Transparency in All Things

Anonymous Question Series:

Q: If someone has watched pornography or masturbated in the past, do you feel they are obligated to tell their future spouse? Does it depend on how long ago it was?

There are three concepts in this question that need to be answered: 1) transparency in relationships, 2) stigma/shame of sexual sins/behaviors, 3) masturbation, is it really that bad? 

The main focus in this question is transparency and stigma/shame of sexual sins/behaviors. I will address the third concept in a separate post.

A: The quick answer: yes, and if you can't/don't, you should not get married.

Transparency In Relationships

"Where there is respect, there is also transparency, which is a key element of happy marriages. There are no secrets about relevant matters in marriages based on mutual respect and transparency. Husbands and wives make all decisions about finances together and both have access to all information." —Elder L. Whitney Clayton, Marriage: Watch and Learn

I understand the above quote is specifically addressing social media in marriage, which I will address more specifically in my forthcoming post on, "Jealousy and Social Media." Once published, I will put a link to it here. (Update: Read “Jealousy and Social Media” HERE!)

Nonetheless, this quote is absolutely applicable to premarital relationships, especially if you are engaged. How do you ever expect to be transparent or desire your partner to be transparent if you yourself keep secrets?

The Myth

Let's dispel a myth right now. I have searched all over for a source, a reference, or the origin of one of the most ridiculous myths and traditions in our faith. But I cannot find an original source nor anything that supports it. That is, if you have "repented" of something, you don't need to divulge it to your future spouse (or current spouse). I cannot emphasize how naive, controlling, and dangerous this concept is.

There are women who say, "If it is in the past, I don't want to know about it, I don't need to know about it." For some reason, I've only heard women express this idea, but please realize that this is a rejection of your partner. Not wanting to share and not wanting to know is anything but love. Many excuse it as "true love" and "embracing the atonement" when they don't "dig up the past." These individuals believe it is a rejection of the atonement to bring up the past. When women desire to learn about their loved one, the men often respond defensively, "Why do you keep wanting to know about the things I've repented about?"

This is a huge RED FLAG, and if it wasn't so common, I would tell you to turn and run as fast as you can. Unfortunately, it is far too common of a conversation, which means it's a tradition and myth that good people truly believe. It can be worked through and properly understood, but transparency is an absolute must! Without exception!

Clarity And Perspective

It boggles my mind that we still speak as though pornography is some type of sin of "perdition," unrecoverable and mentally damaging — a sin that turns beautiful, intelligent, amazing individuals into social pariahs. The social and self shame around this topic is unjustified. I assure you, nearly 100% of individuals, male and female have viewed pornography and 80–95% of people have masturbated. In today's information age, it is impossible to not view and even engage in pornography.

Additionally, there is a real problem with even the word "pornography." It's a nonsensical, abstract word. Let me give you a real life example. A wife demands her spouse repent to the bishop because he saw breasts in the movie "Titanic." The bishop, whom the husband will potentially confess to, went on a date with his wife to see "Deadpool." One can argue the bishop and his wife are in serious violation themselves. This is the problem; who gets to define pornography?

Recently, I was interacting with an anti-porn advocate who uses her spouse's "short comings" as a platform for her "trauma." Yet, she has a plethora of highly sensual books and movies on her own Facebook "Likes" page. Some could easily be considered "harlequin"-type material. When that was pointed out, she defended it saying there was no "nudity" in those types of entertainment. That statement wasn't entirely true, but it's an example of the double standard and confusion around the concept of pornography.

"Historically the term 'pornography' has an unreliable history of usefulness as a scientific term. Instead, it is a social construct of the human mind. Its social use is vague, inaccurate and is often co-opted for use as rhetoric by those who use it to further their social or political agendas. Over time the term has taken on negative connotations, and is now, also used as a pejorative term in expressions of disapproval. The term "pornography" is like using the term "lemon" to describe an automobile. It describes a negative quality of an object in the minds of many people.

... Now is the time for scientists to break a bad habit of using this socially biased, non-scientific term. As scientists we create problems for ourselves when we adopt unscientific terminology that has culturally evolved, and is loaded with cultural or moralistic bias. We handicap the social effectiveness of our research when we use such terms." —Mark Kim Malan, Ph.D., A New Taxonomy: Scientific Misuse of the Term "Pornography"

As I pointed out in my previous post, problematic sexual behavior is an ambiguous terminology socially defined by white, middle-class, Christian males. 

