in mind.” Is it wise to make decisions about hedge rules so far in advance, or might it be better to only make advance decisions about more fundamental laws?
Is it sinful to violate a hedge rule we’ve set up for ourselves, or that has been set up within the church? If I make a personal commitment to avoid drinking caffeinated beverages, do I sin if I abandon my pledge and drink a Coke? In other words, is it sinful to back out on promises you’ve made only to yourself?
Scenario: You’re a single young man. You’ve made a decision not to be alone with a young woman without a chaperon. You don’t want to put yourself in a situation where you could make bad decisions. You’re driving at dusk. A sudden cloudburst has just started pouring rain when you notice a lovely young girl on the sidewalk. You’ve had your eye on her for quite some time. Do you step in and save the day and violate your hedge rule?
Scenario: You’ve committed not to watch TV on Sundays (except General Conference). You work with a lot of non-Mormons. This Sunday, a popular television program that gets a lot of “water cooler talk” in your office is going to do an episode about the Mormon church. Do you watch the program on Sunday so you can talk about it with coworkers?
Scenario: You’ve told your children they can’t date until they are 16. (Can we agree this is a hedge rule that comes from the church?) You’ve recently accepted a long term job oversees in a location where there will be very few American high school students. Your daughter will turn 16 two days after the prom and she’s been asked to go by a very nice boy. You know she probably won’t ever get the opportunity to attend another American high school prom. Does it harm your daughter to let her go and thus violate the rule? Does it do more, less, or no harm to teach her to be rigid about hedge rules? Does your answer change if the prom is two months before her birthday? Six months?
Does the following quote from President Kimball affect your thinking? “Serious sin enters into our lives as we yield first to little temptations. Seldom does one enter into deeper transgression without first yielding to lesser ones, which open the door to the greater.”
I don’t know a lot about early Jewish thought, but as I think about it, I think we do violence to their worldview when we dismiss Rabbinic rules as “hedges” around the Law. It seems to me that these rules are an attempt to engage the Law, to suss out what it means. The Law, after all, wasn’t just a set of rules: it was part of their covenantal relationship with Diety.
For that reason, I think that our “hedges” are bad—they permit us to not engage the commandments, but rather to unthinkingly obey. I agree with the idea of deciding beforehand that we will obey the commandments, but I feel like I need to actively make that decision each time I do it, not obey reflexively and unthinkingly.
Comment # 1 left by Sam B on June 19th, 2007
It would seem that Jesus made a career out of breaking down the hedges. Now, I’m not going to begrudge anyone that believes that they need certain additional rules in order to stay righteous. Ultimately, if we are going to be progress we will have to simple obey Gods commandments because we are God-like. If we need extra rules to get there then so be it. If you think that not allowing your daughter to go to prom 2 days before she turns sixteen helps you to be more God-like, that is for you to decide. Personally, I don’t foresee a scenario where I would not let her go in such a case.
Comment # 2 left by J. Stapley on June 19th, 2007
Personal hedges are great.
I know where and how Satan most easily attacks me, and so I set up personal hedges to prevent him from doing so.
Where it becomes wrong—if not Pharisaical—is when I force my hedges onto other people. One cannot set up a personal hedge and then expect others to do the same.
Many commandments are left open to personal interpretation. If I feel that not watching TV on Sunday is in harmony with keeping the Sabbath day holy, that’s fine. But since it’s not part of the commandment, I can’t expect or mandate that others do the same, and implement my own personal hedge.
Comment # 3 left by Connor on June 19th, 2007
I wonder, does the concept of “shooting beyond the mark” fit in to this discussion in regard to personal hedges? Can there be too much of a good thing?
Also, in addition to obediance don’t we also have judgement and agency? Sense of good? What I mean is, we have the commandments, but we also have times when we may have to make a choice contrary to what we’d planned in the name of good. (To give an extreme example, consider Nephi beheading Laban.) We must always do what is good and right in a given moment, whether that is obeying a contemplated practiced boundary or stepping over it.
As for whether the R-rated movie guideline is an example of such a hedge, I think it would be reasonable to say so.
