Dear readers of Wheat & Tares, I regret to inform you that today’s post begins with a quiz. I will present three statements, and then ask questions regarding the state of affairs described in those statements. May the curve be ever in your favor.
Statement 1: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religion where all worthy humans, as long as they are male, aged 12 and up, not of black African descent, and members in good standing of the religion, may be conferred the priesthood.
Statement 2: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religion where all worthy humans, as long as they are male, aged 12 and up, and members in good standing of the religion, may be conferred the priesthood.
Statement 3: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religion, where all worthy humans, as long as they are aged 12 and up, and members in good standing of the religion, may be confirmed the priesthood.
Quiz: which of these three statements (whether you agree with them or not) is the most inclusive to the LDS priesthood? Which of these three statements (whether you agree with them or not) is the most exclusive to the LDS priesthood?
Given your answer to the previous questions, would you say that there a difference between the meaningfulness of the LDS Priesthood given your answer on which statement described a more inclusive priesthood or a more exclusive priesthood? Is more exclusivity more meaningful or valuable to you?
. . .
OK, everyone, no need to worry. This quiz will not be graded. However, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the various statements.
To me, it seems clear that statement 1, describing the LDS church from sometime around the late 1800s (surprisingly, the age thing probably is a more recent component than the race restriction) to 1978, is most exclusive. It seems clear to me that statement 2, describe the status quo to this day, is more inclusive than statement 1, but that statement 3, describing the desired policy by a non-negligible amount of Mormons, would be most inclusive of the three states of affairs. This is true even though statement 3 still includes limitations (on age, membership, and worthiness.)
These factors seem objective. Even if one believes there should be limitations on the priesthood by gender, it still seems that a priesthood without such limitations would be more inclusive. A priesthood that limits by gender and race is more exclusive regardless of one’s feelings about whether that is divinely inspired or not.
The tricky part is moving into meaning. Here, it seems there is more room for subjectivity. While it would seem that the church is more distinctive to have both gender and racial limitations, it doesn’t seem like this state of affairs would make the priesthood more meaningful, or rather, it doesn’t seem like any additional meaning from this state of affairs would be desirable or valuable. Statement 2 and 3 are obviously more fraught: people in 2015 still very much disagree on whether the exclusion by gender is desirable, but it does not necessarily follow that removing a gender exclusion would reduce meaning, or that even if it did, the reduced meaning would be undesirable.
This thought experiment has been inspired by two recent posts. The first was Kristine A’s post from last week about the fourth annual Pants to Church Day. Therein, she included a couple of letters to the editor that were written in response to the coverage of Pants Day in 2013 and her 2015 response to those letters. In her response, she shared sentiments that I’ve certainly seen several places on the Mormon internet: the LDS church should be more inclusive and welcoming (especially to marginalized groups such as people of color, LGBTQ+, feminists, and those who doubt) to maintain and grow the membership. Failure to do so will risk losing not only individuals from these classes, but individuals who are sympathetic to those classes (e.g., millennials, regardless of whether they consider themselves allies to the particular groups.)
The second post was Alison Moore Smith’s response over at Mormon Momma, taking exception with the advocacy for inclusiveness within the church. There is still ongoing debate in the comments over whether I even correctly understand Alison’s post, so please read the article over there (I’ll wait). However, I think a representative snippet of her post is this:
…The very word member is the key here. A member is a part, element, component of something. Thus there is a defined something these members belong to. And the very definition of that something will always be exclusionary—or it will be meaningless.
The more inclusive you are, the less membership means…
In the comments at Mormon Momma, I noted that, to me, her comments regarding the priesthood undermined her argument regarding the meaninglessness of “inclusiveness” as a concept or value. There’s two things: 1) even though she writes that she is not advocating for an inclusive priesthood (because her advocacy still includes exclusions in terms of worthiness), it seems obvious to me that she is still advocating for a more inclusive priesthood than we currently have, and 2) her position is not rendered meaningless when we describe it as “more inclusive”.
Does inclusiveness imply universality?
