Avoiding the Appearance of Evil is Stupid
This marks the end of my guest stint at fMh. Thank you all so much for your thoughts and support. I’ve had a great time here and hope to post again sometime in the future. This is a godsend of a site and I’m honored to have been part of it.
“Abstain from all appearances of evil.” - 1 Thessalonians 5:22
“Since there are no harmless flirtations and there is no place for jealousy after marriage, it is best to avoid the very appearance of evil by shunning any questionable contact with another to whom we are not married.”
- President James E. Faust, April 2007 Ensign: First Presidency Message: Enriching Your Marriage (emphasis added)
“Believing involves faith and good works. We cannot be passive; we must actively avoid evil. This means that we do not trifle with sacred things. Families in this day and time should not only avoid evil but avoid the very appearance of evil. To combat these influences families must have family prayer, family home evening, and family scripture study.”
- President James E. Faust. November 1997 Ensign: Pioneers of the Future: Be Not Afraid, Only Believe. Reprinted in the July 1998 New Era. (emphasis added)
“The best counsel I ever received about staying away from the edge came when, as a young married man, President Harold B. Lee called me to be a member of a bishopric. He said, ‘From now on, you must not only avoid evil, but also the appearance of evil.’ He did not interpret that counsel. That was left to my conscience.”
- President James E. Faust, November 1995 Ensign: Acting for Ourselves and Not Being Acted Upon (emphasis added)
Appearances by Sheila Kindred in the November 2002 Friend uses a story to illustrate the dangers in encouraging the appearance of evil. Fresh from their Boy Scout meeting, a little boy and his friend waited in the parking lot for their parents. One boy jokingly put a piece of chalk to his mouth and quipped “Yeah. Look at me, I’m cool.” A car full of rowdy teenagers drove by at that moment and cheered. A member of the boys’ ward happened by also and, shocked, made sure to inform the boy’s mom. After the boy cleared himself of all misconceptions, his mother suggested he call the mistaken ward member to apologize for his actions.
I could go on with the amount of Ensign/New Era/and Friend articles that deal with this idea, but it would be a very long list. If you like, here it is.
I don’t want to seem as criticizing our leaders (heaven forbid!) - instead, I am criticizing an idea our leaders and many members have adopted.
The first quote I listed was scripture. How do you argue with or even rationalize scripture? By using the footnotes.
In footnote “appearances” footnote “b” for this scripture you’ll see ”GR kinds. TG. Apparel.”
Let’s rephrase that scripture then: Abstain from all kinds of evil.
Changes things, doesn’t it?
I have to give credit where due; I first heard this at Soy Made Me Gay: Soundbyte Doctrine. The idea of avoiding the appearance of evil always struck me stupid, but I didn’t know there was scriptural support for it. Yay!
The second quote refers to our neuroticism as a church in hanging out with opposite sex friends. Of course we shouldn’t hang out with someone we are attracted to - that’s not a good idea, but I do think President Faust overstepped the mark here. Wouldn’t it have been enough to simply state “We should shun any questionable contact with another to whom we are not married”?
As in, don’t place your hand on another’s thigh.
Some years ago I had to attend church alone. I showed up at the same time as an old guy friend of mine, and we ended up walking in together, talking. Down the aisle in the chapel we went, a bit late, and my insides knotted. What if they think we’re together? What if they think I’m cheating on my husband?
Who the hell cares what “they” think?
I’m tired of worrying about what other people think and I’m tired of having others tell me I ought to concern myself with what other people think. I do that well enough on my own, thankyouverymuch.
But the appearance of evil doesn’t stop there. Consider this familiar scenario: Work is having an office party. The boss asks you to make a store run, and as you leave someone shouts, “Can you grab a case of beer while you’re out?”
Now you’re left with a dichotomy: Get the beer because, well, it’s not for you to use or judge those who do, and you won’t drink. But is buying the beer a matter of condoning bad, yea, even “immoral” behavior?
That’s an individual decision. Many will decide to not get the case of beer. I’ve had one reader state she wouldn’t due to her hatred for alcohol – she feels against facilitating its use. That’s fine. My issue comes with this excuse:”I don’t want to give the wrong impression. What if an investigator, new member, or ward member is in the store and sees me? What will they think?”
Again, what the hell does it matter?
I’m unsure as to others, but in my stake I’ve heard leaders preach avoiding the appearance of evil over the pulpit because someone might see you and, knowing you’re a member, think bad things about the Church (ah! they do drink!) or decide that they don’t want to associate with a church that does not practice what they preach when of course we do!
This strikes me as a very PR stance. I’ve had people suggest before that the individual matters less than the image of the church. Screw that.
Christ hung out with the prostitutes, the publicans, the lepers. He spoke the parable of the Good Samaritan in which everyone but the Samaritan concerned themselves more with the law and appearances rather than actually following Christ and doing that which was right.
We worry too much about ourselves and not nearly enough about other people - and I mean more in the sense of how others will see us versus the needs of our fellow man. What matters more? Our image or our neighbor?
In hanging out with the sinners, even Christ was misunderstood. The people concerned themselves too much with the law, with appearances, with the letter rather than the spirit of what Christ spoke of, of what God would want.
“The Son of man is come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!” (Luke 7:34)
Should Christ have avoided the appearance of evil?
Should we?
If we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we need to be willing to get in the dirt with them. We have to be willing to chance a little gossip at church, perhaps a bit of a bad rap. In the end, what God thinks matters most. Not the girls in Relief Scoiety, not my bishop, not even the prophet (gasp!). As long as I know what I’m doing and God knows what I’m doing, I’m fine. Misconceptions can be cleared up, but sometimes gossip persists and I can’t control that. I’ve better things to do with my time.
If a person wants to judge me or my kid based on appearance only, than so be it. That’s not my problem. I wouldn’t make my kid apologize to anyone in a situation like the one discussed in the Friend. The woman gave the other mom a head’s up, and I’ve no issue with that, but I certainly wouldn’t compel my kid to apologize when he or she did nothing wrong.
And I certainly wouldn’t guilt trip my kid about keeping up “good” appearances. That’s a load of crap.
I tend to read the line about “avoiding the appearance of evil” as staying as far away as possible from the margins of sin. I don’t think it has much to do with the idea of “keeping up appearances.”
Some years ago, I learned that my spouse at the time had had one or more extramarital affairs, at least one of which was with a professor of hers. (I still don’t know how many affairs there were. She admitted to at least one, but I have my suspicions that there were more, based on pretty good evidence.)
While I certainly was not perfect, and I undoubtedly contributed to the dissolution of our marriage, I would like to think that if she had taken the advice of “avoiding the appearance of evil,” instead of staying late at class alone with the professor, going to his home, giving hugs to men she had only recently been introduced to (I saw this particular behavior with my own two eyes), and other inappropriate actions, things might have turned out differently.
Having experienced what I have, you can’t convince me that the counsel to “avoid the appearance of evil” is poor advice. We may start out with seemingly harmless behaviors, “innocently” crossing over the “line” on rare occasions, only to find overselves one day having destroying the things that are good in our lives.
