This archive Sunday post by fMhLisa originally appeared on September 1, 2009. Read the original post and comments here.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
We Mormons have a cultural habit of embracing random rules and granting them if not technically then culturally canonical status. You know the rules of which I speak: Don’t drink caffeinated drinks, don’t watch rated R (or even if your really a really really good person PG-13) movies, and more recently No Sleepovers.
One of the reason behind this cultural practice, IMO, is our general lack of set doctrine, necessitated by our belief in continuing revelation. Whatever our current prophet says trumps anything the previous prophets might have said (though problematically we don’t really like to discuss the fact that prophetic teachings change because implying that previous prophets might have been mistaken makes us feel all squirmy and uncomfortable.) And thus further, the current prophet is almost guaranteed not to directly contradict previous teaching but rather to subtly shift and/or cease teaching the old ways (for instance ban on birth control), thus what the current teachings are exactly is nearly always up for debate.
The rules that are actually and truly canonical, cut and dry, are few (ban on coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, fornication, adultery) but even some of those have their gray areas (mocha ice cream, the mysterious place where kissing meets petting) that will be interpreted wildly differently by every member and every bishop. Which in many ways goes along with our “teach correct principals and let them govern themselves” (theoretical) mentality.
But here’s where my conundrum lies. We Mormons place a high premium on obedience. Which I think can be both good and problematic at the same time. And we place a high value on stewardship, I have a duty to obey my own bishop, but not so much some other person’s bishop. Paradoxically, I also have a right to personal revelation, and almost every rule of Momonism (outside of a very very few) is followed by an exemption for personal revelation and self-governance.
So prior to this past Sunday, I felt no qualms about completely ignoring, utterly dismissing, the new Mormon fad of not allowing sleepovers. (Almost none of the Mormons in my area allow them. In fact I’ve had many non-Mormons express much shock that I do.) I’d hear rumors of this letter read by some minor and distant church authority asking parents to desist, and I felt perfectly comfortable looking at the reasoning given (bad things can happen and it’s just easier to say no to everything) and concluding it to be flawed and faulty reasoning and relying on my own wisdom as a parent to decide on a case by case basis (I hate blanket bans rooted in vague conjecture, stupid, stupid, stupid) what is a safe and enriching activity for my children. As my own mother, a wise and orthodox Mormon of the highest order, did before me. Thus allowing me to attend many fun and enriching sleepover activities, of which I have warm and fuzzy memories.
But this week, my own bishop read that letter (anyone have a link to that letter, I think it might have been from a 70 or stake president somewhere) lending this vague rumor a new patina of authority. And I wonder, how much credence do I owe that patina? I feel comfortable in saying that there is absolutely no doctrinal/prophetic basis for this advice. At no time in the near future is the question “Do you allow your children to attend sleepovers?” going to be added to the temple recommend questions. I feel strongly that sleepovers have been a positive and enriching activity in my children’s lives. I wonder if my bishop has been carried off on the cultural Mormon band-wagon.
However, he is my bishop.
But even ‘how much obedience one owes one’s bishop’ (when is he speaking as bishop, when is he just another man, when is he mistaken, when do I appeal to a higher authority) fits into the category of those rules by which we must govern ourselves. There is a lot of cultural pressure in the direction of blind obedience, but I’m not so sure about the doctrinal soundness of it all.
I’m not of a rebellious nature, not at all inclined to go out and break rule for the fun of it. I don’t see the harm in having a glass of wine with dinner, but I don’t do it because as a rule it has a weight, a history, and an importance in my religious life that I think matters. But when the rules start spreading to things like a second earring, and facial hair, and now sleepovers, I start to feel like I have ants crawling under my skin, I feel prodded toward rebelliousness (despite my natural good girl inclinations) because it’s just so silly and arbitrary and uptight. Aren’t we supposed to be taught principals (rather than narrow confining rules) and then governing ourselves?
And further, is there any way that one could respectfully express this sort of feeling to the bishop without taking all the air out of the Sunday School room just before many heads exploded and I was hit by lightening? Is there any way I could raise my hand and say, “you know bishop, I wonder about the doctrinal basis for this sleepover ban, what gospel principle is it based on? Has this been mentioned in General Conference? Has the Prophet expressed an opinion? Is this perhaps something that should be left for families to decide?” Probably should keep my mouth shut, huh?
PS: Just to be clear I was not really interested in discussing sleepovers specifically (which is what this is turning into) but rather the wider questions of obedience, stewardship, and cultural orthodoxy in a wider context. I guess if this turns into a sleepover debate that’s okay, but it wasn’t what I was going for.