You ask whether it is wise to make firm decisions about the hedge rules ahead of time, and I do think there is some wisdom in that–only so long as that decision is tempered with judgement in the moment (as I mentinoed above). If the hedge rule was pondered carefully, then it’s logical to assume that the rule was based on what would most-often-if-not-always be the right decision; though there could always be exceptional circumstances.
As for whether it is sinful to violate such guidance or personal rule, I’d say that’s an entirely personal and even then case-by-case basis kind of call. Again, that sense of right and wrong, or sense of good, comes in to play. We all know what transgression feels like.
For the girl in the rain scenario. You could easily drive together to a cafe. Or you could drive her home, but not accompany her in. There is room there to maneuver within that hedge, while preserving the purpose for it.
As for the tv program scenario, totally a personal call. I coudl see myself making it either way. Assuming the coworkers know that I’m LDS, I could still refrain from watching, but ask them about their perceptions of it, and do my best to field questions and participate in a discussino with them, while telling them that in the course of honoring the sabbath, I do not watch tv. Or, I could decide to bend the rule so as to be in a better position to discuss what they saw, having seen it myself. I guess, though, that my seeing it (meaning my perception of the program) is less important than theirs. So, maybe, I’d go with the former course of action, and skip it myself, but be sensitive to any discussion about it.
As for the 15-year-old daughter, I would think that we can agree that that comes from the church, as it’s in For the Strength of Youth, isn’t it? As for what is right to do there, again, it’s all in the individual’s sense of the situation. For me, I’d rather teach my daughter that proms are less important than the confidence that comes from a clean conscience. So, I’d mind the hedge. Then again, I think proms are kind of silly to begin with.
As for the quotation, the answer lies in one word of it for me, “Serious sin enters into our lives as we yield first to little temptations.” If it feels like a temptation, then yeah, you’d probably best not do it. If it feels like the right thing to do, though, then you should. Was that clear enough? Do you see the difference?
Comment # 4 left by Naiah Earhart on June 19th, 2007
Sam B wrote, “that our ‘hedges’ are bad—they permit us to not engage the commandments, but rather to unthinkingly obey.” I’m not so sure I agree, but I think I see where you’re headed. Didn’t Jesus himself encourage hedges when he urged us not to look on a woman to lust after her?
J., do you think we sin when we break a promise to ourselves? Can we ask “how many days before I turn 16 can I actually date” without getting into a bizarre legal logic? Do you agree with the Kevin Burtt’s post on The Beard Principle?
Comment # 5 left by Bradley Ross on June 19th, 2007
Bradley, I am fairly certain that lusting after a woman is an actual sin.
I think that we should keep our promises, period. But I think that sometimes there are competing goods. Take for example Karl Meiser’s famous, “If I draw a circle and promise to stay in the circle, I will do so until I die” story. Well, I think he would be a fool to nor repent of a stupid promise. It is better to break a dumb promise than to kill yourself.
The reality is that I don’t think that there is any need for bizarre legal logic. 2 days, it is a no brainer. Making a big rule out of it is simply an exercise for people that have too much time on their hands. Same with the beard principle…for organizations that is fine, but for personal life it is simply a waste, unless your spiritual welfare is at stake, and only you can decide that.
Comment # 6 left by J. Stapley on June 19th, 2007
J. says hedge rules are dumb, “unless your spiritual welfare is at stake, and only you can decide that.” This seems like another way of saying that hedge rules are really important–but personal. I think that is what Connor is arguing too.
I think hedge rules are important too, and for a lot of the reasons that Naiah brought out. She also pointed out the obvious problem with an inviolable rule: there may be times when God asks for violations.
Perhaps this all comes down to an argument that we should follow the spirit. That is certainly true, but feels like an intellectual cop out. I’d break the Maeser “circle” vow as well, but it sort of feels like the start of a slippery slope. That is what I was trying to get at with the prom question. 2 days or 2 years before the 16th birthday? Where is the “real” cutoff date? If there isn’t one, why did the church decide to set a date at all? Was that a Pharisaical mistake?
I don’t find easy answers to these questions. That’s why I wrote the post and I really am interested to hear your feedback. Thanks to those who’ve commented so far.
