Mormonism Is a Religion of Unwritten Rules
Mormonism as a religion and a culture relies heavily on unwritten and even unspoken rules. The religion judges members on these rules and judges everyone for adherence to the unwritten rules. There are theological assumptions that are entirely based on some of these rules and the religion has morphed over time into a single “Covenant Path” way to live where things like callings, the sacrament, garments, word of wisdom, temple, and free will are all controlled by unwritten and cultural rules that the main body of the church can easily deny, but for those who live it and struggle with it, there’s no denying that these rules are real – even if unwritten. Many of the rules are central to the patriarchy and similarly unspoken but still enforced.
Boyd K Packer even listed some of these unwritten rules proudly in a BYU devotional message he called The Unwritten Order of Things. His list includes things like never rejecting a calling, never writing to General Authorities but to seek counsel only from your Bishop, and to preach the gospel at a funeral rather than talk about the deceased. His unwritten list should be expanded though, because so many of the rules of the religion are not written and are simply enveloped into the culture or only contained in the secret handbooks for leaders to enforce.
The Unwritten Rules
Callings
Membership in the church comes with callings for nearly anyone who is actively attending, and at times a tool to encourage those who are not active to attend more. An unwritten rule that is understood by stories and examples is that we should never decline a calling that is extended to us. The calling comes from a priesthood leader who has prayed and received revelation for his jurisdiction that the best person for the calling is you. Accepting and performing any call that is extended to you by a priesthood leader is a rule, we should do it. To deny a calling is to deny the authority of the leader and in turn the authority of the priesthood. Members are often told, “Whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies,” when they don’t feel up to the task. Along these same lines, members and especially those in leadership callings should never ask to be released once they take up a calling. We’re taught that we should submit to the will of the Lord (or the local leadership) and perform the duties for the calling faithfully until we are called to something else.
Baptismal Covenants
As young members turn 8, they are automatically recommended for baptism into the church to become “official” members. This baptism is later cited as a covenant with God, but in reality it’s just a ritual. Some lessons imply the things we agree to do and the things that God agrees to do in this “covenant,” but it’s all implied and not coupled with the actual ritual. How can an 8-year-old child make a covenant with God that would be in effect for the rest of their lives? Joining an organization as high-demand and controlling as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
there are not in fact baptismal covenants in Mormonism. The reason I think this is because you don’t actually say anything when you get baptized. You don’t commit to anything. The priesthood holder says his brief statement, and that’s it. When I was baptized at the age of eight, I remember it being explained to me that I was promising to do three things, and God was promising to do one in return, or maybe I was promising to do one and God was promising to do three in return? I think it must be the latter, because I have a vague memory of it being pointed out that it was pretty cool that God was doing three things when I only had to do one. In any case, I don’t remember what any of the things were. But the fact that I forgot them is not at all surprising, because they weren’t part of the ritual.
When I looked on lds.org to discover what the baptismal covenants were, it cited Mosiah, and the language of mourning with those that mourn and bearing one another’s burdens and standing as a witness of God, and also D&C 20:37, which lists a lot of things, including a broken heart, repentance, willingness to take upon oneself the name of Christ, and being determined to serve him to the end. I think the Mosiah language is actually quite lovely. I will admit to being less enamored of the language of the D&C (unsurprisingly, since I think the D&C is Ground Zero of Mean God), but regardless, I’m looking at the text of these passages, and in neither case does it look to me like a baptismal covenant. Rather, it looks to me like a list of prerequisites for baptism.
Reflections on the LDS Sacrament (Part I), Lynnette
https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2023/07/20/reflections-on-the-lds-sacrament-part-i/
The Sacrament
The sacrament “renews our baptismal covenants.” Not only is that not actually present in the sacramental prayers, there is no actual covenant made at baptism. It’s all inferred and imputed after the fact with post-facto justifications and scripture references. It’s just made up.
Maybe a year ago, I went back and re-read the LDS sacrament prayers. It had been a while; I hadn’t been to a sacrament meeting in at least five years. The words were still completely familiar, of course, but I wasn’t prepared to have the emotional reaction to them that I did. I had a deeply visceral response of feeling attacked and wanting to hide. I actually felt a little sick. The phrases felt brutal, grim words that inextricably tie you to a God who is unrelenting in his standards and his judgments, who keeps careful track of everything you are doing wrong, and who is impossible to please. A God who will damn you for participating in the ritual in an unworthy state…
But even as that all hit me, I could see that if you were to just look at the words of these prayers, with no context and no personal baggage, they seem quite benign. Honestly, maybe even bland. They don’t contain anything particularly shocking or radical. They certainly don’t seem destructive. It seems highly unlikely that someone who just happened on them would find the vision of God and the world that I just shared. So I’ve tried to step back and simply look at them as texts. And I find myself struck by a number of things, many of which hadn’t previously occurred to me.
I always learned that the sacrament was a time of repentance, a time for reflection on the mistakes you’d made, and resolving to do better. It seems to me that for those who have a more positive experience with it, there’s an element of forgiveness to it as well. I well remember the despair of having been baptized and knowing that since I hadn’t died on the spot, I was doomed, because you couldn’t get baptized again. You didn’t get a second chance to have your sins washed away. I knew I wasn’t the only one with this worry, though, because I had many teachers mention it, and then reassure us that the sacrament serves the exact same purpose as baptism. It’s a weekly ritual that allows you to have your sins washed away and start over.
However, strikingly, none of that is in the text. Not at all. There is nothing about repentance, and nothing about forgiveness. It’s just not there. I’m not saying there might not be valid reasons to bring those things in to your experience and understanding of it; I’m just noting that you can’t find anything about them in the actual words of the prayers.