Comment by B — January 8, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
To some degree I understand where you’re coming from. We should fear God more than we fear man. But that said, being a member of the LDS church comes with sacrifices sometimes. We are asked to be an example. The fact is, people do look at us and watch us. We are representatives of Christ and we should look and act as such. I know there are circumstances that might be justified. Like helping a friend move on the Sabbath for example. But that kid pretending a piece of chalk was a cigarette to look “cool” seems kind of stupid to me. And it was unnecessary and has nothing to do with loving our neighbor as ourselves, as you said, or being willing to get in the dirt with them. That’s a completely different scenario.
Comment by mk7 — January 8, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
I have a coffee maker sitting on my kitchen counter in plain view. Do I use it? No — it’s there for the nurses who care for my son so that they can have coffee if they want it. At first, I worried about what my LDS friends would think when they saw it (and the filters and coffee in my cupboard), but then I realized I didn’t care. It’s more important that my son have good care from excellent nurses who may have a cup of coffee or smoke a cigarette on my front porch than “keeping up appearances.”
I really enjoyed this post and I agree with you — I think we worry far too much about what others might think about our appearance than our heart. God looks at the heart and what God thinks matters most. Amen.
Comment by Andrea — January 8, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
But there’s a difference between “staying late with the professor” “giving him hugs” and hanging out with him without your knowledge (I assume it was without your knowledge…?)versus her just having a friend. There’s “friends” and then there’s friends.
All that said, B, my sincerest condolences. I can only imagine what that must have been like for you, and I’m truly sorry it happened.
There’s a difference between flirting with the line/with other men or women and fearing walking into a Starbucks because someone might think you drink coffee and tell the bishop or the entire Relief Society. The same goes, I think, for grabbing a case of beer for a friend while you’re out if that’s something you don’t have personal problem with.
Comment by LisaJ — January 8, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Sure, some people take this to the extreme when they won’t get hot chocolate at Starbucks since it’s generally a coffee joint, but the advice to “avoid the appearance of evil” is good advice.
I think each one of us has to determine individually what this means to us. I still keep in touch with male friends that I grew up with. Those friendships are very meaningful to me, but I have certain rules that I made for myself when I got married to make sure that those relationships could still be meaningful without stepping over into the area of inappropriateness (I doubt I spelled that right).
I see the “appearance of evil” thing more as “avoid temptation”, and we’re all tempted by different things. My husband is an alcoholic. He doesn’t allow himself to go out with the fellas when they go to the bar to watch a game because he know’s that is his temptation. He would surely drink if he were around alcohol. That is also why we can’t go to parties at friends’ homes who drink alcohol. It’s not because we judge them. It’s because he does everything he has to to avoid drinking and risking hurting someone or getting another DUI.
I think Lisa interprets this scripture as saying that we should avoid everything/everyone that seems bad and keep ourselves in a little bubble. I don’t see it that way. We are encouraged to avoid evil, but to also be missionaries and examples. That means we need to be out there in the world and sharing experiences with people. We each just have to be in tune to what the spirit is saying to us and we have to know what our limits our. What tempts my husband doesn’t tempt me, so we each “avoid” different situations. It’s up to the interpretation of each individual.
Comment by The Faithful Girl — January 8, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
I wholeheartedly agree that doing things “for the sake of appearances” is ridiculous. I don’t care if somebody sees me pick up a case of beer or whatever at the store; there are many things I can do with beer besides drink it (my father-in-law, for example, used it to make his lawn greener). I don’t care if somebody sees me at a club or bar with a friend. But I also am careful to make sure that my actions are always in line with my beliefs and my morals, and somehow there’s a difference to me. I don’t spend time alone with members of the opposite sex simply because I don’t want to put myself in that situation, and I don’t want any questions of trust between myself and my husband; I guess I’d just rather not go there. While I don’t care what the general public and/or RS president think of me, I do care what my husband thinks and sees.
Bottom line, if people want to whisper about what they perceive of me, that’s fine. I don’t care. In the end, it’s between me and God. I agree with you in that I’d rather not sacrifice my friendships (members or not) for the sake of “making a point.” Will I go out for a drink with you after you’ve had a hard day? You betcha. Will I drink with you? No way.
Comment by Liz — January 8, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
I have just learned go ignore most of the Church’s teachings if they strike me as outrageous, outdated, or ridiculous.
Comment by Araceli — January 8, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
this cracked me up:- “someone might see you and, knowing you’re a member, think bad things about the Church (ah! they do drink!) ” because my non-member dh did just exactly that at a friend`s house - he saw a box that had “beer” written on it and afterwards made sure to tell me about it with the “ah! they do drink” type of attitude - turns out the box cnotained ROOT beer!!! (not something we see much of in this part of the world except in American members` houses)
Comment by namakemono — January 8, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
I took a history of the English language course once and for an assignment the professor had us learn enough Greek to be able to compare ten different translations of a single New Testament chapter to the original Greek and then judge which was the closest translation for its time. Among other things we learned that semester, I was really surprised to find out that the “appearances of evil” line from the Bible meant simply “avoid evil in *all its forms.*”
The KJV *was* a good translation… for English as it was spoken in 1600. (We ended up rating it second best after the Tyndale version and only because the Tyndale was so poetic. 80% of the KJV comes from the Tyndale, anyway, so it doesn’t really matter.)
I hadn’t realized before how so much of translation is about knowing how language changes. How phrases that made sense in 1600 can mean something completely different in 2008. (Just think of the word “gay,” for example.) And then I realized that misunderstandings become perceived doctrine and that’s… troubling.
So thanks for the post, LisaJ!
Comment by Isis — January 8, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
Here’s a different “take” on this issue: When my father was bishop of our Ward growing up, he said on many occasions that he wanted to avoid the appearance of evil mostly because he felt that he was the public face of the Church to many people in the community, and he never wanted to do anything to make someone question the Church. And so, at times, he went to great extremes to avoid being alone with a woman for fear that someone might impugn his behavior to the Church.
We laughed at some of the inane behaviors (I mean, come on, would anyone really think that my dad was going to get romantic with that 80-something woman?), but the principle makes a little more sense to me when considered in light of one’s position in relation to the Church (as opposed to keeping up appearances for purely personal reasons alone).
Comment by Hunter — January 8, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Here’s the footnote I wrote on this in my Footnotes to the NT for LDS:
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 8, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Oh, and I love the notion that someone having an affair would bring her amour to Church!
Comment by Kevin Barney — January 8, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
#6, Liz: Agreed. But if I run into one of my guy friends, and honestly I don’t have many I say more than “hey” to anymore, I shouldn’t fear having him sit with me for lunch.
When President Faust states “Since there are no harmless flirtations and there is no place for jealousy after marriage, it is best to avoid the very appearance of evil by shunning any questionable contact with another to whom we are not married.”
Questionable contact means not having lunch with a friend? Hm.
Of course I would never keep my husband in the dark and he never keeps me in the dark. He told me about a girl who would constantly hit on him on the bus on the way to the college - even though she knew he was married.
In the instance you feel you must keep your spouse in the dark, you’re stepping into questionable contact.
But if its because you fear what others might think, then screw it.
Comment by LisaJ — January 8, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
I agree with your point, and in regards to the scriptures, I always add …in the eyes of the Lord… at the end for my own benefit (not something I teach anyone, but it is how I have always interpreted it).
We are very preoccupied with how others see our virtue, which is why most of my friends are outside of the church. They don’t judge my every move and love me even with all of my many flaws.