Comment # 7 left by Bradley Ross on June 19th, 2007
These are tough questions because it’s easy to miss the mark either way. If we set up hedges (especially our own hedges) and then make the hedges our religion, rather than focusing on coming to Christ, then we might miss the mark. If we let ourselves rationalize through everything we think is a hedge, we could rationalize ourselves to hell. (”others will he pacify….”)
The key problem with the Pharisees was that with all their rule-following and rule-analyzing, they totally missed the Savior. They were so caught up in the law that they missed the Lawgiver. Do I avoid x, y, or z because I want to look righteous, or is there a true connection between the law and the Lord? I personally think that the hedges we set up for ourselves personally are different from guidelines from the Church because to me, part of coming to and staying close to the Lord means staying close to the counsel of His servants, if for no other reason than to fulfill a covenant of obedience. (”Yea, and they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness; yea, and even according to their faith it was done unto them (Al. 57:21).) Faith and obedience are tied together, and I think that can mean even with “little things” that may seem insignificant to us (e.g., single ear piercings for women, no dating until 16, no rated-R movies). My thought is that if we are able to follow them on the “little things,” it will be easier to follow them always.
We have a quote on our wall from Elder Eyring that ties into this, perhaps. It’s become a theme in our family.
I don’t even like calling things from the Church hedges because I think that has a negative connotation. I personally think that personal hedges are those that might sometimes have a bit more give, and the Spirit can guide (both in the establishment of personal protective boundaries and any possible alteration to them). I am not saying that prophetic guidance won’t ever have exceptions, but I think we need to be very careful lest we go from individual exception to rationalization to sin. I firmly believe that there is great protection in prophetic counsel. It’s also something that has the potential to bring unity and power to the community as well. Personal spiritual boundaries are great as long as they stay personal as Connor said, and are decided and followed with the Spirit. I think the Lord can also take us line upon line with regard to those kinds of “hedges.”
Comment # 8 left by Michelle on June 19th, 2007
I hope people will understand and forgive me, but thoughts of self-righteousness/perceived self-righteousness/accusations of self-righteousness have been spinnin’ ’round my head lately. Is setting up our own personal hedges going to lead to being perceived as self-righteous?
Should we treat our own personal hedges as if they were unique doctrinal personal revelation? And mostly keep them to ourselves, and avoid communicating them? Is this a subtle way of moving ‘the line’ to the right or left? Is it a way of becoming a law unto ourselves in a different way than we usually think?
So in the following senario, if someone were to choose to never watch TV on Sundays except conference, and the following conversation takes place at work on Monday morning:
‘So, did you catch the show on TV last night?’
‘No. I was keeping the Sabbath day holy.’
Do we run the risk of being perceived as being self-righteous? Do we unnecessarily make someone feel badly? Would it be better to respond to the question like:
‘No. I missed it. What happened?’
This way we can keep our personal commitment without causing unecessary hurt feelings.
Oh, and also, is ‘hedge’ in this context an analogy to an actual hedge? At the risk of exposing some ignorance I will assume it is. Hedges are not brick walls. They can be passed through. Our church leaders often use the word ‘avoid’ for many things. I do not read ‘avoid’ as an absolute. One can allow a few rare exceptions and still be avoiding something.
Comment # 9 left by Eric Nielson on June 20th, 2007
It seems to me that the problem with the Pharisees was not that they built hedges, it was that they built hedges that transgressed other laws of the gospel. For example, they took the law of ritual cleanliness to allow themselves to pass by the robbed man on the street. Ritual cleanliness is not bad, but it is evil to place a “lesser law” above the greater law - that is to love one’s neighbor as oneself. One has to be careful, however, because in the instance of attending a wild drinking party (even if one does not plan to partake,) one can seem to be sacrificing one’s personal cleanliness for loving one’s neighbor, but it is in reality sacrificing one’s personal cleanliness to an illusion. Attending the party is not truly blessing your friends.
Therefore: hedges are good so long as they don’t encroach on the neighboring law’s property.