Reflections on the LDS Sacrament (Part I), Lynnette
https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2023/07/20/reflections-on-the-lds-sacrament-part-i/
Garments
There is no covenant made to wear the garment. It’s just an instruction to “wear throughout your life,” but the temple recommend questions have changed over time with various levels of “do you wear this always as you promised to do?” But we never did, not exactly, anyway. It’s just vaguely assumed.
Word of Wisdom
The Word of Wisdom we follow is not scriptural. The canonized Word of Wisdom is ignored and replaced with many rules and preferences that have changed over time and been enforced by leaders. In the temple recommend interview we are asked, “Do you understand and follow the Word of Wisdom?” How can this convoluted set of rules be understood by any amount of study or personal interpretation? We can only “understand” it the same way it has been made to mean by the leaders. The only valid answer to the question should be, “Who knows?! Do you? Do any of us?”
The Temple
Yes, in this case, we do make explicit covenants. But we aren’t told what they are beforehand. Well, now we are–kind of, sort of–but not in very much detail. Certainly not enough to overcome the intensity and novelty of the experience. We can’t possibly consider covenants made in this environment as binding years later with clearer eyes.
Agency
No agency? Now we have Elders Pearson and Bednar going around preaching that we actually have no agency. That we gave it up, and already promised to do things at baptism!
Evolving Doctrine
Even though the church does update teachings over time by changing policies or even doctrines, the church never disavows old teachings. This leaves everything quite vague. So we kind-of, sort-of still obey old obsolete teachings, especially if you’re older. Past beliefs don’t become explicitly left behind. They just fade away. Everything lives in a gray zone of unknowable importance. We are expected to focus on what leaders say today, but also revere past leaders as apostles and prophets. What about the crazy things past prophets have said in official roles, like in General Conference talks? Are these to be jettisoned? The church will never explicitly do this, because it brings attention to the fact that teachings change and leaders make mistakes. They’d rather just quietly stop talking about the inhabitants of the moon who dress like Quakers and hope the fact that leaders preached about them fades into oblivion. But shame on us if we ever disregard something a current leader has said, that is blasphemous!
The Foolish Man Built His House Upon the Sand
The recent emphasis on modern prophets and the latest general conference over the scriptures creates an atmosphere of transience that pervades everything. The only real rule is to do whatever they said most recently. Everything else is optional and unknowable. There’s no foundation, or base we can trust. In other words, it can all be ripped out from under us. If a prophet contradicts something that his predecessor said, the living prophet wins. If a living church leader contradicts something Brigham Young or even Joseph Smith taught, we are to follow the living prophet. Does a prophet contradict something that Jesus taught in the New Testament? The prophet wins. In this way, the doctrine is a contradiction in terms. There is no doctrine, no catechism, and no solid foundation of rules or beliefs. It’s all just a doctrine of authority and spiritual coercion and abuse to ensure the sheep stay in line. The main point is to obey the authorities, the brethren, and not question them. The law of obedience is the most important law to follow, it’s really the only law to follow. It’s as circular as “Do as I say. Because I say so.” It’s shifting sands, maybes, and implied gotchas. Even though in primary we are taught the tale of those who build their house on the sand, and we know and remember that it doesn’t end well for them.
It’s shifting sands, maybes, and implied gotchas. Even though in primary we are taught the tale of those who build their house on the sand, and we know and remember that it doesn’t end well for them.
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders, Matthew 7:24-27
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/7?lang=eng&id=p24-p27#p24
The foolish man built his house upon the sand, (repeated three times)
And the rains came tumbling down.The rains came down, and the floods came up, (repeated three times)
The Wise Man and the Foolish Man, Children’s Songbook, 281
And the house on the sand washed away.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/the-wise-man-and-the-foolish-man
One day Jesus wanted to teach people how to stay strong even when hard things happen. He told them a story about a big storm, a wise man, and a foolish man. When the storm came, the wise man’s house did not fall down because it was built on a rock. But the foolish man’s house fell down because it was built on sand.
Friend Magazine, Scripture Time, The Wise Man and the Foolish Man, March 2015
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2015/03/the-wise-man-and-the-foolish-man
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Ephesians 4:14
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/eph/4?lang=eng&id=p14#p14
It’s a theocracy over anything else. The leaders get the last call and have all the authority to proclaim the truth. They carry the church “about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” any who will believe them. They can say anything they like and claim that it comes from God. They lead us on that they have God in their ear in a way that makes them special. They are special witnesses. They claim the jurisdiction to receive revelation for us all, but they’ve shown time and time again, that they are not doing anything with this revelation. They are misleading with money and only starting to get caught. They do nothing to actually help others unless it can be spun into a public relations win. They are calculating and manipulative. They seek to keep members in line. They keep members “in the boat” with pithy stories and insults while encouraging anyone who disagrees with them or the church to please leave them alone.
What are your thoughts on this list of unwritten rules and practices from the church? Have you heard the talk about a covenant path in recent years? This is a new phrase in Mormonism, but it is discussed like it’s a scriptural term that has been around from the beginning of time. There are many other instances of a cultural shift. With enough of a time gap, a believing church member could step out of their decade and into another one and would not recognize the church. Would Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or any of the early saints feel at home in the church today? What about Peter or Paul? The church makes much of this being the restored church, would the ancient apostles feel close to God in this billion-hoarding corporation? What about Moses or Abraham (assuming they are real people), what about Jesus? What would he say about the faith-promoting lies that pass as lessons in church, or the pithy remarks of the church president? Share your thoughts in the comments below or consider contributing your whole faith deconstruction struggle story to the collection of “I was a Mormon” profiles at wasmormon.org.
More reading:
- h/t (post inspired by a reddit post I can’t find anymore – will add the link if/when found)
- Boyd Packer’s Unwritten Order of Things
- https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2023/07/20/reflections-on-the-lds-sacrament-part-i/