![diversity-2-diverse-minority-law-firm-associates-young-lawyers[1]](http://www.wheatandtares.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/diversity-2-diverse-minority-law-firm-associates-young-lawyers1.jpg)
As Alison writes, it seems that she is addressing a certain segment of people who use terms like “inclusiveness” and “diversity” without any limitations at all. This is the only real way I can make sense of her paragraph here:
In order to be inclusive in the way most people mean, the church would be required to welcome people—as members in good standing with full rights and privileges and acceptance and respect and status—no matter what they believe and no matter what they do—and no matter how/if they conform to the church’s standards. Which makes the church nothing at all.
To me, however, I don’t think people use these terms in that way, so I don’t think she is actually addressing inclusiveness “in the way most people mean.” To the contrary, terms like “inclusiveness” and “diversity” are baked into particular contexts and particular social, theological, historical, or psychological awarenesses. The argument for inclusiveness is made from a re-evaluation of the particular criteria we use to exclude, but aren’t necessarily a complete abandonment of criteria in general.
In general, these terms are often signals for certain types of socially progressive sentiments, and from having an awareness of that context, we can extrapolate where the implied limits are: we are talking about supposed “suspect classes” who have been marginalized historically…classes such as race, gender, and yes, sexual orientation and gender identity. These suspect classes, which have been the grounds for exclusion in the past and in our status quo, are deemed to be unsuitable grounds for exclusion moving forward. And so, we seek (whether rightly, or wrongly), to remove the limitations and exclusions on those specific grounds.
When someone says, “We should be more welcoming and inclusive to all,” do you take this as an absolute, universal statement, or do you believe this is comparative and contextual — and based with respect to certain criteria? If you take it to be the former, would it be hypocritical for another person to interpret it to be the latter?
Wheat & Tares 
Andrew, I’m glad you’re engaging in the conversation and will be happy to respond later tonight. Just want to note before I head out that you copied about 40% of my post in this post. Generally that’s about 400% of “fair use.”
Anyway, talk to you later.
The church welcomes all who are willing to embrace its message! The Savior welcomes all who will hear His voice and obey his commandments!
I usually take it as an absolute, and I might refer you hesitantly to recent posts by the character known as Clean Cut on the MA as an example. His vision is radical inclusiveness. So such absolute inclusiveness in not some straw man.
Such inclusiveness, especially if driven by advocacy, seems to be a legitimately slippery slope. Just advocate enough and then everyone is special and therefore nothing is. And as Jeff G has rightly pointed out recently at the Thang, such advocacy undermines the very thing it desires.
Hyper inclusiveness seems to ignore all the straight is the gate stuff Christ talked about. A careful reading of the New Testament could just as well result in Christ being divisive with His sword, rather than radically inclusive.
Alison,
I don’t quote enough, then I’m “taking things out of context”….if I quote too much, then I’m “plagiarizing”
I will make some edits.
You seem to be kind of advocating not restricting the priesthood by age. Not sure what you mean by that, but I think that’s kind of a given.
So, if there are restrictions on the priesthood by age and worthiness, does that mean we cannot use the term “inclusive” with respect to any change in policy?
Andrew:
“So, if there are restrictions on the priesthood by age and worthiness, does that mean we cannot use the term “inclusive” with respect to any change in policy?”
I am one who knows The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s Church. I know it. So where do I belong in this discussion? I realize that you know that I will say something you’ve already pointed out – that none of the three are any good.
The term ‘good standing’ has either changed or become null and void. If God uses it, then a 12 year old boy living in an SSM is not in good standing. He’s in the middle of a battle field. His parents would have to separate and dismiss themselves from the lives they live and do you know what? They’re not going to do that. That’s not much of a chance for the 12 year old.
There is only one thing for the leaders at all level and the members to do – Keep the 12 year old out the Church and in the Church until he is an adult. And what have the moronic Mormons done? Quit the Church.
But that was really the way it should have been. If any of them ever did talk to God about the Church, none of them ever heard Him talk to them, so any of their testimonies would have been jokes. It will be a stronger Church now without them.
