On being a pharisee

My nephew was raised by a ultra-devoted LDS family. Hardliners on every rule and every meeting. No deviation allowed by any of their children. Their oldest son was expected to be a straight A student, have perfect seminary attendance, complete his Eagle Scout, attend BYU, and serve a mission. All went as planned until age 19. He announced that a mission didn’t feel like the right choice. He had prayed about it and it didn’t feel like what he was supposed to do.

Parental lectures, grandparent interventions, Bishop talks, meetings with the Stake President didn’t change his mind. His family was stunned by his ability to make his own choice and stand by it under intense pressure.

So many people declared themselves disappointed. I am proud. For someone who was raised as he was, to make such a stand took fortitude and a backbone of steel. Those traits will serve him well in life.

I remember being told by my SS teacher as an irreverent tween that I was a false prophet unto myself. Still to this day I am not sure what a false prophet unto oneself is supposed to do. Isn’t the point of being a prophet to proclaim things to other people. Am I supposed to doubt my own inner voice because it is false? Who would tell a young person that?

I did not go on a mission until I was almost 21. There were visits from my HT specifically to challenge me to go. I met with the bishop on the same subject. I had heard through the grapevine that one female aquantance was wondering aloud if there was something wrong with me and if I was date-able due to my non-missionary status. I received my patriarchial blessing. I told the Patriach that I was not planning to go. He blessed me *surprise* that the Lord had a mission for me, that I had a choice to make, and that if I chose the Lords path I would never regret it.

I did end up going on a mission and getting my mormon credentials. I think it would be much harder staying in the church without these “earmarks.”

I have heard it said that two types of people can thrive in the church – The saints and the liars. :lolno:

That sums up my fellings in a pretty succinct way.

I have two brothers who didn’t serve missions: one who didn’t go and another who came home after a few months, honorably, on his own initiative. I have a son who didn’t serve a mission.

All three are active in the Church now (two always were), primarily because they were taught that they had to make their own decisions and defend them if questioned.

Yes, we can be pharisaical, and missions are an example of how Mormons do so.

As I often do, however, I need to point out that even the most irreligious and progressive people can be just as pharisaical. It’s human nature, but we in the Church tend not to understand overcoming the natural (wo)man as a comprehensive principle. We tend to focus only on the obvious aspect of things that we call sin.

Your friend has a point. The use of the word “hypocrite” is challenging. 1st is that it is loaded with baggage and will likely make people defensive and angry rather than come to the conversation table. 2nd it applies to everyone. We all pretend to some qualities that we do not have in full measure – especially while dating or interviewing for a job. 3rd it does not apply fully. There are many people that are complete jerks but are also doing exactly what they believe. Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, though I am sure that many of them thought that they were super devout. Perhaps this is because they offered a counterfeit salvation. They made a big show of being religious and pleasing God in their actions when in fact they were rejecting God through His only begotten son. Devout Mormons could counter that they are not hypocrites because they do as they believe. They are not Pharisees because the Pharisees rejected God in favor of their religious observances – while Mormons could claim that we are following and defending God through ours (no doubt as the Pharisees thought that they were doing). (Similarly, are our temples the sacred “House of the Lord” or whited sepulchers – pretty on the outside but full of dead ordinances and empty promises on the inside? A case could be made either way depending on your belief.)

Perhaps the claim of hypocrisy best fits in the social consequences of non-conformity. Because the social consequences of following our divergent conscience are sometimes severe, there is pressure to prevent those consequences by upholding a facade. Just yesterday I bore my testimony. When I sat down my wife asked me how I could say that the church was true. I responded that it is true to a certain point of view (As in useful or purposeful). Apparently not completely satisfied she asked me again after church. I told her that our son will turn 8 in less than 6 months and I am leveraging myself to perform the baptism. This year with the ward schedule and my work – I get to SM less than 50% of the time and often leave after the sacrament is passed. Bearing my testimony was an opportunity for me to make sure that the bishop noticed that I was present and still had a measure of faith. I said mostly what I believe in along with some customary phrases that I can say without strictly lying (such as “I know the church is true.”)

Am I a hypocrite? Some on both sides would say that to be true to myself and to others would be to remove my name from church records. Am I a hypocrite in that I follow the WoW solely for social/marital reasons (at least as far as coffee/tee is concerned)? Is it hypocrisy to moderate/modify our behavior based on how it will impact those around us? Is it hypocrisy to conform to certain group norms for fear of being rejected and cast out by the group? Whose fault is my hypocrisy? Is it the church culture of literalness and conformity that forces me to hide my symbolic interpretations? Is it my fault for not having the fortitude to publicize my differences? Am I a “snake in the grass” or “wolf in sheep’s clothing” by being so circumspect about my differences? I believe the answers to these questions are both “Yes” and “No” and whether you lean more towards a yes or a no can depend greatly on your perspective.

Fortunately, I believe that most thoughtful people recognize some gray area here. They would not demand that everyone with doubts leave the church immediately until the doubts are completely resolved. I do not know hardly anyone that would be that extreme – especially in dealing with someone that they know and love.

In summary, perhaps this discussion is better served using words like judgmentalism, pressure to conform, shaming, ostracism, expectations, monoculture, etc. Using words like hypocrite or Pharisee will probably turn off people that do not already agree with the author.

TA, thanks for sharing the article. It’s an interesting story, and it certainly is something that we all need to continue to strive with. I do wish the Church would ease what President Monson has called the “mandate to serve.” We are told that it is part of priesthood duty to serve a mission. I think that’s very unfortunate. It creates all kinds of pressure on people who are struggling emotionally or spiritually. IMO, serving a mission is a wonderful thing when done voluntarily for the ‘right’ reasons (selflessness, sacrifice, charity) and a terrible thing when done under compulsion for the ‘wrong’ reasons (pressure, obedience).

I like the point of the article, but I do think that the author makes a critical error, which makes it difficult to use it as a tool for helping others. Any attempt to win converts is going to be hurt by framing the discussion as an argument. Placing the other party on notice or on the defensive is a terrible advocacy tactic unless the target audience is indirectly the people who already believe the same way.

Jesus famously condemned the Pharisees. Jesus’ followers may have eaten it up, but Jesus didn’t have any converts from among the Pharisees (apologies to Nicodemus, who, we are told, was sympathetic, but remained a Pharisee). And I will point out that between Jesus and the Pharisees, the Pharisees won the debate.

If we hope to make any difference in the Church, it will be by finding common ground, not by accusations and arguments. For example, in conversations I’ve had about same sex marriage, I get a lot of leverage by saying that I used to be on the other side of it, but that I’ve come to believe that sexual orientation is not a choice, something that the Church says now, and that I am just trying to figure out a way to allow people who didn’t choose homosexuality to have a way to participate in the Church and Atonement. It’s amazing how easy and natural it is to get to that common ground. If, instead, I started with telling people they are hypocrites and bigoted… well… the conversation would be over before it ever started.

I look at the interchange between you and your friend as an example. The two of you have many points of commonality. But the focus of your interaction is on your disagreements. I think you were both respectful to each other. It’s a friendship that I would foster.