Fortunately, Elder Oaks has addressed this topic well in an October 2015 Ensign article where he embraced a more scientific and correct view. He said there are four types of pornography use: (1) inadvertent exposure, (2) occasional use, (3) intensive use, and (4) compulsive use (addiction). The Church is making great progress in defining the "problem" and eliminating the shame. [Read more of my thoughts on this topic here. Read the entire Ensign article here.]

Stigma/Shame Of Sexual Sins/Behaviors

From a "doctrinal" and spiritual perspective. Our culture has traditionally lumped ALL "porn" into the same level of severity and seriousness. In spite of logic and the infinite atonement, we conceptually view — even 5 minutes of pornography — as a sexual "sin next to murder," which is not accurate.

"Corianton’s sin was a composite of several elements, specifically sexual immorality by a priesthood leader that caused him to abandon his ministry and therefore neglect the spiritual needs of his flock, thereby leading them into apostasy. In effect, Corianton metaphorically “murdered” the testimonies of those he was commissioned to bring unto Christ when he was lured away by Isabel (cf. Alma 36:14).

This understanding of Corianton’s particular situation is strengthened by of the fact that in Alma 39:5, Alma speaks of “these things” (plural) being “an abomination in the sight of the Lord.” Apparently, “these things” included not only Corianton committing sexual sin, but purposefully neglecting “the ministry wherewith [he] wast entrusted” (v. 4). Perhaps, then, “the more serious infraction was the resulting spiritual damage inflicted upon others who had witnessed Corianton’s sinful actions.” —Michael R. Ash and B. W. Jorgensen, "Knowhy #147"

Let me be clear, the prevalence of a sin or behavior doesn't make it right (just because everyone is doing it). However, we treat pornography and masturbation with such rejection, that emotionally we loath ourselves and others for engaging in it. In the great words of Elder Uchtdorf, "STOP IT."

Doing it Right

We must “stop it”—meaning, stop being ashamed and own it. The fact that people view it with such seriousness makes this a landmark conversation in the relationship. My suggestion is to go into a relationship with the assumption that the other has engaged in these behaviors. As the relationship matures, it will provide appropriate opportunities to discuss the history and severity of the behaviors.

Every relationship is different and there is no fast and set rule on when to divulge your past. You cannot control your partner’s responses, but you can begin to view yourself in the loving context of the atonement. Their response is a reflection of their spiritual and emotional maturity. In fact, your sharing and their response can be an excellent indicator of their marriage readiness.

“Thank You” Doesn't Quite Do It

"Building a celestial marriage. The scriptures give an occasional glimpse into societies in which people “were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them” (Moses 7:18), where “there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.” (4 Ne. 1:15.)" —Spencer J. Condie, And We Did Liken the Scriptures unto Our Marriage

“Thank you” doesn't communicate the profound appreciation I have for my wife. It seems too trite. In no way does it express the joy, all-accepting love and adoration I feel from my wife and what she has provided for me. Nor does it fully express the appreciation I have for her Christ-like example and courageous endurance, with which she not only accepted, but full-heartedly committed to supporting me in my Master’s program. To convey even slightly the miracle and blessing this has been, I must share briefly how we got to this point.

When I was thirteen I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life, I wanted to be a psychotherapist. It’s an unusual story—after all, what kid knows they want to be a therapist? A firefighter, astronaut, race car driver, a professional skateboarder, surfer, sure. But a therapist? I felt I might have been the only one ever, in the history of the world. Although I didn’t know such a career existed or the vocabulary to describe my passion at the time, I was fascinated by human behavior. My stargazing was people watching. I got just as much awe and sense of magnificence from viewing the human experience as looking into a clear star-filled night. It wasn’t until I found an “Intro to Psychology” college textbook a couple years later that I realized it was a career and entire field of study. I took that textbook everywhere and devoured it. When in high school I was reading Jung, Fraud, Maslow and Rodgers. I was bored with fiction and thought it was a waste of time. I wanted more; I wanted to understand why people do what they do, what made them tick, both the emotional and logical.