And as for those who left the Church, bless their hearts, the day will come that they will die and they leave the earth spiritually unclean because they gave up the only baptism they ever had that was any good.
But now will be taught where they will comprehend what fools they were for leaving the Church and for the first time will understand that the judgement will give them a lower kingdom than what they could have had.
Poor darlings.
This is a bit off topic, but it seems to me that “diversity” and “inclusion” have two different approaches. Diversity seeks representation of all groups to improve input on decision making or understanding of the needs of various sub-category of person. Inclusion seeks to be welcoming to all, to not restrict joining. Diversity proactively targets and selects people. Inclusion passively doesn’t prohibit people. Or so I think as I ruminate on your post.
Personally, I would like to see both diversity (seeking input from sub-groups) and inclusion. When it comes to the priesthood, limiting it based on sex while placing entry at such a young age really just seeks to create gender complementarianism (rather than to reflect it) and to encourage heterosexual marriage by manufacturing an inequality to force co-dependence.
When it comes to the priesthood, limiting it based on sex while placing entry at such a young age really just seeks to create gender complementarianism (rather than to reflect it) and to encourage heterosexual marriage by manufacturing an inequality to force co-dependence.
Really? When Joseph F. Smith standardized the ages for priesthood advancement back in 190_ or 191_, he was trying to encourage heterosexual marriage?
Just because I advocate for more inclusivity doesn’t mean I think there should be no worthiness standards on membership or temple participation. Quite the contrary – so to that point, yes Alison misconstrues the definition…….
Inclusivity in the Gospel context means exactly what Uchtdorf says it means: we do not have a sign on the door of our chapels that says “your testimony must be this tall/size/shape to enter.” To me that means agency grants us the ability to shape and choose how to live the Gospel. It doesn’t mean we abandon all standards; it means that when women wear pants to church the only appropriate response is to hug them and tell them they are loved and you are glad you are there. It means when an LGBT couple shows up the only appropriate response is to greet them and tell them you are glad they are there. They can work everything else out with ecclesiastical leaders . . . but on the ground, in the wards…….. if ANYONE walks in the door the response should be “I’m glad you’re here. You are wanted.”
So let’s review, what should we do if the following walk into our congregations:
-woman wearing pants?
-people who smell like cigarette smoke/marijuana?
-feminists?
-liberal mormons?
-Donald Trump Supporters?
-Kathryn Skaggs?
-gay couple?
-syrian refugees?
-illegal immigrants?
-etc.etc.etc.
The message they should receive is: “I’m glad you’re here. You are loved and welcome here.”
Everything else in their lives is the bishop’s business, not my own.
re 8 hawkgrrrl,
I like your distinction between diversity and inclusion…however, when you make those definitions, does the lack of explicit language limiting the scope of these terms mean that you think these terms are universal in scope. For example, you write:
When you say “all groups” and the goal is to improve decision making (for example), would that include “groups of people who lack appropriate expertise in a given subject matter”? If not, is it hypocritical to talk about seeking representation from “all groups”?
Or, when you say about inclusion:
Would inclusion necessitate allowing those who are physically dangerous to others, or could one implicitly or explicitly restrict who “all” applies to while still being inclusive?
Those are the sorts of things I’m interested about in this discussion.
If I get what Alison is ultimately saying, it’s that people use these terms in a way that either implies or explicitly says “all”, but really, they don’t mean every single person/group, so this emphasis of “all” is erroneous.
re 10 Kristine,
Is it OK if we tell the gay couple, “I’m glad you’re here, You are loved and welcome here. Since you were in a gay relationship, however, you are not eligible to be members so you’ll have to come as non-members”?
Would that be a welcoming response that still holds true to the maintenance of LDS standards (however recently refined/re-emphasized)?
ji: Yeah, I’m not sure why I added that age thing in there. I think my sentence changed direction and I left it in by mistake. I didn’t mean to say that the age 12 thing was important in that thought process, but well before the emergence of homosexuality from the closet, folks like JFS were very invested in notions of gender complementarianism. They see men and women as fundamentally different species.
