LDS Culture Pet Peeves
Sometimes Latter-day Saints are like fertilizer. Spread them throughout the land and they make beautiful things grow. Pile them up in one place and they just start to stink. Some of these problems are just the natural results of putting a bunch of imperfect people together; others are direct results of the LDS Church's policies and teachings. Many of them applies almost exclusively to Utah and maybe a couple other states, and may mean nothing to Saints in other parts of the world.
Dating
LDS culture certainly isn't the entire reason why dating has inflicted more psychological damage on me than my childhood bullies could have dreamed of, but it's a big part. If you ask twelve young single adults what constitutes a "date", whether and how it differs from "hanging out", and what degree of romantic interest and/or commitment it implies, you're likely to get twelve different answers. Everyone seems to have their own set of rules and assume that everyone else has the same ones. It's quite asinine.
Nearly two decades ago, Dallin H. Oaks observed some of the problems, which as of now have not improved: "For whatever reason, high school boys felt they had to do something elaborate or bizarre to ask for a date, especially for an event like a prom, and girls felt they had to do likewise to accept. In addition, a date had to be something of an expensive production. I saw some of this on the BYU campus during the ’70s. I remember seeing one couple having a dinner catered by friends on the median strip between lanes of traffic just south of the BYU football stadium.... And, young women, please make it easier for these shy males to ask for a simple, inexpensive date. Part of making it easier is to avoid implying that a date is something very serious. If we are to persuade young men to ask for dates more frequently, we must establish a mutual expectation that to go on a date is not to imply a continuing commitment. Finally, young women, if you turn down a date, be kind. Otherwise you may crush a nervous and shy questioner and destroy him as a potential dater, and that could hurt some other sister." (P.S. "Be kind" does not mean "lie".)
Nearly two decades ago, Dallin H. Oaks observed some of the problems, which as of now have not improved: "For whatever reason, high school boys felt they had to do something elaborate or bizarre to ask for a date, especially for an event like a prom, and girls felt they had to do likewise to accept. In addition, a date had to be something of an expensive production. I saw some of this on the BYU campus during the ’70s. I remember seeing one couple having a dinner catered by friends on the median strip between lanes of traffic just south of the BYU football stadium.... And, young women, please make it easier for these shy males to ask for a simple, inexpensive date. Part of making it easier is to avoid implying that a date is something very serious. If we are to persuade young men to ask for dates more frequently, we must establish a mutual expectation that to go on a date is not to imply a continuing commitment. Finally, young women, if you turn down a date, be kind. Otherwise you may crush a nervous and shy questioner and destroy him as a potential dater, and that could hurt some other sister." (P.S. "Be kind" does not mean "lie".)
Obsession with Heterosexual Marriage
Of course, this one is completely understandable, given the church's teachings, and it would be selfish of me to expect a change. It's just a little uncomfortable for those few of us who are asexual and have little interest in dating or marriage, and gay and lesbian members don't enjoy it very much either. Of course, one thing I do think is ridiculous is girls thinking they need to get married when they're nineteen and guys when they're twenty-one, but if it's true love and their choice and not the cultural pressure than I suppose it's none of my business. My own mother got married at nineteen and she turned out all right. Her firstborn child is another story, though.
Modesty Fetish
This wasn't an issue whatsoever in any of my YSA wards, but in many Young Women's programs and in the Internet community it often is. I'm going to be completely honest and say that, being heteromantic, I couldn't possibly care less how long a girl's skirt/shorts are or whether her shoulders are covered; notwithstanding, I accept modesty as a way for both men and women to show respect for themselves and God. But talking about it too often and only applying it to women can send the wrong message. It can put an undue emphasis on young women's bodies and lead them to implicitly believe that their minds and hearts aren't worth addressing as well. Further, the blame for young men's dirty thoughts is often shifted to them. "You have to keep yourself covered so that boys can control their thoughts when they look at you." That's just wrong. If boys want to have dirty thoughts, then they will. End of story.