I couldn't wait to get out of high school; it felt like a wasteful distraction. Finally in college, I took as many classes as possible in the field of psychology. It came naturally and with little effort. I remember Dr. Mark Chamberlain’s (an individual I greatly admire) occasional surprised look when I would respond in class. One such experience came when in the first week of class he was addressing various topics that were going to be covered in the coming months. He began to briefly address the issue with cancer patients and their aversion to food during chemo. I asked if he was referring to the “Garcia Effect.” His look was both of surprise and joy to hear his new freshman’s passion for the topic.

Ironically, my very passion and joy in understanding human relationships was most challenged in my first marriage. My dear bride, my love, my friend, struggled with my decision to become a therapist. Additionally, she had put her education on hold to get married. It wasn't clear to me at the time why there was such an opposition to my career choice. Nonetheless, I desired to be one with her and support her in her education. I made the very difficult decision to postpone indefinitely, my therapist career path.

The next thirteen years were filled with great memories and equally difficult memories. In no way do I regret or resent those thirteen years. If anything, I learned more about human relationships than any class would have provided. I learned how to love unconditionally, forgive, be forgiven, have courage, trust, and how to be an individual in a marriage. I also learned how to see the heart of another who is struggling — see them not as their pain or struggle but for who they are as a person, a human, a child of God. The marriage ended, but some time later, I met Julie.

On June 8, 2012, we married in storybook fashion. If anyone tells you there is no such thing, stop them with a dramatic pause and confidently assure them that is not true and show them this video. (I must add, after the events in the video, she climbed up on the roof at 11 p.m. and shouted from the rooftop that she was getting married.) Storybook marriages are real. Period.

It was Julie’s loving prompting that encouraged me back onto the path to becoming a therapist. This was not a rash decision; it was thought about long and hard. You see, it wasn't just a dream come true marriage between to people. This blessing included five children, three daughters from her and two sons from me — in addition to two ex-spouses. Adjusting to a "normal" life would have been difficult enough. But going to school again would require me to be absent from home for long periods of time. With a full-time job, full-time schooling and eventually a full load of clients, it was rare for me to be home. In the last year of the 2.5 years schooling, we were routinely waking up at 4:30 a.m. and retiring at 10 or 11 p.m. at night. We often joked that we saw each other more during our courtship when she lived in Utah and I in California.

Now after almost three years of marriage, I have finished my Master’s in Marriage and Family Therapy. Her love and support wasn't limited to encouraging me to achieve my dreams; she made them her own, too. It became our dream. This was not my goal. It was ours. She would sometimes even say, “We are getting our master’s degree.” This was not just getting through a difficult time; it was becoming one with each other. Loving the process as Elder Maxwell has said, one is not only to endure, but to endure well and gracefully those things which the Lord “seeth fit to inflict upon [us].” 

We read in Mosiah about how the Lord simultaneously tries the patience of His people even as He tries their faith (Mosiah 23:21). One is not only to endure, but to endure well and gracefully those things which the Lord “seeth fit to inflict upon [us]” (Mosiah 3:19), just as did a group of ancient American saints who were bearing unusual burdens but who submitted “cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord” (Mosiah 24:15). —Elder Maxwell, Patience

Julie, my love exemplifies the meaning of Elder Maxwell's words.

Additionally, in these three years she has sent two daughters off to college, one on a mission, put two boys through the Cub Scout program, remodeled our home, started a new career, and jumped feet-first into a new business venture. She found daily ways to bring our family closer to Christ. We valued our 5 a.m. "dates" at the gym, long hours of editing papers, and many insightful heart-to-heart conversations.

In every way, she has been that best friend, completely adoring partner in life. We are deeper and more in love now than ever before. This is my feeble attempt at expressing my deep and ever-grateful love and gratitude for all you have done. Thank you.