Comment # 10 left by SilverRain on June 20th, 2007
Bradley,
I agree with J. that the don’t lust was a commandment, not a hedge. Again, I believe that we need to engage our belief to grow, which doesn’t mean to sin, but also doesn’t mean to keep myself so far from the world that I, in effect, prevent my own agency. I want my right choices to be choices that I make, and I want them to strengthen my committment to right and my relationship with my Heavenly Father. In my mind, a hedge prevents me from doing so.
(As an unrelated matter, I originally came here because, at first glance, I thought you were starting a conversation about hedge funds.)
Comment # 11 left by Sam B on June 20th, 2007
The Goat and the Chicken Coop
When I was a kid, growing up in rural Utah we had a baby goat that was considered the family pet. I really loved that goat and could spend hours watching it play. One of the buildings on our little family farm was a flat-topped chicken coop about 20 ft. high. One summer my father piled some bales of hay next to the chicken coop and the goat found that it could jump up the bales onto the roof. He had great fun running around the top of the coop and peering over the edge. I imagine he thought of himself as a mountain goat and the coop was his own personal mountain. I am not sure if goats get an adrenalin rush from scaling the heights but this one seemed to. He would walk to one edge of the coop, turn around, and then run as fast as he could to the opposite edge. He would suddenly stop scarce inches from the 20 ft. drop, look over the side, then turn around and run to the opposite end and stop just short of disaster. This was great fun to watch as was all well and good until the day it rained. The roof was coated in a layer of tarpaper that became very slick when wet. The goat did his usual death-defying act but this time—well, you can imagine the end of this story comes with the end of the goat.
Had the goat set up some boundaries (hedges) and said, “I will run around all I want on this roof, but I will not venture closer than 3 ft. from the edge.” And had he stuck to these boundaries, he would have lived a much longer life.
If you are aware of your own personal weaknesses and there are ways to avoid temptation, then, by all means, do what you need to do to avoid the temptation. I knew of a young man that was tempted by pornography to such an extent that it was very difficult for him to resist. He set up his own personal hedge that he would not go into grocery stores that had inappropriate magazines on display. He did not tell others to avoid these stores–he just avoided them himself. I guess the down fall comes when we set hedges for ourselves then judge other people by the standards we have set for ourselves. I have a relative that has restricted her family from watching anything but G-rated movies. Because they look down on others who may go to PG or PG-13 movies they come across as self-righteous prigs. It is the judging that becomes the problem, not the hedges.
Comment # 12 left by Steph on June 20th, 2007
Sam,
Your hedge fund comment made me chuckle.
Eric,
I think it’s really important to be careful like you said. Personal decisions are personal and ought to be kept as such. This is sometimes as much about communication skills as it is about self-righteousness, though.
Anyway, I agree with you and I think that is some of what Connor was getting at. I know it’s what I was getting at.
Comment # 13 left by Michelle on June 20th, 2007
The problem I see with hedges is that their exists exceptions to general rules. I think this is what Sam B. is getting at. People decry the gray created by the world today, but the truth is, things were very black or white for the 9/11 bombers. When we don’t reevaluate our thinking once in a while, our growth is stunted.
I also think that self-righteousness is a very, very sneaky and beguiling thing. I think part of the reason that Christ took the literal law a step beyond to help us understand the spirit of it was to show us all how we fall short. We may feel proud that we never cross this line or that line but what about our failures. Aren’t these what we really need to be working on. I suppose a hedge may be a good thing when it keeps you from facing your weaknesses and temptations, but there is always, always something else to work on. Hedges seem a tempting way to find a yes/no litmus test as to whether we are good people. Eternal progression is infinitely more complex and frankly, more compelling and spiritually empowering.
Comment # 14 left by Doc on June 20th, 2007
I suppose a hedge may be a good thing when it keeps you from facing your weaknesses and temptations, but there is always, always something else to work on. Hedges seem a tempting way to find a yes/no litmus test as to whether we are good people.