Also, modesty is about far more than just clothing. It's about an attitude that says "I have respect for myself and I don't go flaunting myself." Ironically, an undue emphasis on clothing, and slogans like "Modest is hottest" and so on, can send the reverse message. It can send the message that a young woman is only virtuous and worthy of respect if her sleeves are a certain length. And it is never appropriate for a middle-aged male leader to pull a young woman aside in the hallway and comment on the length of her skirt. But I also get annoyed at members who claim that talking about modesty at all automatically equals "shaming".
Sexism Against Women
The modesty fetish is an example of sexism against women. Others include not listening to them in leadership councils or giving them adequate opportunities to speak, relegating them to a second-class status in marriage, and telling them not to have careers outside the home unless it's an emergency. Most of these problems are deeply engrained in our history and in the past have been reinforced at all levels wrongly teaching that the gender roles invented by white Americans in 1946 were eternal principles. Often it's under the guise of venerating motherhood. By all means, venerate motherhood. But recognize that no woman can become a mother without a man, and her ability to do so has a lot more to do with luck than personal worthiness or ability. Holding this up as women's primary purpose on Earth and throughout eternity, regardless of their wide range of individualized talents and skills and capacities that have little or nothing to do with being a parent, is extremely degrading. It treats everyone with a womb as interchangeable. While I'm on the subject, the equivalent of motherhood is fatherhood, not priesthood.
Sexism Against Men
Having heard countless times in local church settings that women are God's greatest creation, that a man's wife is his "better half", that men hold the priesthood to raise them up to the level that women are already at by default, that a bishop is chosen by finding the most righteous and spiritual member in the ward and then calling her husband, that we'll probably have to practice polygamy in the celestial kingdom because there will be a lot fewer men there, etcetera, I can perhaps be forgiven for feeling like God loves me just a little bit less because I have a Y chromosome. It isn't fair to women either, who often feel guilty for not living up to the stereotype of perfection that's attributed to them. And if we truly value women and see them as equals, we shouldn't need men to give church talks about how amazing women are, because our actions should be speaking louder than our words.
Fear of Sex
I have no qualms about the church's law of chastity stating that sexual relations are only proper within marriage, except the part where same-sex marriage is excluded. And as an asexual/heteromantic person, it isn't difficult for me to keep. But Latter-day Saints often seem to forget that sex within that context is (allegedly) sacred and beautiful, and that sex is not an inherently bad thing. It is often treated as a complete taboo, as a dirty word not to be uttered under any circumstances. When spoken of in the "good" context it is often replaced with the ridiculous euphemism "intimacy". News flash: Intimacy is a broad category covering many types of emotional and physical things, and is not and never has been synonymous with sex. Just call it sex (or sexual intercourse, if you want to get technical), because that's what it is. Incidentally, this attitude seems to be a recent reaction to society's increasing obsession with sex - for example, a 1956 Deseret Book publication had some surprisingly candid and straightforward things to say about it.
Obsession with Endowments
I hold no disrespect for the sacred ordinance of the endowment. However, as one whose endowment was delayed as a result of waiting a few more years than normal for my mission, I found it hurtful that everyone else seemed to make the word synonymous with "temple". For example, when institute teachers asked how many of us had "been to the temple", what they really meant was how many of us had been endowed, as if the many times I'd been to the temple literally didn't count. (And yes, they did say "to", not "through".) Same thing when they said "This will make more sense if you've been to the temple." When the bishop announced a "ward temple day", I was the only person to not automatically realize that he really meant "ward endowment sessions day". It was as if the sacred and essential ordinance of baptism for the dead was suddenly beneath everyone's notice, and though I knew I shouldn't, I felt embarrassed to still be doing it along with a bunch of teenagers. It got to the point that I nearly stopped going for that very reason, but I came to realize that whether anyone else cared what I was doing was irrelevant - God appreciated it, and the deceased people to whom I was providing essential service also appreciated it, and the people running the baptistry appreciated it and were always happy to see me, and that was all that mattered.
