The appearance of "evil"

[NerdGirl]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/78201/

Ok, first of all, I get it. I get that this is a common thing in the church that you shouldn't be in a car or whatever with a member of the opposite sex because it looks "evil" or because they will try to have sex with you. Really, I get it, and I've been hearing for decades. It's a common thing for people in the church to think like this.

But I just want to state, for the record, that as a single member of the church, I think it is totally ridiculous. I have to the point where I am just so sick of this crap and it just makes me angry. ATTITUDES LIKE THIS ARE A HUGE PART OF THE REASON WHY SINGLES ARE LEAVING THE CHURCH and it needs to stop. Not everyone wants to have sex with you (the general you, not specifically this questioner), and people aren't creeping around keeping track of who is in a car with whom. People have better things to do with their lives.

I didn't own a car until very recently (like 2 weeks ago), and I have spent large stretches of time not actually being able to get to church because of things like buses not running on Sundays, and the only people that could have given me rides were men, but they "couldn't" because I was a single woman and that's not ok. Seriously, this just makes me so angry. And yes, I know that the vast majority of married LDS people totally disagree with me and I have heard all of the arguments against what I think. But trust me, it's stuff like this that is what makes single people quit going to church. And I used to think that mattered, but more and more I am starting to think that the church may not actually even care about all of the singles it is losing.

[bobtheenchantedone]

It bothers me that a church that stresses individual worth has so many more "keeping up appearances" rules than "serve your neighbor in every way at every time you can" rules. And many more "we don't trust you so here are the number of steps you can take on a Sunday" rules than "teach them correct principles and leave them to govern themselves" rules.

It's my opinion that when people are being sacrificed to rules, the rules need to change.

[SmurfBlueSnuggie]

I've heard these suggestions, but never from a leader. Well, once, but that was exceptional circumstances. In my YSA ward, one man was banned from riding alone with women because of how he had behaved previously. He had mental issues an requesting he behave decently was not working. They also had to start enforcing the age out policy because of him. Before that, our ward had several 31+ members attending at least the activities, if not the Sunday meetings.

Honestly though, while I think that the woman in question has the right to follow what she feels comfortable with, I don't think these sorts of rules should be enforced widely. Rather, have the rule or guideline in place and then let people do as they will. Those who feel discomfort in a situation can use the rule as an excuse to get out of it. (I'm really sorry sir, there is a policy in the Handbook that says as a single mother, my daughters and I can't give you a ride to church. I did call my hometeacher, though. He says he can give you a ride.) And others who have no problem with a situation can continue to offer service as they see fit.

I guess I can see the benefits to having the rules because I know of a situation in which they needed to be enforced. It's not always needed, but you may not know why it's so strict where you are. Many people in the ward no longer know the man in question, and yet they are still expected to follow the age out rules because if we made an exception, he'd be back.

[NerdGirl]

I have no problem with people doing what they feel comfortable with. A simple, "I'm sorry, I can't give you a ride," is sufficient, and absolutely people have had circumstances and things in their lives happen that make them uncomfortable giving people rides. But that wasn't really what I was talking about. It's this whole idea that it's improper for people of the opposite sex to ever be "alone" together because it makes them look bad that I have a problem with. If someone has some personal thing about not giving people rides because they think it will make other people gossip, then whatever, that's your business and you get to choose what you do, but you don't get to choose the consequences of what you do. And the consequence of acting like that is that you hurt people's feelings and make them feel marginalized. If someone really doesn't want to give someone a ride because they think it will look bad, a simple, "I'm sorry, I can't give you a ride," is a much better response than, "I can't give you a ride because I'm a married man/woman and you're a woman/man and that looks bad and people might gossip and it's not proper." Still doesn't solve the problem of some single people not being able to ever get a ride to church, but at least you aren't making people feel like their very existence and attempting to go to church is awkward and improper. But I would still suggest that if the only reason someone doesn't want to drive a short distance in a car with a member of the opposite sex is because of worries about gossip and reputations (and not because of previous experiences with being assaulted, for example), then it would be nice to think seriously and critically about whether or not you are causing more good or more harm by having that rule for yourself.

