Unwise, not Immoral

Growing up, I was part of the group of church members who believed that caffeinated sodas were wrong. We drank root beer and Sprite and orange soda and I was consistent at "standing for truth and righteousness" by abstaining whenever I was offered a Coke. I'm a little embarrassed to say I remember thinking less of my future husband when I saw him order a Dr. Pepper at a restaurant. 

This issue became a hot topic in our household. I knew that caffeine wasn't mentioned in the Word of Wisdom. I also knew that an isolated comment by one General Authority a long time ago didn't constitute church doctrine. Why then, did I feel so strongly about it? My argument was simple: regardless of what was said, caffeine is bad for you. And it's also addictive, which is bad. Finally my husband made a comment that shifted my paradigm: Sure, Coke isn't great for you, but neither are donuts. Why do you feel so opposed to one and not the other? 

Here's the moral of the story: I realized that I had been treating caffeinated sodas as a MORAL issue, instead of an issue of PERSONAL JUDGMENT. And I had continued to treat it as a sin even when I clearly recognized that it was not forbidden by any commandment, policy or doctrine. I didn't even realize I was doing it. 

God had not made caffeinated sodas forbidden, but somehow I still acted as though he had. Recognizing the unnecessary yoke I'd been wearing, I let go of seeing soda as a moral issue and gave myself the freedom to make a decision about soda (and donuts) as the Lord puts it, "according to wisdom" (D&C 63:44) or "as seemeth you good" (D&C 60:35).

This type of hidden morality can have a powerful influence. A recent article in Public Square Magazine pointed out that someone can belong to what amounts to a religion without realizing it.  Many people in society today adhere to an unspoken set of codes about what you can and can't say and do, who are the "righteous" and the "sinners", the need for punishment and repentance. These invisible values and assumptions are often promoted and adopted unconsciously, leading many well-intentioned people who consider themselves objective and scientific to "teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7).

Interestingly, this new secular religion has led to an explosion of moral standards, not a reduction. Their commandments now cover secular topics which are never mentioned in any book of scripture. Diversity, global warming, vaccines - judgments of "good" "bad", "right" and "wrong" quickly accompany a discussion about virtually everything. 

It's important to note that there is a difference between saying something is a bad idea and that it is morally wrong. A bad idea is a just an opinion based on a set of facts. A moral wrong is an untouchable, unchangeable tenet, a test of character and integrity,  something to defend at all costs regardless of the facts, practicality or changing circumstances. When someone doesn't recycle, or asks to touch a black girl's hair, or hosts an all-male discussion panel, we sometimes attribute actions to wickedness (and its synonyms oppression, racism, toxic behavior, etc.) what may better be described as unwise, unhelpful, inconsiderate, or sometimes just a difference of opinion.

Is that distinction just splitting hairs? Why does it matter if we distinguish between opinions and moral stances? Those who view all secular subjects through a moral lens can usually find a way to make every issue boil down to a failure to "love thy neighbor" (you don't recycle? You clearly hate our grandchildren. You think "all lives matter"? You clearly don't care about people of color.) Often the argument will simply boil down to "people are dying!" as though that should end any need for critical thought or discussion. 

Why does it matter? First of all - that is a rabbit hole that can literally go on forever (You threw a sock on the ground? You think I'm your maid and now I'm being oppressed). But secondly and more importantly, having a moral stance on every issue often makes it harder to solve that issue.

When we fashion our own religion where ANYTHING can be viewed as a moral issue, it means that there’s no room for nuance, negotiation or persuasion. By taking a “moral” stance (as opposed to "holding an opinion") on carbon emissions, gendered bathrooms, or immigration, it insists on specific solutions and then freezes all parties into positions they can’t relinquish or compromise on without ostensibly shirking their values. Hence, nothing gets done. 

Furthermore, if one's stance on the nature or solution to a problem becomes a moral absolute, then those who disagree are not simply of a different opinion, they are seen as someone with less character and integrity. Civil discourse disappears, all relationships quickly become toxic, and zero progress is made in the realm of public policy.

Is there only one approach to solving racism? Is the suicide rate of LGBTQ teenagers only caused by one thing? Are there alternative approaches to addressing greenhouse gases? Taking a moral stance about "the root of the issue" or "the right way to solve that problem" or "whose voice deserves to be heard" can discourage the kinds of back-and-forth that builds bridges, fosters collaboration, and leads to insightful, creative, high-quality solutions.

Deciding whether the police or BLM protestors are the "good guys" doesn't actually help us solve the problems of police shootings. It just creates a religious narrative accompanied by a sense of moral justice and demand for righteous punishment (in the form of shaming, jailing, or firing). If we treat the issue as a problem afflicting all parties, it becomes a problem to be solved instead of a stance to be defended or a person to be punished. 