I highly doubt that anyone would argue with you on this. Again, is the purpose of what we do to continually come to Christ (which means continually humbling ourselves, repenting, doing the whole Ether 12:27 thing, etc.)? I don’t think hedges automatically equal pride or self-righteousness or yes/no litmus tests that mean you can sit back on your laurels. It really all depends on our hearts, doesn’t it? Do I do these things because they truly bring me closer to the Spirit, or do I use them as weapons or tools of judgment or checklist items to calm my guilty conscience?
Of course, any weakness that we might be prone to could be a beguiling thing. It’s part of what is so tricky about mortality and part of why the continual remembrance through daily spiritual acts and weekly ordinances are there, right?
Comment # 15 left by Michelle on June 20th, 2007
Michelle, you really hit the nail on the head for me when you said, “…do I use them as…checklist items to calm my guilty conscience?”
I try to guard against judging others for not obeying “my” hedges, but I never thought about how I was giving myself a pass by my adherence to certain hedges. Like not watching TV on Sunday. That’s nice and all, but if I spend Sunday lounging around (except churchtime), who cares if I’m watching TV or taking a nap? The point is, I’m not really keeping the Sabbath day holy. That gives me something new to work on, that’s for sure!
I also had a thought about hedges–a hedge is a bush, a living, growing thing. You have to tend it yearly (at least) to make sure it doesn’t take over the whole field. Maybe we need to periodically take our “hedges” out and re-examine them, to make sure they aren’t starting to “…encroach on the neighboring law’s property”, as SilverRain said in comment #10.
Comment # 16 left by Keryn on June 21st, 2007
Thanks so much, Eric, for this post; and thanks also to all those who commented on it.
For me, this thread represents what is good about blogging on matters of interest to Latter-day Saints.
I truly enjoyed this thought-provoking discussion, because it
1)takes a faithful approach to the matter,
2) brings out interesting points, many of which I hadn’t fully considered,
3) helps me to understand why committed, active members hold different points of view, and
4) ultimately inspires me to examine my life, and consider making changes that I think will help me draw nearer to the Savior.
Comment # 17 left by RoAnn on June 23rd, 2007
I’m glad you enjoyed it RoAnn.
(It was Bradley’s Post)
Comment # 18 left by Eric Nielson on June 25th, 2007
What’s a sin for one person may not be a sin for another. We’re all at different stages on the path. Someone who is older, more mature, and been a member longer, may have a higher standard of behavior expected of them by Heavenly Father. For instance, the Lord probably has a higher level of expectation for the stake president or the stake patriarch than for me.
What you may think of as a hedge for a teenager or a convert may be an actual requirement in order for a longer-term member to maintain the companionship of the Holy Ghost.
This was one of the frustrations I often felt on my mission. As an older missionary, most of the time the missionaries around me were engaging in bahavior and exhibiting attitudes such that if I were to do the same, I’d lose the Spirit.
As we grow in the gospel, the Lord requires more and more of us in terms of our thoughts, words and actions in order for us to maintain the companionship Spirit.
Therefore the ultimate measure to judge a hedge or standard of behavior, in relation to our own personal life, is whether or not crossing that line causes the Holy Ghost to withraw from us in the least degree.
If we are constantly paying attention to our internal “Holy Ghost meter”, and discerning whether the Holy Ghost is maintaining contact with us, getting closer, or withdrawing, then we can judge the rightness or wrongness of the proposed action.
Comment # 19 left by Bookslinger on June 25th, 2007
I enjoyed Bookslinger’s remarks. There are certain standards that are spelled out. That lives a lot of room for certain areas for people to do what is best for them. For instance, I try not to do a certain activity on Sunday that I know a lot of people do. For them it is probably fine. For me, it gives me a way of having this day separate from other days especially as I do not make it to Church.
Comment # 20 left by Barb on June 25th, 2007
not another typo.. leaves rather than lives a lot of room.
Comment # 21 left by Barb on June 25th, 2007
Someone who is older, more mature, and been a member longer, may have a higher standard of behavior expected of them by Heavenly Father.
One problem with hedges is that when we call a personal hedge a “higher standard”. Personal hedges are almost always that — personal. If a man makes a personal commitment to God that he won’t change out of his church clothes all day Sunday is that a “higher standard”? Nope. It’s just a personal deal. It is not like a man keeping his tie on all day has any inherent righteousness associated with it after all. But if that is the personal sacrifice one man chooses to make in order to feel closer to God then I won’t begrudge that.