A [Not So] Better Way To Say Sorry

“Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2 Cor. 7:9-10)

"Empathy is one of human beings’ highest qualities. Empathy is the root of most of the behaviour that we associate with “goodness.” It’s the root of compassion and altruism, self-sacrifice and charity. Conversely, a lack of empathy is the root of most destructive and violent behaviour — in fact, everything that we associate with “evil.” A lack of empathy with victims makes crime possible. A lack of empathy with other human groups makes warfare possible. A lack of empathy enables psychopaths to treat other human beings callously, as objects who have no value except as a means of satisfying their desires." —Steve Taylor Ph.D., "Out of the Darkness Understanding Empathy Shallow and Deep Empathy"

Empathy is a powerful tool for connecting with others and protecting ourselves from emotionally destructive people. Empathy is a difficult and ambiguous attribute to teach, especially to children. A good educator is skilled at taking the complex and simplifying it for their students. However, in the case of empathy and emotional connection, I am concerned the oversimplification has done more harm than good.

Aside from examples established by adults and peers, children are first taught how to empathize with others through apologies. The steps to apologies are intended to create an emotional awareness in the individual and those affected by their behavior. This should be a beautiful and essential part of a child's development. Parents, educators and psychologists have all come up with various steps to meaningfully outline an effective apology. There appears to be a variety of steps and approaches that become popular. Some try to simplify the steps to add new clarity or life to the process of empathy. But in the simplifying, I believe authors are unfortunately teaching something other than empathy, as in the following case.

On March 30, 2014, "joellen" published “A Better Way to Say Sorry.” This post quickly made its rounds on the bloggersphere. A year after it was published, it is still frequently making its appearance on Facebook and other social media. It’s a well-written post with an intriguing idea. I applaud joellen's insight regarding needing a better way to say sorry. This is a neglected concept that is very difficult to teach children. I also applaud the author for taking on this concept and sincerely trying to improve how we teach children to empathize.

I agree that the old way of demanding others to say sorry is wrong, and I deeply appreciate the author’s intent to foster greater personal responsibility. However, I believe and feel the four steps she outlines don't promote responsibility, but rather unhealthy communication, expectations and obligatory communication. I will give my take on her article.

Step one:

"I’m sorry for…: Be specific. Show the person you’re apologizing to that you really understand what they are upset about.

Wrong: I’m sorry for being mean.

Right: I’m sorry for saying that nobody wants to be your friend." —A Better Way to Say Sorry

This first step is critical, there is profound value in being specific with our words. This shows ownership and clarity. However, I would add to the step, "Learn to say sorry without saying the word sorry.”

This could be in words or deeds. It's not about the word "sorry." There is nothing wrong with the word sorry, but it easily becomes a trite phrase — a quick and repetitive way to acknowledge (or dismiss) your mistakes. It sometimes misses an opportunity to connect and learn from the experience. I believe this is what the author is trying to do in step two but misses the point.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell (1926–2004) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles pointed out, “Pride prefers cheap repentance, paid for with shallow sorrow. Unsurprisingly, seekers after cheap repentance also search for superficial forgiveness instead of real reconciliation. Thus, real repentance goes far beyond simply saying, ‘I’m sorry.’” (“Repentance,” Ensign, Nov. 1991, 31)

Step two:

"This is wrong because…:

This might take some more thinking, but this is one of the most important parts. Until you understand why it was wrong or how it hurt someone’s feelings, it’s unlikely you will change. This is also important to show the person you hurt that you really understand how they feel. I can’t tell you how much of a difference this makes! Sometimes, people want to feel understood more than they want an apology. Sometimes just showing understanding– even without an apology– is enough to make them feel better!

Wrong: This is wrong because I got in trouble.

Right: This is wrong because it hurt your feelings and made you feel bad about yourself." —A Better Way to Say Sorry

The author is not teaching responsibility in this step. It communicating a very emotionally manipulative message, which makes the offender responsible for the other’s emotions. In the example, that was provided:

"Wrong: This is wrong because I got in trouble."

"Right: This is wrong because it hurt your feelings and made you feel bad about yourself."

On the surface, these seem to be two very different experiences. But they are essentially the same. Here's how they are the same: the "right" example is just an emotional version of the the "wrong" example.