There is a lot of food for thought here. I often think about definitions in terms of what they include and exclude (if we define X, this way that is a good/bad definition because that that means A, B, and C are X but not Q and P). The thought process I see in this post and the related blog posts turn that around (what is X if it includes D, E, and F, but not G?)
So what does it mean that priesthood is conferred upon certain people and not others? I think it means different things to different people. We can consider the intrinsic meaning of the policy, the intended meaning of the policy, and the inferred meanings of the policy.
The intrinsic meaning is what can be interpreted from the policy itself. For the priesthood, the intrinsic meaning of the policy of is that holders of the priesthood have certain anatomy and meet some minimum age requirement, and perhaps some worthiness criteria. This intrinsic meaning is derived strictly from the inclusion/exclusion policies for who can receive the priesthood. The current policy also means that women are subject to men: they will always be called to postions under men, and any discipline will always be determined by men. Since policies can change from time to time, so can the intrinsic meaning of what it means to hold the priesthood.
The intended meaning is quite different. This intended meaning is communicated through the correlated church teaching materials and scriptures to the general membership of the church.
Then there is the inferred meaning. The inferred meaning is what the members of the church understand to be the meaning of the policy. A persons inferred meaning is a result of reconciling the instrinsic meaning with a person’s understanding of the intended meaning. Some people experience cognitive dissonance when trying to reconcile these things, so it can be different for each person and change over time. A young man recieving the priesthood may infer simply that he has a call to serve. Or he might infer that holding the priesthood somehow makes him better than others, or that he holds a position of authority. A woman may infer that she has access to the priesthood through temple worship, or alternatively she may infer that she is dependent on her husband for his priesthood. She may infer that since she cannot have the priesthood herself, she is somehow less important than a man who can hold the priesthood.
(Similar statements can be made about the meaning of church membership in general)
As to the second blog post, I don’t hear anybody saying that we should open up membership to all people no matter what they do. (I can just imagine proxy baptisms for all living people, declaring them members of the church in absentia!) I was going to call it a straw man argument, but after some thought I see it differently. Some (maybe most?) members of the church see the calls for more inclusiveness (especially with respect to LGBT) as a call for change so radical that it redefines the whole church, while those calling for change see it as an important step on the same Christian path we’ve been on all along. That is the gap, the divide in belief, and the difference in “inferred meaning” that has yet to be reconciled.
Rockwell,
I think this is a really good way of framing these things, and I think that gets at a lot of the difference in perspectives. And yet, in some ways, the two positions are intractable.
But I do have a question with respect to a line you wrote just before this:
If I understand Alison’s position properly, then I think she would say something like, “Right, even though people say they want the church to be “welcoming to all” or “inclusive to all,” they don’t really mean that we should open up membership to all people no matter what they do. So their use of rhetoric like being “welcoming to all” or “inclusive” is faulty.
Do you agree with that?
Noone is ordained to the priesthood. A person is conferred the priesthood. Ordination is an office. men and women are ordained to offices daily in the church. Wrong terminology only leads to confusion.
ron,
Great catch. I even remember listening to several podcasts about the roots of ordination in “religious orders”, and in the proposal to recognize Relief Society and Young Women’s organizations as parallel religious orders to various priesthood offices.
If I understand Alison’s position properly, then I think she would say something like, “Right, even though people say they want the church to be “welcoming to all” or “inclusive to all,” they don’t really mean that we should open up membership to all people no matter what they do. So their use of rhetoric like being “welcoming to all” or “inclusive” is faulty
Seems like a reasonable interpretation of what she said, though I hesitate to put words in her mouth. I’m mainly interested is where the “to all” gets brought in to the discussion.
Rockwell,
At least part of the claim is that when people invoke values such as being “welcoming” or appreciating “diversity” or “inclusion,” they implicitly or explicitly claim to approve of these things in a universal sense.
I don’t necessarily agree with that, but I’m wondering if anyone’s understanding of “to all” would affect their answers.
Style note: The use of “as long as they are” infers that there’s a possibility of no longer being in that grouping. While this is still up in the air for the Church’s treatment of trans individuals, it’s not really possible to no longer be “aged 12 and over”.