Comment by Mary — January 8, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
To follow up on what Kevin just said, I like to translate the intent of the verse as, “Abstain from evil whenever it appears and no matter how it looks.” (its “appearance”) The key, imo, is to be able to understand what is and is not “evil” - and I believe either extreme is destructive. (1. everything that anyone possibly could interpret to be bad or 2. nothing except virulent and obvious evil)
Comment by Ray — January 8, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Well, I’m torn. On the one hand I think Faust’s quote is saved by the inclusion of the phrase “questionable contact.” On the other, I’m inclined to believe that someone who is the sort of person to cheat on their spouse will do it, whether or not it begins with “questionable contact” - I don’t believe that cheating is simply a matter of the opportunity for “questionable contact” presenting itself; if you want to cheat you’ll find a way to do it.
I’ve picked up alcohol for friends or family or work; people know from experience not to ask me to buy wine because I’m completely clueless at it. (I figure, they ask a non-drinker to pick up the wine, they take the chance I’ll pick up something crappy.) DH and I have bought cigarettes for his dad when we go through duty free; I’ve debated this one, but ultimately, he’s going to smoke whether or not we buy him cheap cigarettes, so we might as well save him some money. If a friend asks me out for coffee or for lunch at a pub, I say yes. For me it comes down to this: I made a covenant to follow the Word of Wisdom, but that is between me and the Lord. If someone wants to judge me, that is betweem them and the Lord.
Comment by Quimby — January 8, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
I love all these comments. I guess it really is how you interpret things.
I like the idea, Isis, that misunderstandings become perceived doctrines. Not that the idea of doing that is great, but that it is so true. I wonder how much of the “doctrine” in the church is just what somebody’s seminary teacher thought once and it all got spread around and around and around as fact.
The only thing I remember ever being taught about this scripture was when I was a kid and had to do with not walking into a bar so that any non-member who might be watching me wouldn’t think Mormon’s walked into bars. I think that’s a pretty common interpretation. And it might be a good interpretation for kids to understand. Maybe there is not one right interpretation. Like so much of the scriptures, the right interpretation is probably that there are many valid interpretations so that we can get what we need from the scriptures when we need it, which is accomplished by reading with the Spirit.
My personal take on this scripture is to think of “evil” as any other noun, say like an obstacle of some kind (as evil is), like a large boulder. If I was walking along and a large boulder appeared in my path, I would avoid it (by making a right flank and going around it). Likewise, if evil appeared in my path, I would avoid it as well.
Comment by Misty — January 8, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Years ago I had a very sick child at home on Sunday. I stayed home from church with him. After the rest of the family came home from church, I had to go to the store for tylenol to try to lower his high fever. I felt fine about going to the store on the Sabbath since it was for the care of my son. As I was walking into the closest store I ran into a very active LDS neighbor as she walked out. Our verbal exchange was as follows:
Neighbor - “returning late videos”
Self - “buying medicine for my sick son”
That was it! Years older and wiser now, I am appalled at my reaction. I now days would say hello and carry on with my business. I owe nobody an explanation as to my choices and behavior. They are between myself and my God. If others judge me due to my engaging in the “appearance of evil” then they too have something in which to repent.
Comment by bigmama — January 8, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
I always thought “The Appearance of Evil” would be a great name for a non-alcoholic bar based in Provo. I think it would be a successful endeavor.
More on point - I think most stress in life is caused by trying to be something we are not. I had the little v a few years back when we were done having kids and am quite open about it if asked. Now my buddy also had it done but he is extremely hush hush about it because he is worried what others will think or say. Living his life paranoid about the powers that be.
Comment by TStevens — January 8, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
But here’s the thing (to me). No one (okay, very few) sets out to cheat on their spouse. I’ve had a few friends who have been cheated upon and few who have done the cheating. I’ve had to council those who have been cheated on and those who have done the cheating in a Church setting. And none of the cases I know about set out to cheat. They simply became more and more comfortable with a person of the opposite sex who was not their spouse. That comfort, left unchecked, lead to intimacy - usually not physical intimacy at first but it eventually got there. It’s happened with work relationships. It’s happened with friendships. And it has happened with Church interactions.
IMHO, you are absolutely right that we should not worry unduly about what hypothetical ‘others’ might think of us. That’s “fearing man” more than “fearing God”. But skating the line just ’cause is also more than a little foolhardy.
Comment by Lon — January 8, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
This post sounded so negative, it’s like you’re fighting with your own conscience. Anyway, I avoid the appearance of evil, but I also have learned that what is important is my relationship with God.
When it is my turn to take the glass to recycling, if there are beer/wine bottles, I ask my roommates to take care of that because it’s kind of uncomfortable for me. They understand and I’m completely willing to help out in other ways. I think it depends where your heart is. If you feel guilty about being with someone of the opposite sex because you know that somewhere deep inside you are attracted to them, then it’s bad. If you’re with them and doing appropriate things and you don’t feel guilty, then don’t let others make you feel guilty.
When I decided not to accept my mission call, I’m sure people wondered. But do you know what? I knew that I was worthy and that there were other plans for me, so it didn’t matter to me what others thought.
Comment by Michelle Glauser — January 8, 2009 @ 5:30 pm
Making the child in that story apologize basically taught him “people are always watching you and judging you, and even if they make a mistake in their judgments, it’s your fault. Others’ opinions of you matter more than what you think of yourself, what God thinks of you, and even more than the truth of what you were actually doing”. Yeah, that’s a lesson I want to teach my children.
Overall I just think it’s sad that so many religions take it as a matter of course that everyone is “watching” everyone else to keep everyone in line. I actually heard a friend say to a V.T. “oh, I just got back from getting a mammogram, if you notice I don’t have my garment top on”. WHAT? The V.T., instead of saying she didn’t notice, it’s none of my business either way, etc., simply said “oh, good”. Not in an awkward “why are you telling me this?” way but in a thankful “good thing you explained that to me” way. I thought it was pretty sad that my friend felt she would need to explain herself in the first place.
Comment by sophia*rising — January 8, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
i had an experience recently that kind of has to do with this topic. a friends husband called and asked if his kids could play with my kids over at our local neighborhood park area. his had been in a car all day, and his wife had a presidency meeting, and they just needed to play. i said sure, when? he replied that he still had to get them dinner. i said that i already had dinner, and he could just come over and eat and then we could go and play. but my husband wasn’t home. and his wife wasn’t coming with him. while i don’t consider myself “alone” with another man when there are four kids in a house, it was very obvious that he was uncomfortable. it had never occurred to me to worry about being alone with my friends husband because we were friends. he felt the need to call and apologize to my husband later that night. so, i called and talked to my friend the next day. they have a rule to not get into a car with anyone of the opposite sex, but hadn’t thought about being alone in a house. i guess, perhaps it appeared “evil”, i was just trying to be a good friend and help the guy out. i’m still friends with that girl. but it just bothers me that he would feel the need to apologize for nothing. my husband wasn’t bothered at all. we don’t have trust issues. and whether or not this other couple did, i didn’t feel like i was being “evil”.
isn’t this just dumb? i’m all about making good choices and staying away from really bad places, but this was a little much. luckily i don’t live there anymore.
Comment by Terina — January 8, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Well, that’s debatable, isn’t it?
If anything, I’m trying to convince myself that it doesn’t matter what people think.