In the "wrong" example, the offender is sorry because they were caught. In the "right" example, the offender is sorry because someone is visually, emotionally hurt about the incident. In a way, this a a form of being caught. If the offended never acknowledged their hurt, the offender might not have recognized their behavior was inappropriate. This approach bases awareness on another person's reaction to an event. Neither of these examples teach a child the internal values of integrity, empathy, self-awareness or the ability to know right from wrong. Rather, they identify whether or not their actions were hurtful by another’s response; in a way, this is an emotional form of being caught, which is a form of emotional manipulation.

The emotional manipulation comes at the moment we decide an apology is needed based on another’s emotional response — NOT on whether our words or actions were wrong. You might be thinking, “What's the difference?” or that it’s semantics, or “That's just silly, other people's emotions matter.” Absolutely, other people's emotions are valid and do matter. We should never desire to hurt or ignore someone. Even more so, we should learn how to empathize. But hurt feelings are not a reliable indicator that you did something wrong. It is equally important for the offended to practice empathy in difficult situations too.

Let's look at this example. After a long day at work, I am hungry, tired and discouraged about my day's performance. Unfortunately, two people on separate occasions interact with me during which I am short in my communication, distracted and maybe come across as rude. It's been a difficult day; it had nothing to do with these two individuals. However, one responds very hurt, angry and emotional that I would treat them in such a way. The other brushes it off and recognizes I was possibly having a bad day and this behavior is out of character for me and even finds a way to help.

But in step two, the author is suggesting we would only say sorry to the first person because they were hurt and emotional, but not the other. That is wrong and teaching an unhealthy lesson. It might be that the emotionally reactive and hurt individual is the one who needs to apologize for being self-centered and unaware of the other’s bad day. Maybe the other individual needed some private time or words of encouragement, and the hurt individual failed to recognize that. Step two ignored that completely.

Step three:

"In the future, I will…:Use positive language, and tell me what you WILL do, not what you won’t do.

Wrong: In the future, I will not say that.

Right: In the future, I will keep unkind words in my head.

Now let’s practice using positive language. It’s hard at first, but you’ll get better. Can anyone think of a positive way to change these incorrect statements?

Wrong: In the future, I won’t cut.

(Right: In the future, I will go to the back of the line.)

Wrong: In the future, I won’t push.

(Right: In the future, I will keep my hands to myself.)

Wrong: In the future, I won’t take your eraser.

(Right: In the future, I will ask you if I can borrow your eraser.)" —A Better Way to Say Sorry

This is an entirely different process and should not be a part of the "sorry" process. Promising to never do something again is misguided. It’s setting the offender up for failure. It’s suggesting that a person can never have a bad day, and if they slip or repeat, there is shame, distrust and resentment. It continues a manipulative cycle. A current "sorry" should never be predicated on future promise! 

Step four: 

"Will you forgive me?” This is important to try to restore your friendship. Now, there is no rule that the other person has to forgive you. Sometimes, they won’t. That’s their decision. Hopefully, you will all try to be the kind of friends who will forgive easily, but that’s not something you automatically get just because you apologized. But you should at least ask for it." —A Better Way to Say Sorry

We cannot "forgive" anyone. Neither should we ever base our sorry's effectiveness off of another's inability or ability to forgive. It's not their place. Only God can forgive. Although there is appropriateness in certain types of "righteous judgement," Elder Oaks clarifies this is only in cases of stewardship and is not to be guided by anger.

"Second, a righteous judgment will be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, not by anger, revenge, jealousy, or self-interest ...

Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities." —Elder Dallin H. Oaks Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Judge Not”

The atonement and principles of repentance teach us that we don't say sorry to be forgiven. This is worldly sorrow. We are forgiven because we have a change of heart. Otherwise it's selfish: “I am feeling bad and want you to forgive me so I feel better” or "I want to you stop feeling bad so I am apologizing." It is not up to us how or if another will forgive, and we don’t repent or say sorry to be forgiven of that individual. It defeats the point and again sends a very wrong message to both the offender and offended. This is a form of worldly sorrow —an attempt to end another's pain so it doesn't hurt so much, or a means to meet an emotional criteria or demands of another to qualify as an apology.

“And it came to pass that when I, Mormon, saw their lamentation and their mourning and their sorrow before the Lord, my heart did begin to rejoice within me, knowing the mercies and the long-suffering of the Lord, therefore supposing that he would be merciful unto them that they would again become a righteous people.