These personal hedges make me think of Dumbo’s Feather most of the time actually. If doing something like holding a crow’s feather gave Dumbo the faith to fly then it is fine with me. The problem is when Dumbo starts telling others they cannot fly unless they too are holding a crow’s feather… There are universal principles that are associated with flying of course and those can’t be omitted, but personal hedges are usually in addition to those universal principles and are used to help people generate more faith.
Comment # 22 left by Geoff J on June 25th, 2007
Geoff,
How do you decide whether or not something is a higher standard? It seems you imply that there is no such thing at all and I don’t believe that is true. I agree that our inspiration when it comes to details needs to stay personal, but I’m not sure that you can dismiss the idea that there is a sort of progression that can happen in our lives as we strive to live closer to the Spirit. As we do, the Lord can show us things we can do to progress to “higher standards” if you will. I don’t see anything wrong with that idea as long as it doesn’t become a sort of competition. I doubt anyone would argue with you about not taking something personal and making it a general thing.
Comment # 23 left by Michelle on June 25th, 2007
A lot of hedges are in the “unwritten order of things.”
I have never heard a church leader, general or local, preach against using alternative f-words like fetch, flip, and freakin. Yet I do think that avoiding those words is a valid hedge and is a legitimate higher standard. Teens get cut a lot of slack for using those words, but at some point in your teens or 20’s, you’re supposed to stop using them. I think that qualifies as being among the “unwritten rules.”
Many Mormon teens and young adults use the alternative f-words in the exact same situations and contexts that non-members use the real f-word.
I never heard the Mormon alternative f-words in my home ward as an adult convert. When I got to the MTC, many other elders used those words in the same context, tone-of-voice, and emotional projection as I used to say the real f-word prior to joining. When I joined, I gave up those kinds of words.
Some other elders, often said their alternative f-word, but because of context, tone-of-voice, etc., my mind translated it as the real one.
When I asked them to cut it out, they thought I was the one being unreasonable, since no one in the church had previously expected them to eliminate the alternative f-words. In their minds, the alternative words didn’t correlate to the real word. But as someone who used to use the real word, the context, tone-of-voice, etc, when using the alternative words created a strong correlation in my mind, and their use of the alternative words became a stumbling block for me.
However, those elders could go from using those words straight to engaging in spiritual matters, and not seem to have to shift. I could not. Hearing cavalier use of alternative f-words in the same context as the real one, and knowing that they defended such usage, caused me to lose the Spirit.
Comment # 24 left by Bookslinger on June 26th, 2007
One thing that we are frequently reminded of by both general and local leaders, but not everyone does, is to arrive 5 to 10 minutes early for sacrament, and sit quietly to listen to the prelude music.
Is it unrighteous to chit-chat in the chapel right up until the meeting starts? No, it’s probably not unrighteous, but it’s not optimum. And if you’re disturbing the reverie of someone trying to get into the spirit before the start of the meeting, maybe there is a bit of offense in such chit-chat. I’ve been guilty of that a lot.
Is it unrighteous to arrive 10 seconds before the meeting starts, or during the announcements? No, but again, it’s not optimum.
One of my pet peeves are people who sit at the aisle end of an empty row, and block other people from filling those empty positions in the pew. (And they’re not saving those positions for their family.)
Is it unrighteous to enter the chapel during the sacrament hymn?
The sacrament prayer? The passing of the sacrament? Those are some boundaries where it crosses into irreverence, at least.
Michelle is right about the progression of levels. At some point irreverence does become unrighteousness, regardless of age.
And, for some things, age does matter in whether we regard someone as being reverent/unrighteous or not.
We expect small children to fidget and fuss during the sacrament, and for their parents to try to teach them reverence and try to encourage them to be reverent. But teens are held to a higher level of expected reverence during the sacrament. And adults to an even higher level.
There are hedges there, too. I think gum-chewing during the sacrament is irreverent. I’ve seen gum-chewers among members of bishoprics, but I’ve also heard many speak against it. I think talking during the sacrament is irreverent.
