About five years ago, my family moved to a small town in North Texas. We only stayed for about two years, and despite meeting many great people and generally liking our neighborhood and the school my children attended, I received an education in the unwritten order of things.

The first lesson happened as I registered my oldest child for first grade. We lived two blocks away from the school in what I perceived as a safe and quiet neighborhood. To get home, my son could cross the street with the crossing guard, and walk the rest of the way without crossing another street. I anticipated walking him to and from school every day, but thought it might be possible for there to be days that might need him to walk himself home. Along with other documents, the school secretary presented me with a permission slip to allow my child to walk home alone. I signed the form. The secretary frowned at me and said, “Most parents down sign this one.” She handed it back to give me the chance to reconsider. Knowing I didn’t expect him to walk along but wanting the option, I handed it back unchanged. She was not impressed. Despite official school policy and what was written on the form, I had broken a unwritten rule.

The second lesson came in December with the class holiday party held on a minimal day the last day before winter break. I donated some items, but being very pregnant and with two other small kids at home, I didn’t volunteer to help in person. I sent my son to school as normal. I got a call about thirty minutes before the end of school that my son was the last kid in class and would I like to come pick him up. I checked the time—I was not late. When I got to the nearly empty classroom, I learned that it was expected that all of the parents would come and stand around the edge of the classroom and WATCH the class party, even if they weren’t volunteering. Afterward, parents would check their children out of school early. I was floored. I called a friend in the next town who confirmed, yes, this is the custom. No one had told me.

These experiences made me question my parenting. Was I wrong to even theoretically consider a time when I might need my child to walk two blocks alone? Did I love my child less for not standing at the side of the room watching him at a class party? The unwritten rules left me feeling judged, and confused.

When I read some of the changes to the For the Strength of Youth standards, they seemed like a move in the right direction. I wondered, however, will the reduction in explicit rules create unwritten rules that the youth are somehow supposed to figure out and live by? Or will they be given the necessary leeway to make their own choices and still find belonging at church?

I thought of the horrific debacle when BYU changed the language of the honor code to remove the prohibition against same-sex dating, only to cruelly backpedal and say the language had changed, but the old rules remained in force. While in Texas I faced embarrassment, this example caused serious disruption to the lives, education, and mental health of many queer BYU students whose small seat of acceptance was pulled out from under them as once clear and written rules became unwritten but still enforceable.

The updated FSY pamphlet is less proscriptive and shame-based, with more emphasis on principles and following the Spirit. The section “Your Body is Sacred” is much improved from my own years in the youth program. One example is in the section, “What is the Lord’s standard on dress, grooming, tattoos, and piercings?” Rather than the restrictions I grew up with, the youth are told, “The Lord’s standard is for you to honor the sacredness of your body, even when that means being different from the world. Let this truth and the Spirit be your guide as you make decisions—especially decisions that have lasting effects on your body. Be wise and faithful, and seek counsel from your parents and leaders.” No claim that tattoos disfigure the body. No insistence that young women only have one modest pair of earrings. No body shaming about the length of skirts or the requirement that young women cover their shoulders. This is progress!

Certainly, some youth leaders will welcome the changes, or may hardly notice the changes because they already lead their programs along these lines. My concern is that some well-meaning leaders who are familiar with the old standards and who lean on what and how they were taught while growing up will not actually make room for the youth to make their own decisions in this matter. Will they enforce unwritten rules that harken back to manuals of previous years and leave youth wanting real belonging but finding judgment and shame in its place?

In October 1996, Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a now infamous BYU Devotional, “The Unwritten Order of Things.” He said, “My lesson might be entitled ‘The Ordinary Things about the Church Which Every Member Should Know.’ Although they are very ordinary things, they are, nevertheless, very important! We somehow assume that everybody knows all the ordinary things already. If you do know them, you must have learned them through observation and experience, for they are not written anywhere and they are not taught in classes.”

One example Packer gives of the unwritten order is you should never ask to be released from or refuse a calling. Though the person is ostensibly given the opportunity to refuse a calling, it’s only a formality—they aren’t supposed to do so. Another example is that Bishops should “not yield the arrangement for funerals or missionary farewells to families. . . When the family insists that several family members speak in a funeral, we hear about the deceased instead of about the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the comforting promises revealed in the scriptures. Now it’s all right to have a family member speak at a funeral, but if they do. . . The gospel is to be preached.” Funerals, in Packer’s opinion, are about preaching the gospel, not the life of the deceased.

For Elder Packer, it was up to members to observe and figure out the unwritten order and for leaders to enforce the unwritten order, regardless of what is said in scripture or the Church handbook or what members believe is right for them and their families. Packer’s talk is dated. There are certainly ways that the Church has grown to understand more about mental health and about caring for the whole individual—allowing missionaries to call home weekly comes to mind—but there are still individuals and leaders who expect that members never say no to a calling and that bishops insist the gospel is preached at a funeral.

There are many problems with enforcing unwritten social orders. In some cases, the rules may be rooted in biases and prejudices that hurt and exclude marginalized people. They may enforce in-group practices that shame and ostracize those who don’t know or don’t follow the unwritten rules. Unwritten rules are not exclusive to the LDS Church, but when it comes to the Church and its youth program, local leaders enforcing unwritten rules has the potential for great harm.

It is good to teach the youth to honor their bodies as sacred and encourage them to treat their own bodies and the bodies of others with respect. It is good to be less judgmental and proscriptive about how to do this and leave those decisions to the youth and their parents, particularly when leading a global church with youth from different backgrounds, cultures, and customs. However, if the proscriptive rules are dropped from the FSY handbook but continue to be itemized by leaders in class or otherwise enforced by leaders at church events, the unwritten order will hurt, not help the youth. Any sense of true belonging will be quashed by a pervasive culture of judgment and shame.

It can be hard for even well-meaning leaders who were raised in the ‘90s, ‘80s, or earlier to change course and teach principles rather than itemized lists of dos and don’ts. When the leaders they loved told them exactly where their hem should fall, precisely the number of earrings to wear, the exact movie ratings they should limit themselves to, and so on, it is natural that they will repeat these rules to the next generation, even when handbooks and pamphlets change. The cultural zeitgeist around individual agency and self-expression has changed. The handbooks are slowly catching up. I hope the unwritten order of things doesn’t squash the potential to let youth today live by making their own choices according to principles.

For real change to happen without parents and local leaders resorting to the now-unwritten order of years past, it will take more than language changes in pamphlets. It will take more than general statements about living by personal revelation. It will require repeated and direct training from the top down about why the Church is choosing to stop teaching youth standards the way that they used to. It will require leaders who are more open to these changes to speak up in meetings, trainings, and while with the youth to actively reshape the culture. Of course parents set the rules for their own homes, but this change will require lovingly pushing back when members (be they leaders or otherwise) attempt to teach or enforce outdated rules or policies in church settings under the guise of the For Strength of Youth pamphlet.

There is an opportunity here for positive change. I hope it is not wasted.