Harder than it ought to be, and I’m tired of being taught otherwise. I need to concern myself with my own actions and not worry about others meddling in what I may or may not be up to.
#23, Terina: Oh absolutely!
I hope this person doesn’t mind, but in a similar post on my blog, a commenter recalled her own story (heresay, but the message applies) where a group of Priesthood were asked if they would pick up a married sister who was stranded on the side of the road alone. Nobody said they would because they wanted to “avoid the appearance of evil.” She aptly responded that if a guy can’t help a stranded girl out without fearing he’d jump her bones, than he had other issues.
I tend to agree.
I’m also all for being a good example, but as a person who’s strived to be a good example all her member and non-member life, I’ve learned that I’ve never been true to myself but true to other people. I should want to do right because I believe it’s right, not because I don’t want to be held responsible should someone watching me decide to follow in my footsteps.
All too often we place part of the blame of someone’s missteps on anyone who may be setting a bad example instead of fully on the person who should’ve done what was right regardless.
Of course this isn’t true in the case of parents (parents should practice what they preach), so you could make the case for bishops and other church leaders, but as far as a big sister to a little sister, I think the pressure may be too much and eventually someone is liable to blow.
That may be a bit off topic, but since someone mentioned being a good example, I thought I’d bring it up.
(and anyway, if a bishop felt he couldn’t walk into a bar to help out a wayward member or just a friend because of keeping up appearances, than I think that’s wrong as well. We should worry more about helping others and befriending people than how the rest of the world will view us. This has nothing to do with personal integrity or personal choices - like to get drunk along with said wayward member to get his friendship - but just walking in shouldn’t be an issue. But that’s just me)
Comment by LisaJ — January 8, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
I agree with most of the commenters that as an adult, it is generally a waste of time for me to be constantly worrying whether someone is going to see what I’m doing and judge me or the church by my actions. I know that people might misinterpret my actions and then gossip about it, but I can decide for myself whether I’m willing to accept that possibility.
However, I don’t think it was stupid for the mother of the chalk smoker to make sure things were cleared up with the other ward member in order to protect her child’s reputation (although making the kid actually apologize might have been a little over-the-top…he didn’t really do anything wrong). The ward is a community that her child is part of and if the child is labelled a trouble-maker because of a gossiping ward member (whether the perceived ‘trouble’ was a misperception or not), that can have a profound impact on the way that child is treated by teachers and youth leaders, which can have an important effect on the child’s own self-perception and attitude.
Comment by Nicole J — January 8, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
I’m not trying to be naive here. I know we are all capable of anything. But I just don’t believe that it’s as slippery a slope as this. If you cheat on your spouse, at some point, you’ve got to make the choice to cheat on your spouse. It’s not as simple as, “Oh, I really shouldn’t join you for my morning break because then I’ll end up sleeping with you.” Cheating doesn’t happen “by accident” but by design. You have to actually make that choice.
Comment by Quimby — January 8, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
Either way you look at it, this is criticizing the doctrine of Church leaders. But I do agree that some people can be overly concerned about misperceived behavior. That’s where other parts of the Gospel come into play like not judging others’ intentions.
My parents flipped out when as a child I bought a candy cigarette (the kind that you could blow powder sugar out the other end), but because they didn’t want me thinking smoking was harmless or cool. I don’t think the Friend story is all that bad. As unbusheled candlesticks, we are supposed to be examples. Part of the reason why so many smokers became addicted at young ages is because they thought it was cool. The problem in the story is that the boy thought this, and, even though he of course wasn’t smoking, he thought it was cool. Thoughts lead to action. That’s not to say we aren’t going to make loads of mistakes, but let’s not exacerbate the situation by saying that avoiding the appearance of evil is bad.
Comment by Jon — January 8, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
RE 26:
But serious sins usually happen by gradual, little sins. You know, the “carefully down to hell” doctrine. Personal discretion is needed, but let’s not say it’s bad to avoid solo contact with MOTOS.
Comment by Jon — January 8, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
I agree with Jon. You might think you’re strong, but that’s one of Satan’s tricks. Making you believe you’re invincible like “Oh, that couldn’t happen to me.” I also think it has something to do with personality. People who love the attention of other individuals, especially from the opposite sex might be more inclined to engage in activities that could lead somewhere bad.
Comment by mk7 — January 8, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
Thought provoking post. I agree with some things - we should not worry too much about what others think, and disagree with others - I do think it’s important to avoid the appearance of evil. For ourselves and for others. Not so much for those who are going to judge us, but more for those who might be struggling.
I also am very careful about being alone with men. I don’t want to put myself in a tempting situation and even more importantly, I don’t want to put them in a tempting situation. (Not that I’m that tempting personally, but as a principle.) I have had some fairly close maie friendships in the past that I thought were JUST friends, only to find out that they had deeper feelings. (One was when I was single and he was married, another was when I was married and he was a married colleague.) In neither of these cases looking back did I EVER cross a line, but I should have been more careful about being too friendly. (So maybe I did cross a line by being friendly?) Also, we have to consider how a spouse would react. I had a home teacher when I was single who would come over to visit me with one or 2 of his children. I know it made his wife uncomfortable, so I was glad when he got reassigned.
So, all around I think being careful is good advice.
Comment by DeeAnn — January 8, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
I agree. It’s best to be careful.
But for the right reasons, you know?
Comment by LisaJ — January 8, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
I totally agree, Quimby. Every cheater made a decision to cheat. It did not “just happen”. But by the time they had made that decision, they had built up such a strong relationship with the “other person” (not a great word for that relationship) and had let their relationship with their spouse get so frayed, that cheating seemed more reasonable. I could relay several more examples of how this happens, but I don’t feel comfortable sharing other people’s stories in areas this sensitive without their consent. But I can say that the relationships that turned into adultery *ALL* started as innocent relationships in the workplace, home AND church.
Does this principle get taken to the stupid extreme? Absolutely. The idea that a priesthood holder would not pick up a woman from their ward who was broken down on the side of the road is frankly embarrassing. I’ve driven a single sister home later at night because she missed the last bus. My wife knew where I was and why. But any passing member could have seen me and could have jumped to all kinds of stupid conclusion. Their issue. Not mine. But just because there is a misapplication of the doctrine and doesn’t mean that the core doctrine is incorrect.
Comment by Lon — January 8, 2009 @ 6:41 pm
I’d go into starbucks to get coffee grounds, but I don’t think I’d get hot chocolate there. (unless it was spectacular- I can make good stuff at home).
I think it all comes down to (and I think someone said this) whether we are doing/not doing something because we feel comfortable/uncomfortable doing it, or whether it’s because of what someone else might think.
I like Kevin’s quote in #11, it makes sense to me. I hadn’t ever heard that before, although I guess it’s kind of how I interpreted that scripture.
Comment by Alliegator — January 8, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Even if the Thessalonian verse is a mistranslation, Paul teaches a similar principle when he advises the early church to . Not because it’s a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but because it may become a stumblingbock to pagan converts and lead to actual sin.
Comment by Mephibosheth — January 8, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Avoiding the appearance of evil because you don’t want people to think you’re a sinner is dodgy at best and prideful at worst.
Avoiding the appearance of evil because you don’t want to sin can be worthwhile.