But behold this my joy was vain, for their sorrowing was not unto repentance, because of the goodness of God; but it was rather the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin.

And they did not come unto Jesus with broken hearts and contrite spirits, but they did curse God, and wish to die. Nevertheless they would struggle with the sword for their lives.” (Mormon 2: 12-14)

What needs to happen is an internal recognition, a change of heart.

“Paul taught that ‘godly sorrow’ is required if true repentance is to take place (2 Corinthians 7:10). As you study 2 Corinthians 7, consider the following words of President Ezra Taft Benson: ‘It is not uncommon to find men and women in the world who feel remorse for the things they do wrong. Sometimes this is because their actions cause them or loved ones great sorrow and misery. Sometimes their sorrow is caused because they are caught and punished for their actions. Such worldly feelings do not constitute “godly sorrow.”’ (2 Corinthians 7:10)

Godly sorrow is a gift of the Spirit. It is a deep realization that our actions have offended our Father and our God. It is the sharp and keen awareness that our behavior caused the Savior, He who knew no sin, even the greatest of all, to endure agony and suffering. Our sins caused Him to bleed at every pore. This very real mental and spiritual anguish is what the scriptures refer to as having ‘a broken heart and contrite spirit’ (D&C 20:37). Such a spirit is the absolute prerequisite for true repentance” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 72).

So, how do you teach personal responsibility and the "sorry" process. My suggestion is to approach it in an entirely different way. DO NOT focus on the person who offended or did the wrong. This is where it takes trust, creativity and self-worth. Focus on the individual who was hurt. Help them to articulate their experience, take responsibility for their emotional experience as opposed to expecting an apology, and learn how to not be defined by the poor actions/words of others to affect their self-worth.

My wife and I came up with many great examples of this — from 3-year-olds to adults. That would require greater detail. But in short, it was interesting as I read the post and I confirmed with my wife, I have never demanded or asked our children to say sorry; I never realized it till now. I think that whole approach, even this four-step approach, isn’t obligatory. But, again I think the focus or teaching moment needs to be on identifying self-worth and how to respond appropriately to those who do harm, not the other way around. This is KEY.

May I add: that whole experience at the end of the article with having a student come up with things they should be or can be sorry for was, I trust, in the best of intentions — but not healthy at all. I understand it was a "good" experience for the author and students. However, it's like this. My wife and I are very happy and loving with each other. We have not had an argument ever let alone a fight. I can sit with her and think of a hand full of things to apologize for, despite our great love and relationship together. This is how it might go:

"Honey, I woke up late and ran to the office and I know I told you I would do the trash and dishes before I left, I am sorry." She would look at me and say (because I know what she would say ). “Oh sweet heart, thank you it wasn't a big deal. I know you were busy.” This was a good experience. I was honest, it gave us a moment together, a hug and kiss. Right?

There are a couple issues here, I can always think of something to apologize for. In the above example, as my wife pointed out, there was nothing to apologize for. It created a need that wasn't previously there. It actually replaced something more significant: trust. My wife trusted that I didn't intend to "fail." In fact, she didn't see it as a failure at all and needed NO apology. The other issue is it creates anxiety, wondering, looking and finding ways to apologize or room to always do better. It destroys trust and creates an expectation.

I trust that my wife will take responsibility for her emotions and experiences. If she feels my need to help around the house more, I trust she will lovingly discuss it with me. At the same time, she trusts that I will respond responsibly and understand her need, say ‘thank you for sharing’ and desire to help. No apologies needed, just healthy, honest communication. It is better to teach self-worth, healing and trust than obligatory apologies.

I Do Not Govern Them At All

"‘How is it that you can control your people so easily? It appears that they do nothing but what you say; how is it that you can govern them so easily?’ Said he, ‘I do not govern them at all. The Lord has revealed certain principles from the heavens by which we are to live in these latter days. The time is drawing near when the Lord is going to gather out His people from the wicked, and He is going to cut short His work in righteousness, and the principles which He has revealed I have taught to the people and they are trying to live according to them, and they control themselves.'" —Brigham Young, “Leading in the Lord’s Way” (Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, June 7, 1870, p. 3)

Lately, I have noticed a popularity in various family contracts, specifically for regulating cell phone usage. As a principle, I caution families to avoid this approach to parenting. It communicates the wrong message, teaches the wrong principles and can lead to increasing the behavior you are trying to avoid. We'll see this same experience happen in missions: very well-intended, spiritual, insightful mission presidents pile rules on top of the standard missionary guidelines. The already obedient continue to be obedient and the less obedient tend to become less obedient. However, the obedient often become more focused on the "rule" and neglect the quiet whisperings of the Spirit.