I think it proper to teach everyone, young and old, “Don’t chew gum, and don’t talk during the sacrament.” I think those two things are important regardless of culture.
However, I don’t think teaching people to always take the sacrament with their right hand is proper. But in some societies, such as India, taking food with your left hand is deemed socially/culturally improper. So using your right hand to take the sacrament may be more important there, and rises to the level of where it does matter.
Some other hedges are culture based, too, such as the American figure-4 style of leg crossing. Here, we think nothing of it. But in some other cultures, allowing others to see the sole of your shoe/foot while you are seated is very offensive. To show reverence in a sacrament meeting there, if you cross your legs, you have to make sure your soles are pointed down, and can’t be seen by others. Or better yet, keep the soles of your shoes on the floor.
What about women who wear clothes to sacrament meeting that reveal their cleavage? How much cleavage is acceptable, how much is irreverent, and is there a point at which is becomes unrighteous? And again, age, time in the church, etc. can have an effect on where those points are drawn.
Another factor is that the apostle Paul taught that things which are not unrighteous in and of themselves, become unrighteous, if by doing those things we are aware that we are causing another to stumble. His classic example is the eating of meat.
Comment # 25 left by Bookslinger on June 26th, 2007
But we reaaaally have to be careful when we label these things “higher standards of righteousness,” which I think is Michelle’s point. For example, I sit on the end of the pew near the back row so I can take my child out of the meeting when necessary with a minimum of fuss. When I was single or without children, I didn’t worry about it. Some of those other things (gum chewing, shirts that show cleavage) etc. are hard because someone may not know that it is a problem for someone else. I remember when I was pregnant, I found it nearly impossible to find modest maternity shirts. Of the ones I found that actually covered my garments, some showed more than I liked. Coupled with some of the bodily changes I went through, I owned about one shirt I was comfortable with and four that I could tolerate, if I was careful. At the time, I was in no position to sew or alter my shirts. It would be easy for someone to label me at a “less righteous” standard, despite all I have tried to do to find modest clothing.
My point is that we walk a very tight rope when we start to watch and judge what other people do. Eventually, the rope will hang us.
Comment # 26 left by SilverRain on June 27th, 2007
SilverRain: That’s a good point about judging outward appearances.
“… for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” 1 Sam 16:7
It is good to avoid judging based on appearances and without knowing someone’s heart; but that does not absolve parents, teachers, and persons in authority of the responsibility of teaching the principles we all should strive for, such as modesty and reverence. You obviously learned those principles early on, and strive to live them, which is admirable.
I can imagine some of the heartaches and headaches that parents and church leaders go through trying to teach children principles (such as reverence and modesty) if there are other children, or even adults, in the ward behaving in ways opposite those principles, regardless of the motives and circumstances of those others.
Here are a couple sincere questions, and I’d like to hear other people’s answers.
How do you (or would you) respond to your teenage daughter who wants to wear a cleavage-revealing blouse to church, and she gives you the excuse that other teen girls wear similar blouses to church? (And she also reminds you that most of the girls at school wear such blouses/tops.)
How do you (or would you) respond to your teen or pre-teen son, who has never cussed before, who starts using the alternative f-words as cuss words? Suppose he picked them up from other boys in the ward, and uses the excuse that other kids in church talk that way.
How would you encourage your kids to live those principles of modesty and reverence if some or even most of their peers in the ward are not? How do you teach/encourage the keeping of the standard without coming across as judgemental of or condescending to those other kids and their parents?
Comment # 27 left by Bookslinger on June 27th, 2007
Michelle: How do you decide whether or not something is a higher standard?
Good question.
Well what may be a higher standard for one person may not be a higher standard for another, so it is hard to tell. The way to measure “higher” ought to be what standards draw a person closer to God in a personal loving relationship — or in other words what makes a person more “at one” with God. So if staying in church clothes all Sunday brings person A closer to God then it is higher for person A; but staying in church clothes all Sunday may be so annoying and distracting for person B that it interfered with her personal communication with God so for person B that would be a lower standard.