I think that taking a moment to consider what counts as ‘the appearance of evil’ can be part of honest self-reflection that forces you to compare the apparent reasons for your actions against your stated reasons and decide which one might be more accurate.
For example you may find that you aren’t accidentally running into your friend at lunch so frequently by accident, but rather that one of you may be engineering it consciously or not.
Comment by Starfoxy — January 8, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
The link got jacked up. The relevant verses are here:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=1+cor+8%3A+4-13
Comment by Mephibosheth — January 8, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
RE 35:
Of course, but that’s not the reasoning behind avoiding the appearance of evil. And it’s not only to keep away from real evil, though I suspect that’s the big one. Some of it does have to do with portraying a positive image, you know, carrying the name of Christ. That doesn’t mean not going into Starbucks, but it does mean, I don’t know, not wearing a Budweiser t-shirt.
Comment by Jon — January 8, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
(Is starbucks hot chocolate really good enough to make it worth paying for? (I’m a hot chocolate snob).)
Comment by Alliegator — January 8, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
RE 38:
No. I only had it once, and it was pretty disappointing despite the hype. Some of my family like to add different creamers intended for coffee (like hazelnut something) that they really like.
Comment by Jon — January 8, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
What about members of the same sex? You never know, right? Let’s just avoid everyone so we can be true Christians.
Comment by Laurenna — January 8, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
I strongly agree with you in principle, Lisa. What we do shouldn’t be dictated by how we think it will look.
But when it comes to associating with the opposite sex, I’m with those who err on the side of caution. I know far too many people who’ve ended up in fornication or adultery because of being too familiar with those of the opposite sex. Neither party would be a sexual predator or seducer; all relationships started perfectly innocently. But friendship very easily moves on into much closer intimacy. It doesn’t happen to all such cross-gender friendships, but why risk it? Better to avoid not the appearance of evil, but the potential for evil, I figure.
Comment by Derek — January 8, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
I agree that it is important not to cross the line between fearing man more than God. Not too long ago, I felt much like this post seems to express about avoiding the appearance of evil. Then my life was almost completely ruined because of what someone thought of me, even though it was far from the truth. I came to realize how naive it was to expect to live in my own little bubble of what is true and what is not and expect everyone else to either give me the benefit of the doubt or shove it.
Like it or not, it DOES matter what other people think, and furthermore members of the Church have made a covenant to stand as a witness of God at all times and in all things and in all places when we were baptized. As members, we have made a covenant to act as Christ would act when we said we would take upon us His name. We are no longer only responsible for ourselves, but in some small way responsible for how we affect other people.
I have come to realize through a great deal of pain that my outlook on life was juvenile. In order to mature both in the gospel and as a person, I am having to learn to take some responsibility even for things that are outside of my control (such as how others see me.) Although it would be nice to say “Who cares what they think?” I know that as an adult, a contributing member of society, I no longer have that luxury.
But that is only my experience.
Comment by SilverRain — January 8, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
(I realize the comment probably sounds odd coming from a man on a predominantly female blog…)
Comment by Derek — January 8, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Derek, I am not sure why you think your comment would sound odd, but I agree with you and am a women, so to me it seems pretty gender neutral in its tone.
Anyway, going along with the idea of “avoiding the potential for evil.” I think that the argument of limited contact with MOTOS after marriage is more then just an avoiding appearance of evil, or even a slipper slope argument. To me at least, there really is no such thing as harmless flirting, even if it never leads to adultery, flirting itself is a way of being unfaithful to your spouse, and likewise for having any kind of intimate relationship, physically, emotionally, etc. Maybe I am just a prude though, but that is always how I have felt, regardless of what I”ve been taught at church.
Comment by aprilb — January 8, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
Lisa, thanks for your thought-provoking post. I’ve been wondering recently if the celebration of my religion isn’t just a bit too cellophane-wrapped (one of my pet peeves is hermetically sealed vegetables in the produce section). You’re right that Christ got into the dirt with his followers. He told the story of the Good Samaritan. And was condemned as a hypocrite by many of those real hypocrites who very publicly displayed their religion. I don’t want to be like those people and I’m feeling like I’m making very little difference in the world.
I really appreciate Starfoxy’s (#35) comments–it’s all about the right things for the right reasons.
And as a single woman I find the discomfort and overt awkwardness of many poorly socialized LDS men dehumanizing. There’s a way to be respectful and appropriate and then there’s uncomfortable and alienating.
And I agree that while feelings might be a slippery slope, behavior isn’t. You make a choice. You don’t just accidentally kiss someone–you’ve probably been thinking about kissing them. I fell for a married co-worker once. Never ever did either of us cross any line. Never was anything inappropriate. I have no idea whether he felt more than friendship for me. I know for certain that he had no idea that I did. He was honestly and transparently (but not awkwardly obviously in a trying-too-hard fashion) enchanted by and devoted to his wife.
Comment by marianne — January 8, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
I am reading a lot of comments about avoiding members of the opposite sex and it seems that so many treat them as something to avoid like the plague, often by waving around the slippery slope argument. I am not sure if it is the generally puritanical background that most of us have been raised with but I am not sure what the big deal is. Do we really trust ourselves and others so little?
My job requires that I work closely with men all day, every day of the work week in very close quarters. I am the only female and it is required on my job site to work on a 2 person team so I am always teamed with another male doing environmental remediation work. We are working in a space about 10 ft x 10 ft so we are always bumping into each other. We also spend a lot of time just driving around in the work truck. I have been doing this work for 5.5 years. I have never once had a single problem, never had a guy act inappropriately, never had inappropriate feelings, it really isn’t that big of a deal. When I was in graduate school I went out in the field with just my two (male) professors all the time and we thought nothing of it.
I have even been out doing wetland surveys for about 8 hours with a guy who is my client at work but he is also on the stake high council in my stake. We didn’t think anything of it because in our field (environmental science), men and women have to work closely together all the time and we never make a big deal of it.
Comment by Denae — January 8, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
I don’t think anyone is saying to avoid members of the opposite sex. I think people are just saying to exercise caution and good sense. If you avoid situations (being alone with a MOTOS) that might look bad, you’ll likely avoid actual bad situations as well
Comment by Alliegator — January 8, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
I do agree it is about how you interpret it and the need to look at why we are/aren’t doing something. I grew up with both my parents having friends OTOS. My “uncles” Rocky and Dave were actually my mothers ex boyfriends from high school that both my parents were friends with. My mom always went to lunch and sometimes a movie with them when they were in town. Sometimes my dad went, sometimes not. It was never an issue.
So as I grew up, it was never an issue for me either. My husbands best friend is a woman. He goes to lunch with her occasionally and even goes with her to reptile conventions and stuff which I am actually glad about because it means I don’t have to go. Even though both are non-members I have no trust issues with him. He is - as another poster put it- transparently devoted to me and couldn’t lie to save his life.
I would be upset with my son for the chalk incident but mostly because I don’t want him to think it is cool. I would be cool with the heads up but I dont think I would make him apologize to the other member. And I have no issues going to the bar to play darts with my husband or brother. I don’t drink so am usually the designated driver, and if it helps prevent someone getting hurt or a dui I am cool with that.
But with all of that - it simply needs to be dealt with on a personal basis. What is ok to me may not be to someone else and that ok too. Everyone needs to interpret it for their own needs.