[Cindy]

I don't think these sorts of rules should be enforced widely. Rather, have the rule or guideline in place and then let people do as they will. Those who feel discomfort in a situation can use the rule as an excuse to get out of it. (I'm really sorry sir, there is a policy in the Handbook that says as a single mother, my daughters and I can't give you a ride to church. I did call my hometeacher, though. He says he can give you a ride.) And others who have no problem with a situation can continue to offer service as they see fit.

The problem is, if you have a rule on the books, then obedient people won't want to break that rule, even if they personally wouldn't see a problem with the situation otherwise.

I had a hometeacher at one point who wouldn't ever come visit me because his companion was a bit of a deadbeat, and there's a rule against a home teacher going to a single woman's home by himself. At the end of every month, he would call and ask if there was anything he could do to help. One time I decided to take him up on the offer and told him that I needed someone to help me pull my Christmas tree box out of the storage unit across the hall from my apartment, since the box is a little heavy and bulky for me to manage by myself. It seriously would have only taken about five minutes of his time, and I told him that. But he refused to come help me because he didn't think he'd be able to get his companion to come, and he didn't want to burden anyone else with having to come over to my house for something so silly. This was in a singles ward, so this wasn't about the weird married-people phobia of hanging out with single people. He just was convinced that obeying this rule about home teaching was more important than actually being of service.

[Genuine Article]

I think the actual Church rule is that people of the opposite sex can't drive together when carrying out Church business, unless they're both single. So, unless it's something you're doing in an official capacity, you should be free to give rides to whoever.

I was actually thinking about this rule recently, because it doesn't make a ton of sense, except to serve as a way to cover everyone's butts, like with having men team-teach. It's so the Church can say there's no way X could have happened, because our members don't do Y. It's supposed to protect everyone involved. But really it doesn't hold up to any kind of logical scrutiny. Why is it okay for single people (who I think are more likely to "get into trouble") to ride together but not married people? Is this rule more about physical intimacy issues or emotional intimacy issues? What about gay people? Are we just going to keep ignoring the fact that people of the same sex can like like each other?

Mostly I wish as a church we weren't so backwards about men and women spending time together.

We only have one car, and we both have extra Church meetings because my husband's in the EQ presidency and I'm the primary president. So the 1st Sunday of the month I have ward council early before church, which means I get ready, we buckle up the baby, my husband drives me to the church, drops me off, drives home, gets himself and the baby ready, and then drives back over to the church at the regular time. Every other week we end up making an extra trip to church. Another member of the ward council lives two streets away, which is really close in my spread-out rural ward, but he's a man, so I can't catch a ride with him.

And my husband loves to sing and would like to be in the choir, but, again, we just have the one car, and we need to get the baby home after church, so he can't stay after. We thought about asking a member of the choir if he could get a ride home with her, but we chickened out. What if it made her uncomfortable? What would her husband think?

I guess it wouldn't be a Church operation if it wasn't a little more complicated than it needs to be.

[Eirene]

Oh my gosh, you guys, the comment that posted the other day...I have to say that if a man was ever giving me a ride and suggested that I sit in the back seat "to put distance between us and so that I'd be able to see him at all times," my first thought would be, "Is this guy some kind of pervert or something? Why do I need to see him at all times? Is he going to kidnap me??? What is he trying to restrain himself from doing to me????" I would be pretty skeeved out and I would DEFINITELY not think that he was a gentleman concerned for my comfort. Puke.

[Cindy]

Agreed! I would be really creeped out if a man suggested there was a reason he thought I should be watching him at all times, and then I'd start wondering about the child locks on the back door. I think that's a really terrible suggestion.

[NerdGirl]

Totally agree.

[blue morpho]

Okay, so I made that comment, and about 3 minutes after hitting "submit", I started hoping it would get rejected. It was pretty badly worded, and I feel like I tried to go along with the asker's mindset rather than actually sticking to my own opinions. It was a bad comment and I'm sorry.

Anyway, this guy and his family were really nice and I feel bad seeing implications of creepiness about them on the internet, so I'd like to clarify:
-he actually didn't say anything about "putting distance between us" or "watching him", he just asked if I'd be more comfortable sitting in the back since his wife and kids were home sick that day. I sort of assumed that was what he meant by "more comfortable".
-this was in a country that, compared to America, seemed rather hyper-vigilant to me about spotting situations where something terrible could happen, especially to unaccompanied women. For example, underground parking garages had spaces right by the store exits that were reserved especially for women so they wouldn't have to walk through a poorly-lit garage alone. So there was sort of a cultural thing there that also made it not feel creepy.