In recent years, many initiatives around the country, including the Inner Harbor Project in Baltimore, have teamed up police with teenagers and community members to improve relationships across the board. They teach police how to communicate better with local residents and helps teenagers better navigate public spaces and create creative systems to foster goodwill with local business owners. These reformers recognize that getting one person fired from the police force will only address one aspect of the problems they are living with.

Historically, the Progressive movement of the early 1900's also provides good examples of this approach. In his new book The Upswing, Robert Putnam recounts the dizzying success of these reformers at addressing social problems of their day - women's suffrage, the Boy Scouts, Red Cross, Kiwanis and Lions and Rotary clubs, universal high school, labor unions, antitrust legislation, public libraries, child labor laws, the FDA, funding for disability and unemployment all stemmed from this period. Progressive reformers were members of both parties, and had bipartisan support for their efforts. Putnam identified two key characteristics among these reformers, who included people like Jane Addams, Margaret Sanger, Ida Wells, and both of the Roosevelts: they were people saw needs in their society, and they believed they had the power to address them.  

This can-do attitude had indisputable success in American society, in large part because problems were seen as independent issues, and not the fault of a specific group in society.  This allowed Progressives to work cooperatively with people in many different groups for a shared purpose, which not only got "buy-in" from more segments of society, but also built better solutions. Bills passed during this era often had the support of 70-80% of the members of both parties. Rather than radical, one-sided solutions, barely shoved into law by the majority party, social reformers and politicians crafted quality legislation together as teammates and fellow collaborators in their quest for a better America. 

The original Progressives were successful because they saw problems, not sins, and they measured effectiveness, instead of righteousness. 

Even their name is telling: social reformers reform. Social justice warriors only slay.

Maybe, like you, you are one of the unwitting victims of unconscious moralizing: Pick a social issue you care about. Identify your own beliefs about the nature of the issue, who or what is to blame, and what the solutions are, and then assess whether you hold those as opinions or moral absolutes: would your opinion change if studies came out disproving some of the premises of your argument? Do you feel morally superior to people who disagree with you? Do you feel a sense of satisfaction when they meet with failure, embarrassment, or social chastising?

Morality, whether attached to an organized religion or not, is a critical part of our humanity and our society. But secular morality, disconnected from traditional religion, is not superior. In fact, it can become its own form of religion, with commandments, superstitions, rituals and taboos - the problem is, because that religion is unseen, adherents may ethnocentrically feel that their beliefs and values are "common sense", as opposed to just one way of looking at things.

I will not attempt to change anyone's mind about that invisible religion, but I do hope that those with sincerely charitable desires will put off the soothing illusion that their sense of moral uprightness will actually improve society. Instead, may we see each other as teammates; even if others' priorities, perceptions, or solutions disagree with ours. Allow issues to shed their moral implications and just treat them as the social problems they are - things that ultimately hurt all of us.

Gender and Sex: These Tents Are Big Enough

What does it mean to be a man? or a woman? Do I fit into that definition, or am I something else? As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, this post is meant to help people who accept the reality of modern revelation, including doctrine found in The Family: A Proclamation to the World but still struggle to understand how it fits with the diversity of human experiences, specifically regarding gender and sex. 

One of the challenges of studying gender is dealing with the paradox of both similarities and differences. As we measure men and women both physically, socially and psychologically, we will find lots of things that are statistically different between the two groups. But it is clearly NOT true that "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus." Most of the time, our behavior and characteristics overlap a great deal, such as this graph of the average heights of men and women: 

In general, men are taller than women (see the blue vs. the red lines of the bell curve) but there is so much variety within men and women that any given man may be shorter than a given woman. The same thing is true with math scores, voice ranges, likelihood of choosing "blue" as one's favorite color, and rates of enrollment in marching band. How are we to treat two categories of people who share so much in common and yet consistently measure/score differently on so many measures? Is that important? SHOULD we focus on those consistent, measurable differences, or on our overwhelming similarities? Moreover, what should this help us understand about our fundamental concepts of gender and sexuality? 

In social sciences, we talk about “sex” and “gender” as two different concepts. Sex has to do with one's biology, gender has to do with social roles. That separation initially made sense to me, but increasingly I have realized that this division is a also social construct, and ultimately not a helpful one. I will explain. 

Traditionally, sociologists have set aside biological “sex” categories and spends their time trying to define the elusive meaning of “man” and “woman” or “masculinity” and “femininity”. The more we research it though, the more complicated and interwoven these become. Societies may accentuate certain qualities, but studies show that males and females in cultures around the world continue to have significant differences that make it difficult to keep “sex” and “gender” separate beyond just height or genitalia, including many aspects of the structures and functioning of our brains - memory, boldness, awareness of sound, sexual attraction. If "sex" refers to these biological differences which influence our personalities and preferences and all kinds of behaviors, then at what point do we separate them from “gender”? And does this assignation somehow limit our freedom?