Comment by Samantha — January 8, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
I do try to avoid being alone in intimate settings with women other than my wife. But I also work with almost all men. I do think some take it too far but I know a young man that was hanging with his friends late at night when one of them on his own went over and tried to buy a joint from an undercover cop. As I understand it only a couple of them failed a drug test. But they were all arrested so avoiding evil is sound advice. The problem is identifying the evil as truly evil and not just a trivial excuse to act superior or self righteous.
Comment by Jerry — January 8, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
I was going to write the same thing as #46 Denae. I’m a woman in a male dominated field. I have to work with men. It isn’t a problem. I make sure it isn’t a problem.
Here is a problem. I recently found out that BYU won’t let grad students in my field share offices with MOTOS. At first I laughed. Just another crazy BYU thing, eh? But then I reconsidered. I learned more from my fellow students than from my professors when I was in grad school, particularly from my office mates who were (naturally) of the opposite sex. Those women grad students in my field at BYU are being short changed. By being isolated from the other students, these women aren’t having the conversations, forming the connections, learning the material with the majority of the (male) students. This is a serious problem. But what to do? No way will the policy change, I was told. Need to avoid the appearance of evil.
I strongly recommend NOT attending grad school at BYU.
Comment by Jessica — January 8, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
Re: affairs/spending time with people of the opposite sex - In the past 6 to 8 months one friend has been cheated on and the other has cheated on his wife. In neither situation was it a matter of a friendship or work relationship becoming something more serious; both “other people” were pretty much acquaintances and nothing more - no building up the intimacy through innocent get-togethers, they went from acquaintances who barely knew each other’s names to sleeping together.
I suppose my problem with the idea that spending time with people of the opposite sex is two fold: First, that it is quite possible for me to be in the same proximity as a man and not want to throw off my clothes and jump his bones (just as it’s quite possible for my husband to be in the same proximity as a woman and not want to throw off his clothes and jump her bones); and second, that affairs don’t always start out as friendships, so making some obscure rule not to (for instance) eat lunch or get in the car with someone of the opposite sex is just creating a false sense of security in your relationship.
The rule about not getting into the car with a member of the opposite sex really strikes me as weird - but then I do a lot of patient transfers which involve me taking men to appointments, and considering they’re all 80 or 90 and considering I don’t have a thing for grandfathers, I would be really pissed off and think my husband terribly insecure if it actually bothered him.
Comment by Quimby — January 8, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
In the Tab Choir you can NEVER get a ride to or from rehearsal with a member of the opposite sex alone. Kind of like avoiding falling in the Grand Canyon by staying in Flagstaff.
Comment by Apogee — January 8, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
Wow, this is a great thread I really resonate with what a lot of people are saying. I guess what everyone can agree on it that it really comes down to personal comfort and interpretation. I had a bishop who spoke somewhat about this at a BYN (bishops youth night) I’m not sure if all ward have these. He said openly that he has wine in his frig and he is perfectly comfortable with that. He know he uses it only for cooking and who cares what others think. Every now and than you get lucky with a bishop whose really got it together (I find that those kind don’t normally come from Utah)
#50 Jessica that is a real problem. I think I would really struggle if I went to BYU. It sounds like people can not be reasoned with. But you’re right that is something that is likely not to be changed. On a somewhat related but mostly not related note. Has anyone seen This Divided State? It’s an independent movie about a battle that took place on the UVSC campus about free speech. I’m not sure about the rating, but it’s a great flick. I could never live in Utah.
Comment by Polly Anna — January 8, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
One thing that happens quite frequently with issues of absolute avoidance instead of moderation is that we assume anything over the line is as bad as EVERYthing over the line. Utah has a high meth rate because if you’re going to smoke, tobacco is just one version, and meth at least gives you a lift, right? Why do beer when gin will knock out the pain–self medication instead of socializing–? it’s all alcohol, it’s all a sin, so when a Mormon leaves the Law, s/he never learns how non-Mo grown-ups *do* such things. Want to see a meeeeean drunk, instead of a weepy or a funny drunk? Someone who goes for the vodka instead of, and in as great a quantity as, the Miller Lite.
Comment by hero — January 8, 2009 @ 11:49 pm
I think as far as adultery is concerned, the line you don’t step over is when you begin 1) lying to your spouse about anything to do with the other person (including any intent to deceive), or 2) confiding in the other person things you wouldn’t confide to your spouse. If either of those things starts to happen, then stop, back up, and rethink the situation. At that point you need to start actively working on your marriage, and assiduously avoiding the other person’s company. Other than that, for heaven’s sake, people of the other sex can be good friends.
I have close male friends that I wouldn’t want to give up if I got married. My husband, if he exists, will have to be secure enough and trusting enough not to mind that. I would consider it a bad sign if he wanted me to stop being friends with them, in the same way that I would consider it a bad sign if my future husband didn’t want me to have any contact with my family.
Comment by Tatiana — January 9, 2009 @ 12:05 am
I think the line for giving into temptation is different for each of us. One person may be able to go into a bar and drink with their friends without a single thought to drink. Me on the other hand, I would be extremely tempted to drink. The bottom line is that we cannot judge the actions of others. We just need to worry about ourselves and how we can handle situations. Some of us can be closer to evil than others.
Comment by Shannon — January 9, 2009 @ 12:47 am
Shannon, you are so right everyone has to know where that line is for themselves.
I grew up with brothers and was terrified of the fairer sex until after my mission. I am not quite sure what changed but I found a wonderful woman and married her. What I also found when I entered the corporate world is that I was in an industry where I was going to have a great deal of contact with women. As a matter of fact I have been in industries that have been dominated by women and I have developed incredible and respectful relationships with many of them. Some were my teachers and mentors, Some were business confidants. I almost forgot many were friends.
My wife knows that I went out to lunch and a few times when traveling out of state I even went out to dinner with an old friend who moved away. I have to tell you I love these women. Many of them I think are like sisters that I never had. I think a couple of them have made me a better father and husband because they are good, insightful people who care.
Years ago I had a Bishop call me into his office and someone in the ward must have seen me a lunch with one of my friends. I told him that it was a practice that was not likely to stop until my wife told me I had to stop.
I just think that to many members like looking in the fishbowl for something to gossip about. Many of us are just drunk with self righteousness.
Comment by ThomasB — January 9, 2009 @ 3:02 am
Great thread - as it highlights some culture-isms of having friends of the opposite sex, word of wisdom, and other issues.
My only comment is to #50 - I went to grad school at BYU in a male-dominated field. I worked in a lab with almost all men. I shared an office with them, as did others I knew. We never thought about it. That was four years ago, but it saddens me if there is even one department who would have this kind of policy. I would beg to differ that it could change - otherwise you would have grounds for a lawsuit. There are plenty of reasons not to go to grad school at BYU but this is one that I didn’t see in my experience.
Comment by Kelly Ann — January 9, 2009 @ 3:09 am
The conclusion-jumping demonstrated in the OP is of Olympic quality.
Let’s not assume that a single mistranslation invalidates a true principle. Check the reference in #36. Paul says, “Don’t eat meat offered to idols lest you cause your brother to commit sin.” He even goes as far as saying that it’s *sin* to not care what people think of you to the point that it leads them astray. (If this isn’t clear from the text, try a different translation.) In other words, it ain’t just good advice.