Pressure to Serve a Mission
My mission is between me and the Lord. The Prophet and Apostles, as the Lord's chosen representatives, have every right to pressure me to go on a mission. My parents, my bishop, and my girlfriend do not. I've been lucky in that regard - my parents and my bishops never have, and neither has my girlfriend because I've never had one. But I see it happening to other people and I think it's a shame. The worst thing is girls who say they'll only marry an "RM". They'll forgive a guy who's had premarital sex, abused drugs, etc., but not serving a mission is beyond the pale. I wish they would understand that "RM" is nothing more or less than a label with no intrinsic correlation whatsoever to current righteousness or worthiness or marriage compatibility. Everyone, male or female, should be judged on their current personalities and actions, not what they did or didn't do in the past. Institute teacher Scott Irwin said, "You guys who have served missions, you all had that companion that, if he tried to date your sister, you would punch him in the throat."
Every worthy and able young man should serve a mission. Nonetheless, it's not my place or anyone else's to judge a worthy and able young man who chooses not to, regardless of the reason. It's important to keep in mind that a mission, despite being an obligation and carrying huge blessings, is a very real commitment and sacrifice. Furthermore, it's not appropriate to serve if you don't already have a testimony. (That doesn't mean you need to have the strongest testimony or a testimony of every aspect of the gospel; but if you aren't even sure whether you believe the basics, then teaching them to non-members is dishonest.) That's why my mission is between me and the Lord only, and the same holds true for everyone. Also, remember that eighteen is the minimum age for missionary service for young men, not the required one. While I certainly don't recommend waiting longer if there's no reason to, there's nothing wrong with doing a year of college first (in fact, that can help by giving the young man experience away from home) or waiting a year or two to resolve emotional or spiritual health issues. I used to feel awkward about not being on a mission during my entire nineteenth year (the age change happened while I was nineteen), but there was no reason to, because there wasn't a thing wrong with it.
Every worthy and able young man should serve a mission. Nonetheless, it's not my place or anyone else's to judge a worthy and able young man who chooses not to, regardless of the reason. It's important to keep in mind that a mission, despite being an obligation and carrying huge blessings, is a very real commitment and sacrifice. Furthermore, it's not appropriate to serve if you don't already have a testimony. (That doesn't mean you need to have the strongest testimony or a testimony of every aspect of the gospel; but if you aren't even sure whether you believe the basics, then teaching them to non-members is dishonest.) That's why my mission is between me and the Lord only, and the same holds true for everyone. Also, remember that eighteen is the minimum age for missionary service for young men, not the required one. While I certainly don't recommend waiting longer if there's no reason to, there's nothing wrong with doing a year of college first (in fact, that can help by giving the young man experience away from home) or waiting a year or two to resolve emotional or spiritual health issues. I used to feel awkward about not being on a mission during my entire nineteenth year (the age change happened while I was nineteen), but there was no reason to, because there wasn't a thing wrong with it.
Anti-Science Attitude
Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, some Latter-day Saints still cling to creationism with as much tenacity as evangelicals. I've covered the problems with creationism in greater detail elsewhere. They may draw additional support for such an attitude from 2 Nephi 9:28; "When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish." But the next verse is equally important: "But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." Other scriptures and prophetic admonitions teach us that secular knowledge is valuable and should be sought after. What's even worse, though, is when Latter-day Saints believe that same-sex attraction is a choice. This contradicts not only science but the Church's own explicit stance. Obviously it makes them more comfortable than the idea that people are being afflicted with such a trial through no fault of their own, but since when is the truth always comfortable?
Turning Tradition into Doctrine
None of the concepts on this page should ever be willfully transplanted beyond the United States, along with the actual message of the Restoration, by well-meaning missionaries. Even seemingly innocuous concepts like the aversion to facial hair or taking the sacrament with one's left hand should not be perpetuated, for the simple reason that they are neither part of the gospel nor the church and they impede the progress of both outside the United States. Boyd K. Packer noted, "We can't move with a 1947 Utah Church! Could it be that we are not prepared to take the gospel because we are not prepared to take (and they are not prepared to receive) all of the things we have wrapped up with it as extra baggage?"