Certainly there are universal higher and lower standards though. Praying in some form or other is surely universally a better way to have a personal relationship with God than not praying. Remembering Christ is universally better than forgetting Christ. But it is much harder to find universally “higher standards” when we start dropping below that 40,000 ft. level on the subject.
Comment # 28 left by Geoff J on June 27th, 2007
I do think that it is easy to get an attitude that we are righteous when we make a personal sacrifice that others may or may not make. I have avoided pop with caffeine for the most part since becoming LDS. I recall coming home from my mission and going on a Temple trip with some friends and when we went out to eat I was shocked that of them who were returned Missionaries ordered caffeine pop unless I missed something there like the caffeine free Cola. I have learned that there is so much more to the measure of a person. I know someone who loves the Gospel so much and has sacrificied so incredibly much for the Gospel and he drinks Cola. I am not advocating drinking Cola. I can be judgmental of him in that instance though knowing all that he does.
The laws we make define us and give us an identity. Even in my less active state, I know that I do not drink, smoke, etc. Fortunately, I never had an addiction before becoming LDS or it may have been very easy to slip back. And my being less active is not because I do not have a desire to be at Church but for other obstacles in going. There have been times when I thought that maybe I should just be like my family and drink. They are not members. One can feel out of place. My mom who is not a member has seldom drank through the years though. Once I felt like drinking after my family was at court over a family matter of guardianship for an elderly family member and the judge announced we would have to go back to court again. I felt like drinking in that moment like I don’t think I have ever felt before. I thought it would take the edge off. I have had a lot of personal problems that many would “self-medicate” for. I am grateful to know a better way and am stronger than I was. If I self-medicated, I may have far worse problems than I do now. I know I am rambling and am not even sure of my point. I know that I am not better than anybody because my choices. My choices may have kept me in the game.
Comment # 29 left by Barb on June 28th, 2007
I do not know if I consider being quiet at prelude music as a higher law. I think it is something that all should strive to do. For me, it not only prepares me for the meeting, it is one of my favorite parts of the whole worship experience. I do not like people to talk to me at that time although I have felt obligated at times to chit chat with someone who has sat next to me. I do wish it was customary to be quiet and not catch up on business. If it were, people would follow the rules of that environment and be quiet and only speak if necessary in whispers. Children do follow the examples of those around them. Back in the day when I was a child, we did not take toys or snacks to Church. It was a different faith. I do remember sleeping in a pew once. Please I don’t want to come across those who let their children play. My other Church had a separate area for noisy children that I think was called a cry room. I don’t think my parents used that as a rule. I do recall my dad taking my sister outside once as she was very active. I guess over all I was a passive and quiet child and able to sit still probably at a young age.
Comment # 30 left by Barb on June 28th, 2007
I didn’t finish my sentence correctly. I meant to say that I do not want to sound judgmental of those who let their children play at Church. I would encourage the more quiet activities personally such as quiet books. Children are encouraged to be in our meetings. I heard a talk where a little child playing quietly behind a chair who must have been around two piped in with the answer to the lesson. Children are absorbing more than I imagine. I have no children. I have the ability to focus pretty good and get a lot out of Sacrament meeting amidst active children. Plus, I enjoy seeing children and their enthusiasm. I have often enjoyed the interactions and exchanges that take place during that meeting between adults and children.
Comment # 31 left by Barb on June 28th, 2007
Well what may be a higher standard for one person may not be a higher standard for another, so it is hard to tell.
Agreed, and I think that this has been a theme in this discussion. But the point is that there can be a sense of progression for someone in their “hedges” (I don’t like this term because it can imply negativity and I don’t think such progression, if guided by God, is a negative.) Again, it’s all a negative if it becomes a measuring stick or beating stick for others (or even for one’s self sometimes).
The Lord’s grace is sufficient as we are seeking to turn to Him, wherever we are, as long as we are giving it our best at that time. What might be my best at one point in life won’t always look the same if I’m progressing. We should expect that we will have changes in what we do, think, say, etc. if we are progressing. We should always be asking the Lord “what next”?
Comment # 32 left by Michelle on June 29th, 2007