I kind of understand what you’re getting at, I think. It’s trying to say a line should be moved, “if it should be moved there, why not to somewhere else altogether?” Would a priesthood conferred on all children at birth be meaningless? If conferral of the Holy Ghost is important, why not at birth, why not at 18, why at some arbitrary number as 8?
We spend a lot of time worrying about where the lines are or should be. This has lead to some going the “God is love” route, that no matter what we do, we’re saved, cause God loves everyone. This leads some to wanting absolute assurances, so they can be sure they have “made it” (and for some allows them to look down on others who have not). Me, I’m somewhere in between, feeling I know of God’s love for His (and Her) children but not having any idea where the lines could be. I’m glad I’m not in a position to have to judge where someone else might be.
As Kristine A said earlier, we should be inclusive of all in our meetings. For the various ordinances and office we’ve been given direction on, we can but ask and hope for more and/or peace with what currently is.
Frank: I imply; you infer. But in my writing, the use of that term doesn’t necessarily relate to “no longer being in that grouping” but the possibility of “not being in that grouping in the first place.”
In other words, if you’re 11, you’re not in the 12 and up group.
But yeah, I think you’re getting the argument. If we should be “inclusive of all”, then does that suggest we should eliminate all the lines? And if we do, does that create a meaningless institution?
Andrew S: yes, I’m getting echoes of my English teacher. This infers, I imply. So glad we’re not getting graded on this.
Okay. Yes, Alison’s post argues that inclusion for all erodes the meaning of membership to nothing. I think that is a true point, but not a particularly useful one because I don’t think anyone is arguing for inclusion of all people no matter what they do. Alison says this is inclusion “the way most people mean”, which i just don’t think is correct. Nobody suggests, for example, we should baptize unrepentant felons, active missionaries from other faiths who don’t believe in the church, or animals (as Alison suggests is possible in a moment of hyperbole). The apparent thought process seems to be “well if you are going to let X be members, you may as well baptize animals!” I’m trying to figure out what X is and where this thought process is coming from, because no one is suggesting we baptize animals, or anything like it. (That I know of.)
In other words, I think inclusion for all in the sense that has been used here is only being used to argue against inclusion and not for it, which means the two sides are really not addressing each other.
The church is sometimes to referred as the body of Christ, there are many different roles for various body The The church is often liken to the body of Christ. The various body parts have different roles or functions but most body parts the have same needs for nutrients and oxygen in vary amounts. Inclusiveness is different from being welcomed. Inclusiveness would be like all body parts having the same DNA or willingness to make and keep covenants. Welcoming would be more like eating good food that could become part of the body. We need to remember Paul’s teaching on the Body of Christ that all body parts are wanted and needed. That we should not confuse the value of a body part with its role or function but work together until we all come to a unity of faith. As Christ said “be ye therefore one, or yes are not mine.”
There are limits with this example, likening eating with being welcoming is not the best way to express it. But in the church there has to be difference between welcoming someone and being non judgemental with actually being part of the body of Christ, Making and keeping covenants. We need to accept that some roles and functions are defined by God and some by ourselves and both have their place in the Church
Andrew, re your question in 11:
Is it OK if we tell the gay couple, “I’m glad you’re here, You are loved and welcome here. Since you were in a gay relationship, however, you are not eligible to be members so you’ll have to come as non-members”?
Would that be a welcoming response that still holds true to the maintenance of LDS standards (however recently refined/re-emphasized)?
I suppose my push for inclusiveness includes a public pushback against the said policy. Ideally I’d like it to be so now…even if they were not eligible for membership – that if they want to come they will be full welcomed and included in our congregations (as restricted participants, I have a family member that’s been exed, I know the drill).
I’m arguing for big-tent mormonism as well. So.
It hit me that we welcome all to come and be redeemed.
However, some of us think that we really don’t need Christ so that it is only everyone else who needs to change and grow in an uncomfortable way.
Kristine A:
Ok, Kristine. IF I walk into your ward I want to be told that you are glad to see me and that I am wanted even though I’m a Donald Trump supporter.