There is a better framework. Through modern revelation, we know that gender is an eternal part of our identity. I am, have been, and always will be, a woman. But instead of trying to define that identity in vague terms or superficial characteristics, it’s clear from the Proclamation on the Family that the purpose of gender identity is to fulfill family roles. 

In other words, being a woman isn’t about liking shoes or being deferential or weak or sexy, it’s about our ability to be a wife and a mother – as Eve was identified by her power to be the “mother of all living”, before she ever actually had children. And being a man isn’t about guns, trucks or video games; it’s about being a husband and a father. The ROLE is what’s key. When we get hung up on trying to measure or characterize our genders by how we are similar or different, we miss the point: our gender is meant to help us fulfill a role. 

Just as the size of an eye versus a hand is a functionally worthless statistic, whether boys or girls prefer playing with trucks doesn’t tell us anything we actually need to know. The question should be, are we helping boys become men who can become husbands and fathers? And are we helping girls become women who are ready to be awesome mothers and wives? 

Viewing gender in terms of our family roles also helps with people who don’t feel like they “fit” (sociologists coined this ambiguous state “cisgender” – which apparently means that you “feel” like a man or a woman, whatever that means). Instead of deciding whether you have more in common with Barbie or Ken, let’s look at roles. What does it mean to be a father? The Proclamation on the Family says it’s about protecting and providing for your family. Can you do that as a strong and tough father? A funny father? A caring and sensitive father? YES! You can be any of the above! Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. But what does nurturing look like? Can it involve taking your children on fishing trips? Taking a belly dancing class together? Are you a mother who likes snuggling, or a mother who tells stories? Yes! That is womanhood too. 

We are born with a body that physically contains our potential for either fatherhood or motherhood. But things become problematic when we try to define gender outside the context of family and responsibilities. If it’s not about family… what ELSE does it mean to be a man? Um…Probably something that is not actually true of all men, or something that can describe many women as well. 

If the purpose of men and women, to fulfill sacred family roles, is removed, then what does it mean to be a man? Again, the average man and average woman engage in many of the same activities, and have many of the same traits. Does it mean to be willing to take risks? You can always find some woman who is more willing to take risks than some man. Taller? There is a woman somewhere who is taller than him. Does that make him less of a man? Does that make HER more of a man?  Look at this graph again: 

When we define manhood or womanhood based on characteristics instead of roles, the significant overlap between the two makes things very difficult. We often end up focusing on the sliver of extremes on the right or the left side of the bell curve that tend to be purely characteristic of one gender. (ie. manhood becomes whatever women are not.) When the definition of masculinity is whatever has been stripped from anything that women do or possess, it becomes "toxic masculinity" indeed. 

Outside the context of family, both gender and sex become much more flexible – and confusing. If your perception of a “cisgender” man doesn’t match your perception of yourself, society suggests that we come up with more categories. Are you a man, but not attracted to women like most other men? Are you a woman who likes men, but also likes to dress up as a man? Clearly, there must be yet another category you fit into. There is no end to the number of sexual and gender identities that people have and will adopt – homosexual, bisexual, pan sexual, queer, polyamorous, transsexual, etc. These identities aren’t problematic because they are untrue, they are problematic because they are unhelpful.

There are helpful reasons to categorize people – when we can diagnose and treat mental illness for example, by categorizing symptoms, or understanding how men vs. women view criminal trial proceedings, or how their bodies respond differently to medication, or how boys and girls tend to learn, can provide information that can better inform our teaching, parenting, jury picking, etc. 

But categorizing individuals when it comes to relationships is a problem because we don't marry a category. We marry an individual. It doesn’t really matter whether you’re attracted to MOST women. Or whether you’ve had many previous relationships or none. Or whether you are a practical or passionate partner. The only person that matters is that person, and the only relationship that matters is that one relationship. 

Categorizing may be helpful in some situations, but not in marriage relationships, because EVERY MARRIAGE IS DIFFERENT. Those differences are important, not incidental. When the goal is unity with each other, not conformity to others, couples can build solid family structures that may look similar or dramatically different from one relationship to the next (see The Good Marriage by Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee). All we are required to do is keep the commandments.

The problem is that, the more we have created alternative categories for people who do not fit a “cisgender” identity, the smaller each category becomes, until no one but Barbie fits the description of “woman”. And the more diverse people’s sexual interests become (and which may be exacerbated by pornography and other social influences), the less we believe that our sexual desires and needs could be contained within a single, monogamous, heterosexual, married relationship. 