I wouldn’t have commented except it seemed nobody even noticed the point brought up in #36 in their haste to shed burdensome requirements or explore their many nuances.
Comment by The Right Trousers — January 9, 2009 @ 3:19 am
Well, if we’re going to take Paul as the ultimate authority on everything, we’re all sinning big-time even being on this blog - after all don’t you know women are to be silent on religious issues? How dare we even have this conversation! We’ve been told, womyn - we’re all going to hell. Oh well, at least we’ll be in good company.
Comment by Quimby — January 9, 2009 @ 4:27 am
I’ve had similar experiences as Marianne in #45–as a single woman in a family ward, I’ve had weird experiences with being home taught, and even been in a ward where no single sisters were allowed home teachers because *gasp* those women were single! Um, what? That’s a really great way to take care of one of the groups of people who likely need the most help as far as having no one to ask for a blessing or no one to call in an emergency.
I much, much prefer the arrangement of my old Seattle ward, where high councilors were assigned the single sisters. He was old enough to be our father (we only had the one, not a companionship), and treated each of us that way, checking out how we were doing, giving us blessings when we needed them, and making sure we had all our needs met. He and his wife were the advisors for the midsingles group and hosted FHE at their house most weeks, and they both knew us. There was never a hint that there might be something improper about a home teacher caring for his home teachees.
I’ve always had good guy friends, and when they get married, sure, the relationship changes: I become friends with their wives as well. There is no reason to suddenly drop a friend simply because your or their marital status changes (though it happens all too often for friends of either sex). But I find that it is important to be friends with both people, in general. I would only have half the friends I now do if I thought it improper to be friends with guys. Well, probably make that fewer than half, because I wouldn’t be friends with their wives, either.
I also think it’s silly to think that just because I’m working one on one with a man that somehow that’s automatically going to become a sexual dynamic of any sort. In fact, the idea of anything happening with any of the men I work with, even the single ones, squicks me out because they’re all like brothers. EW.
I agree with those above that it changes when evil appears, i.e., when evil shows up: when the Spirit leaves, you leave.
Comment by stacer — January 9, 2009 @ 6:22 am
When I see the phrase “avoid the appearance of sin”, I interpret that to mean “avoid sin whenever it appears/shows up”.
Comment by Kim Siever — January 9, 2009 @ 7:49 am
#1 There is something seriously wrong with a person who has so little self control as to not be able to properly govern herself. Do you think that removing such opportunities for sin would have really made a difference? There is a reason that Christ’s plan was chosen over Satan’s. The problem was not that the “opportunities” existed, the problem is that your exwife utilized those opportunities to sin. I routinely work with men, sometimes late. But that has no impact on me. Because I am who I am.
I wholeheartedly agree with this article and have had many similar experiences.
Comment by StillConfused — January 9, 2009 @ 9:11 am
On a note unrelated to the rest of the discussion:
This marks the end of my guest stint at fMh.
Comment by Ziff — January 9, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
#60 Uh, Neither St. Paul nor anyone here has said anything like that, but thanks for playing.
Comment by Mephibosheth — January 9, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Oops–sorry about the funny blockquote. I was the one who was saying I was sorry LisaJ’s guest blogging stint is almost over. I wasn’t quoting someone else who said it.
Comment by Ziff — January 9, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Of course this can also happen to same-gender friendships as well. I lost a good LDS friend when she entered a lesbian relationship. They are still a couple, and our friendship has resumed because she has accepted that I accept her as she is.
Comment by Naismith — January 9, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
I just thought of this, though this discussion may already be over. When Harry Potter became a hot topic in evangelical churches, a lot of pastors told their congregations to avoid the series because of the witchcraft and wizardry. Our church counsel? Decide for yourself. I think that’s an important principle in “in-between” issues. You know deciding for yourself.
Comment by Jon — January 9, 2009 @ 1:14 pm
I have both worked and volunteered in and among the military. I can be caught alone with men quite frequently- sometimes driving in the same car for hours.
I was transporting a vet who was stranded downtown after a meeting. My bishop at the time, was at the crossing at the stop light and saw us talking animatedly- which, frankly, is about the only way I speak to anyone. At church, he called me in and told me that he saw me alone in the car with a male and was concerned about misunderstandings that could create. I was pressed for time and oblivious regarding all the social norms of my new religion and responded, “Oh, I don’t worry about that- the only people who would think that are either small- minded or dirty.” LOL. Predictably, he never bothered warning me again. It was years before I understood the LDS cultural rationale behind his warning, but since I haven’t changed my position on the matter, I guess that is incidental.
Comment by Kimberly — January 9, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
TStevens (#19) — you made my day. Hilarious!
Reading this post took a *huge* weight off my shoulders, LisaJ. I’ve always struggled with the “appearance of evil” admonitions, not in small part because I don’t want to look like a self-righteous prig (how’s THAT for worrying what other people think about you?).
So much of the KJV makes more sense when I remember the language is four centuries old.
Comment by Libby — January 9, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
#65, look at #59 - promoting the word of Paul (letting other people think you’re sinning is a sin) over the actions of Christ (associating with people who were known sinners). And, uh, check out Timothy sometime.
Comment by Quimby — January 9, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Paul is annoying. While he had some very good insights, was a good correspondent, certainly repented and changed his life and sacrificed it for the cause, he was very vocal about his misogyny- even gave us the honor of putting it in writing. He even considered women beneath being beneath him (one of women’s few acceptable roles)…he was a practicing and self-righteous celebate.
Comment by Kimberly — January 9, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Okay… #70 finally brought me out of lurk mode for the first time ever on FMH.
While actually *being* self-righteous and sanctimonious is obviously not a good idea, I wonder how much angst we create in our worried attempts to make sure we *don’t* look self-righteous or sanctimonious. We can so easily swing too far toward the “See! See! I’m *not* being self-righteous!” end of the scale, too.
I’ve gotta concur with SilverRain in #42 that our righteous examples of how to appropriately interact with others around us (regardless of their gender, religion, social standing, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or status as an indentured servant) *are* observed, and that we *do* influence others in unseen ways through our actions, and are very much part of our responsibility as adults, parents, church “leaders” (in any numbers of senses), mentors, neighbors, etc.
…and that when our actions are truly sanctimonious, that is also usually patently visible, and will likely influence others in negative ways.
…and that *quite frequently* we’re “doing the most good” in those times when we’re not even making any conscious effort to to “be good”, per se.
I’m certainly grateful for the quiet examples that a few particular individuals I’ve known (but that I doubt any of you have ever met) who I had the opportunity to observe and emulate as a young pup. Years later, I’ve thanked a few of them. They’ve invariably been astonished that I was even watching.
Comment by Taylor — January 9, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
Sheesh. I hate it when my best attempts at proofreading fail as spectacularly as they did in the last sentence of my third paragraph.
