Hedges Around the Law

The ancient Jews were constantly building hedges around their divine law.  God told them that the Sabbath was a day of rest.  He told them to keep it holy.  He also commanded them to allow their servants to rest on the Sabbath.  By the time of Jesus, the Jewish government had a large and complex set of laws based on this fairly simple commandment.  A specific distance was set, beyond which it was illegal to travel on the Sabbath.  The people were required to prepare their Sabbath meals the day before, to avoid the work of food preparation on the Sabbath.  Specific activities were forbidden by law, including many charitable activities, to avoid work on the Sabbath.   (Jewish leaders even accused Jesus of Sabbath breaking for healing someone.)  This one law, to keep the Sabbath day holy, was surrounded by a thick hedge of additional laws to avoid even the smallest chance of breaking God's law.

The Sabbath was not the only law that the Jews built hedges around.  Practically every commandment had something in Jewish law to clarify or extend it.  Jewish leaders were so afraid of the people breaking commandments that they hardly gave them room to think for themselves.

Sadly, this hedge building is fairly common today as well.  It is even becoming common in government, not just religion.  The Catholic Church has laws against using birth control, based not on commandments, but rather based on two unrelated scriptures.  The first is God's command to Adam and Eve to multiply.  The second is an isolated incident where Judah's son Onan was killed by God for using a very primitive form of birth control (which is, ironically, the only form of birth control considered permissible by modern Catholics).  (Note that Biblical experts contend over the actual reason for God's wrath.  The most likely reason for God's reaction is not the use of birth control.  Onan was required by law to impregnate his dead brother's wife, to give his brother offspring, and he deliberately used the birth control to avoid fulfilling this responsibility.)

Now, I want to discuss a few hedges found in the LDS (or Mormon) Church.  There are probably fewer official hedges in the LDS faith than many other churches, but the culture within the Church has spawned its own hedges.  As much as 50% of Mormon's believe it is forbidden by Church doctrine to drink caffeinated beverages.  This is based on LDS scripture forbidding members from drinking "hot beverages" (later clarified as meaning coffee and tea specifically).  Around the early '90s, Church leadership published a press release stating that no such law (forbidding caffeine) existed, and that rather, the Church discourages the use of any addictive substance in a case where it would cause addiction (in reference to caffeine, this merely means to consume it only in moderation, with good judgment).  Despite this press release, Church culture still regards the consumption of caffeine as sinful.

Another Mormon hedge is forbidding women from working outside the home.  Thankfully, Mormon culture has largely gotten over the idea that even single women should not work outside the home, but it still holds that married women should not.  LDS Church policy provides only mild support for this, but it also explicitly recognizes that this is subject to exceptions, and it is really only the business of the couple and God.  Many Mormons, however, still believe that other couples' personal choices are their own business in this regard.  First, I need to clarify: The point of this Church policy is not that "women belong in the home and men should be the breadwinners."  The point is that children thrive more when cared for by a parent in the home than they do in day care or in the care of baby sitters.  Since women are typically better suited to this task than men, it makes the most sense, in the typical situation, for the mother to be the one that cares for the children.  Now, a female friend of mine discovered, with her husband, that he was better at caring for the children than she was, when he lost his job, and only she could find work.  They are both quite content with her working and him being a stay-at-home dad, but her mother-in-law has taken this hedge to the extreme, telling them that they are sinning by having her work instead of him.  This is perhaps Mormon cultural hedges at their worst.  As with caffeine, this is not Church doctrine or even Church policy.  This is entirely cultural, and it actually violates Church policy, which specifically states that there are exceptions to this policy which are only the business of the couple involved.

There are a few hedges more I want to discuss.  One is the opposition to Dungeons and Dragons.  D&D is a table top role playing that got a lot of flak in the past because of some extremely stupid acts taken by some people who played it.  It was blamed for some murders as well as some other crimes.  Many churches during that time took up arms against the game, claiming that it was evil because the rules included the mention of demons and devils (they were mentioned as potential enemies for the players to defeat, but the opponents of the game left that fact out; they also left out that the Bible itself mentions such evil entities more frequently than the D&D rules).  Supposedly, at some point, an LDS leader said that the game was evil and should be avoided.  I have searched for this reference on multiple occasions, with no luck.  The most reasonable person I have talked to about this told me that what was actually said recommended that Church members use good judgment when playing games (D&D, as an example), because it could be easy to get sucked into some games.  Dungeons and Dragons has become a common game among Mormon gamers, and thus far, there have been no reports of harm caused.  One beneficial part of Mormon culture is a focus on spending time wisely, and it is likely that this tempers the potential risk of becoming too focused on a game.

The most prevalent game based hedge in Mormon culture is playing cards.  A Mormon leader once asked members of the Church to stay away from "face cards."  (I also have been unable to find this reference.)  This has lead to a widespread belief within the Church that playing cards are forbidden.  This is actually completely wrong, and it is based on a misunderstanding of language.  One reason for the immediate assumption that "face cards" meant playing cards is that the Church already forbids gambling.  The assumption here was that the Church leadership was building a hedge around the gambling law, to "help" Church members to avoid the temptation.  This is not what actually happened though.  The LDS Church does not build hedges (and has taken pains over the last few decades to eliminate the hedges that have managed to get in).  It expects members to govern themselves (and frequently says as much).  The misunderstanding was in the simple fact that "face cards" did not mean playing cards.  The royalty in playing cards are sometimes referred to as face cards, but this term was hijacked from another type of cards: Tarot cards.  The Church leader was not telling people to avoid playing cards or to remove the royalty from the deck first.  He was telling people to avoid what was becoming a common method of fortune telling, and since Tarot cards are not used for any other purpose, it was easier to forbid "face cards" than to explain in more detail.  Most of the people at that time understood, so no explanation was needed.  Since then, Tarot cards have declined in popularity, so few modern Mormon's recognize that "face cards" does not mean the royalty in playing cards, in this context.  Consequently, many Mormon homes forbid the use or possession of playing cards within the home.