As with gender roles, if sex isn’t about family, why would it need to be monogamous? Or covenanted? Or heterosexual? God has told us that sex must only happen within marriage, and that marriage must be between a man and a woman. But we also know that God wants us to find happiness. So how do people with sexually deviant appetites reconcile these two things? This is a difficult question for many people. Perhaps the answer has been staring us in the face this whole time: We need to start seeing people as individuals and not as categories. And we need to see marriage as an institution broad enough to be right  for every person. 

Yes, to fulfill our incredible, eternally progressing family roles, men and women are the positive and negative magnet ends that are divinely and necessarily created to go together. God said “neither the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man”. He also said “It is not good for us to be alone”. We were meant to be together. But like two matching puzzle pieces, the connection between any given husband and wife does not have to look like anyone else’s connection. To use another analogy, stilettos go with a ballgown and a swimsuit goes with sandals – at the end of the day, as long they have the keys, their unique “outfit” will be of their own making, that will work for them, and it isn’t particularly helpful to describe (or worse, PRESCRIBE) their relationship as belonging to some other type of category. 

We are sexual beings, and our sexual relationships with our husband or wife is important and good – and, like the overlapping bell curves of our heights and level of affinity for the color pink, it may be similar or different than others. The stereotype of a man who takes charge in the bedroom is common, but a woman who likes being assertive in bed may have a wonderful sex life with a husband who likes playing a more submissive role during intimacy. But even that sounds too much like a category – because those preferences or roles may change! It doesn’t necessitate a new partner or a foray into adultery or pornography – it simply requires more creativity - and love. When individuals are convinced that who they are or what they want can’t fit into some socially-determined category, they are discouraged from forming their own unique, wonderful, DYNAMIC relationship that grows and evolves over time. 

Perhaps the problem is apparent to others: there will never be enough categories to capture all of us. There will never be enough categories to capture all of the beautiful, God-given nuance that is our individual identity and our marriage relationship. Our attempts to classify ourselves beyond “man” and “woman” that is our physical and spiritual inheritance undermines the individuality that God intends to exist within each of these categories. You don’t have to be something other than a man – you can be any kind of man you want. No surgery or hormones needed. 

God wants us to be happy. He invented sex! He invented our bodies! He wants us to love our bodies and have incredible, mind-blowing pleasure and joy with our spouse and their body. Some may feel discouraged because they think that God is restraining our potential through his commandments, when in fact just the opposite is true. He knows all we are capable of and it is SO MUCH BIGGER than we realize. We need to see the enormous possibilities that exist within the framework God has given us. I feel this way about people who say they don't like to read. I say, clearly you haven't found the type of book you're interested in yet.

We are sexual beings, and the things that arouse us will differ from person to person and from time to time. “Incontinence” is a word that Paul uses to describe people in the last days who suffer from a lack of self-control – funny because it also calls to mind people who have trouble knowing when and where it’s appropriate to relieve themselves. Expecting people to have self-control when it comes to any kind of appetite is how we maintain sustainable societies - by protecting families. What arouses us doesn't have to define us, and it doesn't have to determine our destiny. Our primary identity should be that we are children of God. As such, we have the potential to become gods and create eternal families and worlds without end. Men and women were designed like puzzle pieces to fit together, both physically and spiritually, in order to accomplish this purpose. But whether she has long hair or whether he orgasms once or five times a week is as frustratingly irrelevant to examine as the head sizes of criminals. 

If our modern concept of “man” and “woman” seems stifling, expand the two categories, don't create more of them! Are you a “masculine” woman? Redefine it! Are you a woman who isn’t into shopping or watching The Bachelor? That’s fine! That doesn’t make you more of a man or a “trans-man” – that just makes you a different kind of woman (a different kind of mother/wife). 

Are you a “feminine” man? Redefine it! “Feminine” is a social creation that’s sneaky and distracting. You are no more a woman than any other man with a “Y” chromosome. You are simply a different kind of man (and husband/father). And the woman you marry may be different than most other women. 

Having faith in Jesus Christ and his desire for us to become the best versions of ourselves, I believe that God has unique roles for each of us to play in his kingdom, and most of them will have overlapping characteristics: we all need to develop charity and faith, we all need to be more like Christ. Our unique personal expression of “man” and “woman” and our unique efforts to become protectors/providers or nurturers are welcome and needed, as are our own unique marriage relationships. 

If you are not married, or feeling trapped and hopeless because of the identity/category that you feel has been handed to you, remember that the vision God has for who you are and who you can become is BIGGER than you realize. Believe that his hopes for your marriage are too. He has someone in mind for you – not a category, but an individual - who you can find joy and unity with – in a relationship that may look completely different from anyone else’s. Trust the Lord, keep the commandments, and have faith in something that doesn't make sense right now. There is happiness for you and for all of us. God knows the bigger picture and someday we will too.