[self-flagellation ensues…]
Comment by Taylor — January 9, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
I realize this thread is basically over but many of the comments have touched upon my biggest issue with the social aspect of the church. I am a single female lawyer. Lawyers - like most business people - must network to be successful. I graduated from BYU law school and the church’s vast alumni network should be a natural networking field. But, because there are endless church policies relating to never being alone with women, many mormon men (with definite exceptions) are skittish and awkward around single women. My current bishop is decidedly awkward around me. I think the combination of this idea of avoiding all appearance of evil and the endless morality talks to all youth, turns women into dangerous sexual beings that must always be held at arm’s length for fear they are going to pull a Jezebel and lure the unsuspecting man who gave her a ride into sin if the two are ever alone together. I had classmates in law school who refused to study with single women for this reason. It is absurd. Mormon men (and women) need to realize every relationship with the opposite sex is not charged with sex. We all can sense when we are attracted to someone, if it is not appropriate, use your agency to avoid the situation. I work and travel and have lunch with male co-workers all the time. If I had this blanket rule about never interacting with members of the opposite sex, I would have a very lonely and unsuccessful professional life. I would also lose many, many friends to marriage (and I have lost many male friends to marriage). As it is, I have just learned that my alumni association will not provide me with any networking opportunities because it would be a rare mormon man who would accept my invitation to have lunch to answer professional questions.
Comment by soulfusion — January 9, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
Ugh. I hear you, soulfusion. I got my PhD in IT and was the only girl in my class (at a top 5 program, no less). The rest were international males with very little English proficiency who were not interested in studying in English and others were married Mormon males. Group projects, study groups, and research was one big exercise in eye rolling. I had to drive everywhere - even to far away subject sites - alone, just to make sure no one saw us drive together. I still get funny stares if/when I go to lunch with male colleagues. Sorry, but there just aren’t many girls in my profession. Thankfully, DH understands and rolls his eyes along with me.
Comment by that1girl — January 9, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Quimby, I don’t see how pointing out that the mistranslation of 1st Thess. isn’t all there is to the story counts as “promoting the words of Paul …over the actions of Christ.” Want to take another stab at it?
Comment by Mephibosheth — January 9, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
Maybe you’d like to take another stab at it?
If Paul says it’s a sin not to care what other people think of you, and Christ openly interacted with sinners without caring what other people think of it, and we are encouraged to care what other people think (eg avoid the appearance of evil) - how is that NOT putting the words of Paul over the actions of Christ?
For crying out loud, on one post we’ve got some nutter saying women can’t say no to sex (and quoting Paul to justify it) and here we’ve got someone saying that it’s a sin to not care what other people think about us (again quoting Paul) and you really want to take issue with what I say? Maybe Paul’s the problem!
Comment by Quimby — January 10, 2009 @ 12:11 am
Actually, I think I’m just figuring out that the real problem is I’m the only one giving your gross oversimplifications the time of day. Don’t worry, I won’t let it happen again.
Comment by Mephibosheth — January 10, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Gee, Mephibosheth, hostile much?
What, exactly, am I over-simplifying? Rather than insult me, why don’t you point out exactly where I am wrong?
I have read and reread #59 many times over. I fail to see how I am oversimplifying anything in pointing out: 1. That Paul is saying we are sinning when we don’t care about other people’s opinions (after all, isn’t that pretty much what #59 says?); 2. That this counsel is contrary to the actual actions of Jesus Christ (surely you can’t argue that he cared what other people thought of him when he associated with known sinners); 3. That if we follow Paul in this we might as well follow Paul in all things - even when he says women are to be silent in church (and by extension in discussing religious matters - it’s no more of a leap than #59 made, or than Apogee made in saying that wives can’t say no to having sex with their husbands); and finally 4. That if we agree Paul has the final say in all things, any woman here is sinning since we’re discussing religious matters and Paul wouldn’t like that much.
But if I’m wrong in my reading, please, point it out, don’t just get all bitchy on me.
Comment by Quimby — January 11, 2009 @ 12:06 am
#40, Laurenna: hahahaha! I thought of the same thing just the other day.
What are our bisexual members to do? Isolate themselves entirely?
And seriously people, yes there are few who decide to go have an affair. There are situations and mental states of minds which predispose a person to allow themselves to be vulnerable to an opposite sex friend. We do need to be careful. #55, Tatiana, says it well.
But we act as if it’s sex, sex, sex all the time on our minds. The road is straight and narrow, but not that narrow, damn. My husband knows who my friends are, I know who his are. We’re close, we talk. We’re best friends.
If you have to worry about becoming “too” close to an opposite sex friend, than perhaps you’ve other issues.
I have to agree with Kimberly. The more I read of Paul anymore the more I have to pick and choose what I believe was inspired of God. His myogynistic views are hardly inspired in my eyes and speak more to his history rather than to the word and will of God. But that’s another post (and I think I went there in one, so I’ll shut up now)
Quimby, THANK YOU.
#70, Libby: I’m really glad, thanks for letting me know
#66, Ziff: You just made my day. Thank you for that. Know you’re welcome at my blog, The Liberal Mormon That Could
Even if I don’t see you there, thank you. (everyone else is, of course, welcome there as well :))
And I suggest everyone read Comment 54. I swear, a book could be written on this.
Thank you all so much for your feedback. It means a lot.
Comment by LisaJ — January 11, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
This issue is at the very heart of the actual spiritual struggle of the the Church (past and present). Honestly, this has much less to do with avoiding temptation, than it does with providing the real test for members’ faith.
The real issues of salvation are very often internal ones (like forgiveness, compassion and consideration for those we don’t understand) and the church from the time of Moses on has been designed to provide the members with choices or perhaps a better word would be ‘Hiding Places’ that they can live with their inner darkness if they choose rather than truly repenting of it. When someone doesn’t truly have the spirit, they generally attempt to replace it with self-righteousness and accusations toward others. They fear the appearance of evil more than evil Itself, because they assume others cannot see their actual evil. Have you ever observed a parent who was more ashamed of their child for getting caught than for the crime/sin the committed?
“by the fruits ye shall know them” (Matt 7:20) pretty much says it all. When we encounter scornful, judgemental people in the church, that is generally our que that they are NOT who we should look to as examples, because they are what Christ called “Whited Walls”. Truly, spiritual people will give others the benefit of the doubt and not judge unless they have to.
The greatest evil in our day is the feeling that it does not matter what one actually does or thinks as long as nobody else knows about it, and if the appearance of evil really did matter so terribly, why did Christ in his mortal ministry show such compassion to those who obviously were sinners and so little to those who “Appeared” to be above it.
Comment by Adam — January 12, 2009 @ 11:46 am
DH and I don’t wear our wedding rings (this has raised more than a few eyebrows inside and outside the church). Whether or not we wear our rings has nothing to do with our commit to each other and our family.
Avoiding the appearance of evil means nothing if one is committing evil.
I think we should just avoid evil–especially thinking that others are doing evil based on appearances.
Comment by MD — January 12, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Just wanted to say thank you so much for you guest stint at fMh. You did such a wonderful job of bringing up most of the fundamental issues within Mormon feminism, issues that I sometimes forget that we should give all the new folks a chance to hash out on a regular basis! Your fresh voice and enthusiasm was exactly the breath of fresh air we needed around here.
Comment by fMhLisa — January 12, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
The Idea to Avoid the appearance of Evil shouldn’t be about someone else, it should be about God. So what if your neighbor saw you buy that beer, God saw it and I can guarantee you he isn’t happy about it.
But I remind you that “In as much as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” So wouldn’t the opposite be true, that if you throw your beliefs into the air to buy alcohol for your work and are at risk of giving a bad impressions, are you not throwing your beliefs away in front of god?
Comment by Disappointed — January 13, 2009 @ 6:02 pm