Conforming Thoughts and Behaviors (Authentically)
By Elise Eggett Johnson on Feb 25, 2007
I like reading Oprah Magazine better than I like reading the scriptures.
There, I said it. I find a lot of inspiration, motivation and truth in…..Oprah Magazine. My husband makes fun of me for it (lovingly, of course) and I’m sometimes a bit embarrassed at the confession of being a die-hard Oprah fan, but I guess that’s just the way it is.
Much of March’s edition of Oprah is devoted to living a truthful life: figuring out who the “real you” is, trusting your intuition, being individual, living the life you want, acknowledging your strengths and weaknesses honestly, and maintaining your authentic self. She quoted Franz Grillparzer: “Nothing remains true to you but your own self; provided you remain true to it;” Henry David Thoreau: “As to conforming outwardly and living your own life inwardly, I do not think much of that;” and Jean Baker Miller: “Authenticity and subordination are totally incompatible.”
I love being my authentic, individual, real self. I am blessed to have always had a fairly confident sense of who that is. And, if I could stop here, I’d smile and tell you life’s a peach and things are simple.
I can’t stop there, though. The importance of being an individual may sometimes be underestimated in a society that tells us its standards of money and beauty are the path to happiness and that one-size-fits-all. But, for those who do wade through the homogeneity to find their uniqueness, the battle is only half way complete. The other half of life’s journey – the balance to individuality, if you will – is successfully mingling that uniqueness with others’ individualities and forming a community.
The combination of individuals in a community will always require some conformity. A group of people that could exist without any type of conformity would be a group of identical people who are not individuals at all. To live peacefully with other individuals, we must find a way to unify our common history, share goals and work toward them together, and live within a set of rules that hopefully create harmony and respect.
So, turning our thoughts to religion, how do we conform to a religious faith community while holding on to our individuality? I ask because I’ve always struggled with this one. But I’ve met several people who do a beautiful job of balancing their individuality with their religious community. Sunday school teachers who are able to deliver a heart-felt, personal lesson without propagating ideas that they disagree with. Women that participate in all salvation ordinances except for those that cause them to feel inferior to men. Couples who attend an LDS service one Sunday and another service the next Sunday so that the can participate fully in both of their faith traditions.
I’ve heard such individuals accused of picking-and-choosing from something that was meant to be consumed in its entirety. I disagree, and greatly admire their ability to authentically merge their individual beliefs and ideas with their community’s culture, teachings, and expectations. I want to do a little bit better at that myself.
Are there aspects of your individuality that you have willingly conformed to LDS doctrine and culture? Are there aspects of your individuality that you have been unwilling to conform but have successfully found ways to incorporate into the greater community (and if so, how have you done it)? And are there aspects of your individuality that you haven’t given up and have caused you difficulty as you attempt to fit in to the LDS church (and if so, have you continued to struggle or have you stopped trying to conform)?
“I’ve heard such individuals accused of picking-and-choosing from something that was meant to be consumed in its entirety.”
Really, who doesn’t?
The Iron Rodders pick and choose too. When faced with conflicts between aspects of Mormon/Christian doctrine that emphasize, on the one hand, order, obedience, and conformity and, on the other hand, “the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,” they choose the former. It happens that the organization of the Church, for most of its history, has made substantially the same choice. That’s fine — but that process is also a picking and choosing; it’s just a collective rather than an individual one. Joseph Smith’s Church was not Brigham Young’s Church was not Heber J. Grant’s Church was not Ezra Taft Benson’s Church was not Gordon B. Hinckley’s Church. Unless the Church’s essence can be distilled down to nothing more complicated than “whatever the current leadership says, goes” (in which case we could dispense with all the scriptures, leaving just that one phrase as a mantra), we’ve been picking, choosing, discarding and replacing since the beginning.
Comment # 1 by Thomas | Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
Comment #1- Thomas, I agree with your point that even the Iron Rodders also have to pick and choose when it comes to aspects of LDS doctrine, even though they might not recognize it as such. “…It’s just a collective rather than an individual one. Joseph’s Smith Church was not Brigham Young’s Church was not Heber J. Grant’s Church was not…” I think this point illustrates the different eras of leadership and how it relates to the collective picking-and-choosing over time that constitutes some changes in the Church. And yes, “Unless the Church’s essence can be distilled down to nothing more than ‘whatever the current leadership says, goes,’ (in which case we could dispense with all the scriptures, leaving just that one phrase as a mantra), we’ve been picking, choosing, discarding, and replacing since the beginning.”
Now discussing the individual, I think there is this trend within the culture, policies and doctrine of Mormonism—or wherever it exists—that can it make quite challenging for a member to individually feel comfortable to pick and choose because—as Thomas mentioned—the Church collectively “for most of its history, has made substantially the same choice.” I think in many cases on a micro-level, Christian clergymen and women accepting the fact that they have members of their congregations who pick and choose—in terms of their faith and spirituality—is more apparent in today’s Christian world (hence also on a macro-level) than in the past. Or even this may be a moot point for the faith of members in God and their effort to faithfully explore their sense of a belief system. In contrast, I think the LDS Church’s approach on a macro-level is in a unique and different category that—as Thomas mentioned—is collectively not that distant from its historical origins. And on a micro-level, LDS members who choose to “pick and choose” tend to do so with oftentimes very little discourse about it with their other church members. This is at least my experience. And speaking of members who pick and choose, for myself, since I choose not to burn any bridges and be unfairly labeled as someone who I’m not, I also choose to conform to the cultural trend within Mormonism not to always be forthcoming with what I may or many not believe. Granted, this scenario can be common in any organized religion. I’m just making the point that is individually the case for myself and collectively the same for many others in the Church.
Comment # 2 by Andy J. | Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
In my original post, I was considering conforming through actual change of one’s thoughts and/or behaviors. I hadn’t thought about conforming not by actual change, but by not being forthcoming about what one is actually thinking or how one is actually behaving. But you are right, that is a type of conforming in and of itself.
I think that it can be more damaging internally to conform by not being forthcoming, although there are certain personal aspects of a person’s spiritual thoughts and behaviors that should be kept just that - personal.
Although the collective picking and choosing is apparent and obvious in history and in current trends, I really am asking about people’s individual picking and choosing and how it works for them.
For example, I met an LDS woman who sincerely believed women should have the priesthood and was unwilling to conform to the point that she would not take the sacrament at an LDS meeting because only the young men (and not the young women) were passing it. She would attend another Christian denomination’s service occasionally (one where women were ordained) so that she could partake of the sacrament, but she wouldn’t do so in an LDS meeting.
On a less-doctrinal level, there was a discussion on one of the women’s boards (FMH? Exponent? sorry, I can’t remember) about not conforming to the cultural sacrament meeting dress code.
When I was growing up, I didn’t think that not conforming was an option. I tended to think that you had to take it all - the good and the bad - or nothing at all. Now it’s really beautiful to see the different ways people merge their own personal faith with institutional faith. I love meeting people and hearing stories of people who have found ways to practice their own belief within the greater institution.
Comment # 3 by Elise | Feb 27, 2007 | Reply