With the advent of smartphones, youth have open access to the internet. I understand parents’ concerns and fears. A phone contract can be done if it is done well and with the right amount of seriousness and lightheartedness. But it’s interesting; in therapy we are discovering that “contracts” are not usually an effective method. In fact, it often enables problems.

For example, creating a contract has a tendency to remove one from living the principles and concepts to living by the letter of the law — making the parent have to spell everything out, as the child then becomes brilliantly (or desperately) clever in finding loopholes: “Well, that’s not what was said in the contract …” It can inadvertently make the contract into the parent, and both the child and parents subject to the document instead of to the spirit or intuition.

Take for example, a well-intended family who attempted to create a contract intended to help teach, remind and encourage gospel values, all with wit and humor. The son was excited and, of course, agreed to all the terms and signed the contract. It went well for the first few months. But as clever as the parents were at writing the document, it was of course impossible to consider all details and potential issues.

Like the contract in this post, it defined specifics about a curfew and never having the phone in his room. But it failed to mention that he couldn’t get up early before school and use it in the living room while everyone else was in bed. The parents were impressed that their son who never gets up on time, let alone early, was now fully ready for school most mornings. When inquiring what the new motivation was, they discovered what he was doing.

It was clear to the parents that what he was doing was not what they desired. But nowhere in the contract was it considered. Tension grew as the son continued to get up early and play his games, and because no one was up, every room became a private place. The parents told him that he was not to do that, and he argued back that that’s not what they agreed on. Do the parents revoke the contract and create a new one in greater detail or insert a provision that the contract can be edited or modified at any point per parents’ discretion? Both of those options defeat the purpose of the contract and discourage the very teachings they were intending.

While serving in the Phoenix Arizona Mission in 1995, Elder Lynn A. Mickelsen of the Quorum of the Seventies came and spoke to the leaders in the mission, which is where I served. He shared with us an interesting pattern of experiences he had while working with the mission presidents in his area. He was praising our mission president, Val Christensen, for the way he ran the mission, and that it was done on principles and concepts, not rules.

Elder Mickelsen said there are mission presidents who pride themselves on the binders of rules they institute in their missions. Upon Elder Mickelsen’s arrival, one such president laid a three ring binder of rules on his lap as he drove him from the airport. Elder Mickelsen said he removed it and discarded it. He warned that such things destroy missionaries.

We cannot foresee every issue, and the moment we attempt that in a contract, it becomes a burden. Natural parenting is interrupted, and you become bound to yesterday’s knowledge.

Such contracts are sometimes used to inappropriately control the behaviors of others. Another family intentionally established a contract they knew would be difficult for their daughter to follow. Whether they were cognizant of it or not, they were setting her up to fail. Instead of using the contract to govern and guide, it was used to get her to stop behaviors that annoyed the parents. Although the parents believed it was geared toward teaching her good habits, the message was one of shame and not a reminder of her being a child of God.

Creating a contract lends itself to a subtle communication that the behaviors are more important than the individual. It defines what one can’t do, but not what one should become or how they can use their behaviors for good. And good behaviors should never be contracted.

I have seen, even in the best of contracts, that it ends up binding the parents more and setting up an unhealthy power dynamic in the family — where kids will demand they have followed every rule in the contract and argue against a parent’s desire to remove them from their usage.

Using a contract can be good, but I would suggest it as more of an “articles of (faith) use” policy. As Joseph Smith taught, teach them principles and let them govern themselves. It is tempting to list rules and not principles, but I have seen this promote only rule following and not Spirit guiding. As a result, children develop the expectation “to be commanded in all things.”

Phone or no phone, my children know their electronics usage is NOT private. Their passwords are not private and at any time and length of time, we get to remove them from their usage. No questions asked.