Knee-Jerk Reaction of Anything Uncomfortable
If it isn't on the church's website then it isn't true, some thinking goes. Perhaps LDS historian Davis Bitton said it best: "'Think not when ye study church history,' we might sing, 'that everyone was always smiling, that the women were always dressed in freshly laundered, starched pinafores, that the men spoke softly, grammatically, and always politely, or that the children were well mannered angels.' Think not! In other words,get real! I suppose this is a message to those church members who have such tender eyes and ears that the real history of real people comes as shock and awe. 'Oh, no,' they whine. 'This can't be true.' Or, quick to judge, they attack the historian, accusing him or her of lacking spirituality or coveting the praise of the world. My message in many such cases is, 'Please! Don’t speak until you know what you are talking about.' Or if that sentence is too long, try this: 'Grow up.'"
Such an attitude has broad consequences. Marvin Perkins recalled, "As an exuberant new member of the Church, I was in a conversation with someone, trying to share the gospel. As we spoke, he pointed out what he said was a fault of Joseph Smith. In my inexperience, I defended Brother Joseph with denial – 'impossible... couldn't be.' My new-member mind was saying that the Church was true, so what this man was saying couldn't be. I'd later find out that his claim was true. Now it didn't bother me as much to find out that Joseph was human and had faults as it did that my credibility with this man was shot because I was willing to defend something in total ignorance. I had not studied the issue he'd presented, yet I was willing to speak out on it. Once my credibility was gone, I felt I had little chance at helping him want to know more about the Church."
Such an attitude has broad consequences. Marvin Perkins recalled, "As an exuberant new member of the Church, I was in a conversation with someone, trying to share the gospel. As we spoke, he pointed out what he said was a fault of Joseph Smith. In my inexperience, I defended Brother Joseph with denial – 'impossible... couldn't be.' My new-member mind was saying that the Church was true, so what this man was saying couldn't be. I'd later find out that his claim was true. Now it didn't bother me as much to find out that Joseph was human and had faults as it did that my credibility with this man was shot because I was willing to defend something in total ignorance. I had not studied the issue he'd presented, yet I was willing to speak out on it. Once my credibility was gone, I felt I had little chance at helping him want to know more about the Church."
Gullibility
On the flip side of that, anything faith-promoting is accepted as truth by many people, hence the prevalence of several LDS myths that refuse to die. A faith-promoting urban legend posted on Facebook can get thousands of likes and shares while the retraction or rebuttal usually gets two or three. When I posted this dubious story asking for information about it, it became the most viral thing I'd ever written. Similarly, questioning a Sunday School or institute teacher is sometimes considered unthinkable. While these men and women deserve respect and cooperation, they aren't perfect, and they shouldn't be allowed to accidentally teach falsehoods because the students think every word they say must be doctrine. You're actually doing them a favor if you politely correct them.
Stupid Clichés
"The church is perfect but the people aren't." This is logically impossible and demonstrably untrue in many ways. As President Dieter F. Uchtdorf said, "I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings." Besides which, "perfection" in its scriptural sense contains a sense of completeness, and the church is still evolving toward that state. And besides which, more often than not this cliché is used to excuse crappy behavior by Latter-day Saints instead of calling it out.
"Everything happens for a reason." The implication being, I suppose, that if your daughter is hit and killed by a drunk driver it's because God meant for it to happen. Meaning by logical extension that God foreordained the drunk driver to do it. God gives us free will, He doesn't need to micromanage every moment of every person's life in order for His plan to work out, and sometimes crap just happens.
"I don't need to worry about that because it's not important to my salvation." You spend how many hours of your life devoted to tasks that aren't important to your salvation, yet when someone asks a question or starts a discussion that is gospel related but outside the bounds of official doctrine, suddenly you can't be bothered to do any thinking? Sheesh.