So yeah, the guy wasn't creepy but my comment was pretty dumb and I should have waited 20 minutes between writing it and submitting it so I could change my mind about it. Personally, I agree with what seems to be the general sentiment here, which is that people take this sort of thing to an extreme. Don't get in a car with someone you feel unsafe with, but don't just assume every man (/woman/child) that you meet is unsafe, either.

Sorry about the dumb comment.

[Eirene]

Aw shucks, I didn't mean to make anybody feel dumb. Sorry! I think your assessment of the situation makes a bit more sense in the context of another culture, and with the fact that the guy didn't literally say you needed to keep your eyes on him. In the US, I still would find it very strange if someone suggested that I leave the front seat empty and ride in the back, and borderline offensive if they suggested it was because I was a danger, and quite creepy indeed if they suggested it was because they were the danger. I'm glad that your particular situation was less odd in context.

[blue morpho]

Don't worry about it! I already knew it wasn't a very good comment, and I think I probably would have been creeped out if it had happened in America.
Anyways, I sort of feel like saying something stupid on the internet and then getting called out on it is a rite of passage.

[mic0]

saying something stupid on the internet and then getting called out on it is a rite of passage

Hahahaha! Too true, too true.

[NerdGirl]

Yeah, I appreciate that you came on here and took the time to clarify. And with that background to it, it does make more sense and seems a lot less weird.

[Imogen]

So if you have no other option you're just not supposed to go to church?

SO WEIRD TO ME! In Catholicism it is of the utmost importance that you attend Mass weekly (at least), so you do what you have to do to get to church, appearances be damned.

[vorpal blade]

Hmmm. My wife just took a 10 or 12 hour car ride with a man. Just the two of them together, in my car. Should I be worried? The man was my daughter's boyfriend, if that makes a difference.

In some cases Paul points out that there is wisdom in avoiding the appearance of evil, as in eating sacrifices given to idols.

And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

[Marduk]

Should you be worried?

Absolutely. For the boyfriend. (12 hours trapped with my girlfriend's mother? No thanks.)

[Whistler]

In some cases Paul points out that there is wisdom in avoiding the appearance of evil, as in eating sacrifices given to idols.

Yeah, wasn't this about not causing other members to freak out (basically)? Would it be okay to eat idol-sacrificed meat if none of the other members knew about it?

[Emiliana]

In some cases Paul points out that there is wisdom in avoiding the appearance of evil, as in eating sacrifices given to idols.

Yeah, wasn't this about not causing other members to freak out (basically)?

Yes and no. 1 Thessalonians 5:22 is the verse often translated "avoid every appearance of evil," but other translations say "every form of evil," which is something quite different. And my Greek is too rusty to give you an explanation of why it could be translated either way.

The passage about meat sacrificed to idols specifically to avoiding causing others to violate their OWN consciences. So yes, you can eat idol-sacrificed meat all you want, just as long as it wouldn't cause someone else to sin in their own minds. A former idol-worshiper might feel like it wasn't okay to eat the idol-meat, because it would cause him/her to want to worship the idols. Paul's point isn't that you should worry about what other people think of YOU, it's that you should be concerned with helping others not commit idolatry.

but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

By the same logic that Paul uses, it's okay to ride in cars with single members of the opposite sex unless it would cause OTHERS to sin -- perhaps my riding in a car with a dude would make other people feel like it's okay to cheat on their own spouses? It seems unlikely that this would happen.

(Can you tell I took an entire course in 1 Corinthians in Bible college...?)

[ETA: Correcting the 1 Thess citation]

[Amity]

The passage about meat sacrificed to idols specifically to avoiding causing others to violate their OWN consciences. So yes, you can eat idol-sacrificed meat all you want, just as long as it wouldn't cause someone else to sin in their own minds. A former idol-worshiper might feel like it wasn't okay to eat the idol-meat, because it would cause him/her to want to worship the idols. Paul's point isn't that you should worry about what other people think of YOU, it's that you should be concerned with helping others not commit idolatry.

That's a really fascinating way of looking at that scripture. Thanks, Emiliana! I like the emphasis it puts on each individual knowing his or her own limits and weaknesses and everyone working together to help others progress.