These are not the only hedges in Mormon culture, but they are some of the most prominent.  There are plenty of other hedges, like the opposition to government welfare on the grounds of Church policy encouraging self sufficiency (or worse, on the grounds of personal responsibility, which has been proven to not apply to a vast majority of those in poverty).  In the LDS Church, we sometimes even discuss the hedges of the Jews, but few of us recognize the hedges withing our own religious culture.  To be clear, these hedges are not doctrinal hedges like those of the Jews.  They are not supported by Church leadership.  Nearly all Mormon hedges are entirely cultural in nature, and they are often the result of misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions from Church membership.  The result of this is almost always unrighteous judgment of others, which is forbidden by Church doctrine.


(I am LDS, I drink caffeine on long drives to stay awake, I play games with playing cards, and I play D&D, when I have time.  Judge me if you dare.)

Peace vs Prosecution

I would like to share an LDS scripture with you, but first I want to give some background.

All around, I see people breaking laws or otherwise causing harm to others.  I am not talking about things like theft or speeding (ok, I see tons of speeding, but that is a different matter).  I am talking about things like doctors forcing or cajoling their patients into accepting treatments that are not in their best interest.  I am talking about housing providers ignoring laws requiring them to keep housing suitable for their tenants.  I am also talking about businesses cheating their employees deliberately or due to ignorance.  These things bother me.  I have a policy of social intolerance of bad behavior, but most LDS people seem to think that it is better to sacrifice their freedoms than to do something that could be construed as uncivil or otherwise not getting along with others.  The LDS religion teaches tolerance of the beliefs of others, but many act as if they believe this means they should tolerate harmful or illegal actions against them by others.  If you are LDS, let me correct your thoughts on this.  If you are not, feel free to consider what I am about to present anyway.

The LDS book of scripture called The Doctrine and Covenants (often abbreviated D&C) contains the following verse (D&C 134:11):

We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Note that the first part says "We believe that men should..."  It does not say "can," "may," or even "are justified in."  It says "should."  This is Church doctrine.  While it is not explicitly worded as a commandment ("thou shalt"), it does use very similar wording ("shalt" and "should" are conjugations of the same root).  Now, I want to be clear here.  This is not just about getting what you are legally entitled to.  It goes much further than this.  If you read the rest of section 134, you will find more Church doctrine stating that members of the LDS Church (well, and everyone else) have a responsibility to uphold the just laws of the land in part by turning in people who break it.  Again, this is not just about getting what you are legally entitled to.  This is about enforcement of the law in general.  If you are mistreated by a doctor, and you choose not to take legal action against that doctor, you are allowing that doctor to mistreat others by your inaction.  If you choose not enforce laws requiring your landlord to keep your home or apartment rental in livable conditions, you are potentially allowing others to come to harm by your inaction.  If you do not report an employer who is cheating you out of overtime pay or who is otherwise cheating or harming you, you are allowing that employer to cheat or harm other employees.  Some of these people who are coming to harm because of your inaction may not even realize that they are being treated in a way that is prohibited by the law.

While I have found no LDS scripture stating this, in my personal opinion, when a person deliberately chooses to allow illegal or harmful behavior to continue, that person becomes complicit in that illegal behavior.  While the law is unlikely to prosecute if the behavior is ever reported by someone else, I believe that God will hold you accountable for harm that happens because you are too lazy or fearful to do your civil duty as stated in the above mentioned scripture.

Here I would like to admit that I am not perfect.  I have been in a few circumstances where I chose not to press charges against a doctor or a landlord, where, according to this scripture, I should have.  In both cases, I did not want to cause contention.  In hindsight, I should have.  That doctor has probably caused emotional harm to multiple patients since then, which I could have prevented.  I feel bad, and justifiably so, that I did nothing to prevent that harm.  Since then, however, I have made some better choices.  Long ago I mentioned this, but I will mention it again.  I once gained knowledge of a labor law violation involving a minor.  Even though I was not directly impacted by the violation, I chose to report it.  The employer was raided by the labor department, and evidence of the violation was found.  Fines were given (I do not know how much, but fines for minor violations can get into the tens of thousands, and the violation occurred multiple times).  That employer will likely never make that mistake again.  I am almost certain the employee who was harmed will never have that happen again with that employer either.  My action may have hurt one employer (who earned the harm), but it saved a lot of innocent employees from harm.  Also, by reporting the violation, I strengthened the law.  If violations of the law are never reported, it is almost as if the law does not exist.  By reporting a violation, I made it clear to those violating the law that they cannot get away with breaking the law without consequences.  A law that is not enforced is worth very little and does almost nothing to protect anyone, but a law that is enforced justly serves its purpose well.  My actions helped a law to be enforced that otherwise would have been useless (in that particular case).


Anyhow, any LDS person who believes that convenience and peace are more valuable than enforcing the law is a hypocrite.  Besides the above scripture, there are many LDS scriptures stating that even killing is justified when it is in defense of yourself, your family, your friends, your property, or your rights and freedoms.  Maybe the U.S. is a sue-happy nation where too many frivolous lawsuits occur.  Choosing not to press charges when lawsuits are justified will not improve the situation, and in fact, this act of giving up your legal rights and protections will actually make it worse for everyone.