"Everything happens for a reason." The implication being, I suppose, that if your daughter is hit and killed by a drunk driver it's because God meant for it to happen. Meaning by logical extension that God foreordained the drunk driver to do it. God gives us free will, He doesn't need to micromanage every moment of every person's life in order for His plan to work out, and sometimes crap just happens.
"I don't need to worry about that because it's not important to my salvation." You spend how many hours of your life devoted to tasks that aren't important to your salvation, yet when someone asks a question or starts a discussion that is gospel related but outside the bounds of official doctrine, suddenly you can't be bothered to do any thinking? Sheesh.
BYU
I don't actually hate BYU, even though being an Aggie sort of obligates me to. I appreciate the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (even after a couple of bureaucrats ruined it), I count many BYU students and alumni that I count among my friends (and parents, and sister), and I know very little about BYU-Idaho or BYU-Hawaii except that BYU-Idaho doesn't allow shorts. I let go of most of my animosity toward BYU in January 2014 when, on the plane ride back from New York, one of Leonard Arrington's young BYU student relatives looked me in the eye and said, "I think you hate us more than we hate you." Then, when the plane got back too late and I would have been stranded at the airport, another BYU student that I met through my friend Laura who happened to be returning from Vermont on the same flight, let me crash at her place for the night. Even though Ms. Arrington unexpectedly blocked me when I tried to add her on Facebook, those experiences stuck with me. So don't take the following criticisms too harshly.
How anyone can stand being in a bubble with that many Latter-day Saints is beyond me, and I don't think it prepares you for the real world beyond the Wasatch Front, but to each their own. I personally think the Honor Code is ridiculous. It invades the students' personal lives, holds them to a higher standard than the church does, turns them into self-righteous spies and snitches, inadvertently encourages sexual harassment, and practices punishment without forgiveness (how many people will confess their serious sins to their bishops if it costs them their scholarships?). On top of that, non-members are allowed to attend BYU, but ex-members are kicked out. How is that okay? Because they broke covenants that they no longer consider valid? Should they be forced to keep them anyway and live a lie instead? Yeah, I know, "If you don't like BYU, don't go there." I didn't. And if you don't like me criticizing BYU, don't read it.
How anyone can stand being in a bubble with that many Latter-day Saints is beyond me, and I don't think it prepares you for the real world beyond the Wasatch Front, but to each their own. I personally think the Honor Code is ridiculous. It invades the students' personal lives, holds them to a higher standard than the church does, turns them into self-righteous spies and snitches, inadvertently encourages sexual harassment, and practices punishment without forgiveness (how many people will confess their serious sins to their bishops if it costs them their scholarships?). On top of that, non-members are allowed to attend BYU, but ex-members are kicked out. How is that okay? Because they broke covenants that they no longer consider valid? Should they be forced to keep them anyway and live a lie instead? Yeah, I know, "If you don't like BYU, don't go there." I didn't. And if you don't like me criticizing BYU, don't read it.
Judgmentalism
Disclaimer: I haven't personally encountered much of this outside of the Internet. Second Disclaimer: "judgmentalism" is one of those words that's been so overused by the political correctness police as to lose most of its relevance. Nonetheless, it remains a problem - and not an exclusively LDS problem, obviously, but an unfortunate component of human nature. Any large enough religious, political, or socioeconomic demographic becomes that way. Thus it is one of the biggest disillusionments for Latter-day Saints who move to Utah from other states, or for Saints who grow up in Utah and deviate from the norm too much. Whether this amounts to just being different or actually breaking church standards, the prescription is the same: treat them with love and don't be judgmental. That's what Christ would do. Of course, that doesn't mean compromising your own standards or pretending that immorality and false teachings are okay.
Mormon Standard Time
Something about many Latter-day Saints, at least in the United States, seems to make them incapable of showing up for meetings on time even when the chapel is five minutes from their house. Instead of addressing this problem, they embrace it by joking about "Mormon Standard Time". Ugh.
Asking "What Color is Your Toothbrush?" at Church Dances
It was clever the first five hundred times I heard it; now please knock it off.