Kristine,
I don’t see how that isn’t the case. In all of these conversations, I always think of one particular excommunicated married gay man who attends very regularly and is a very active participant in his community — notwithstanding the restrictions that come with being excommunicated.
It is possible that he is benefiting from priesthood roulette, but as far as I know, they aren’t really going to block someone from going to church — even if they restrict a loooot of the things they can do while at church.
Our meetings are open to the public. All are welcome who will be respectful of our proceedings and traditions. Come worship with us, and let us share with you!
I read this post because it was linked on my new one. I know it’s super old. But I had to pipe up on this.
What you are getting wrong in my opinion is that I can’t think of a single defining teaching (ie. the doctrines that caused it to come into being and separate it from other religions) in the LDS Church that I haven’t at one point seen attacked at one point on the grounds of ‘inclusiveness’. This includes not teaching about Eternal Marriage (it’s exclusive to married people), not teaching about baptism for the dead (it marginalizes other religions), not teaching about any sort of exclusive priesthood at all (it excludes other religions), not teaching about God being literal or real (it excludes people who can’t bring themselves to believe in God but want to be involved.) I could go on and on. There are literally no doctrines in existence that define the LDS Church that haven’t been regularly attacked on grounds of ‘inclusiveness.’
In short, you are actually both right. It is not common for someone to use the ‘inclusive ‘ argument to literally say ‘you should not exclude anyone ever’. Most have in mind that we’re going to allow some sort of exclusion that they personally found non-harmful. But when taken in aggregate — with every offended person absolutely certain that they are correct the Church could change this and it wouldn’t matter — she is so totally spot on.
To people who are aligned with the current teachings of the Church, there is no way at all to separate one from the other. To be honest, all of their arguments sound pretty similar no matter what is being argued. And the communities that produces these ‘demands’ make no attempt whatsoever to honestly police their own on this. They simply bring up issue after issue without thought to how it will impact those the Church is already working well for.
This is one of the main reasons — really THE main reason — I left Mormon Matters ultimate. It was beyond frustrating to have people constantly attacking without serious thought to who they might hurt, harm, etc, because they were absolutely certain they understood what could change and how it would affect everyone else (or they have given it no thought at all and didn’t care to.).
I have become convinced that the problem is that people that have issues with the church have a false view of religion in their heads and don’t realize it. So they have no ability to filter themselves.
For example, John Hamer and others have repeatedly advocated that you can allow those who believe in a literal or historical account of LDS beliefs to believe what they want and those that do not can also believe what they want and it will be possible to appease both at the same time — where as now the Church only serves one of those audiences and pointlessly (and harmfully!) ‘excludes’ the other. And he’s argued that it really doesn’t matter if you teach historicity or not for the Book or Mormon because scripture is better thought of as writings that help you get close to your concept of God (literal or otherwise).
I also had one person argue with me that I feared that if we got rid of our beliefs then no one would stay, but that this is just an unfounded fear and really everyone would stick around for the community.
(I can provide links if you think I’m exaggerating, but contact me privately)
And always ‘inclusiveness’ is used as the moral authority for why if the LDS Church doesn’t adopt these changes they are responsible for harming people, etc.
You’re smarter than that, Andrew, (I mean that sincerely and honestly — I know you well enough to know you aren’t likely to agree with those above opinions) so I suspect you realize that the LDS Church probably can’t survive those sorts of changes because it removes some of the most important elements for why people go in the first place. Plus, it’s not like we don’t have pretty much every large scale long term example of a religion out there NOT using that approach and nearly every small scale short term example out there using that approach shrinking in size. In other words, the empirical evidence doesn’t support these thesis.
But the problem actually goes deeper than that. The truth is that we’ve already got a pretty good idea using science of what makes religions ‘work’ well. (i.e. Thrive and grow — or in other words, actually humanly useful) I mean literally, these aren’t subjects we are just all guessing on. We’ve got a pretty good idea using our scientific theories of what works and what doesn’t. Without getting into that body of knowledge (too big for this comment) one of the most blatant things we believe we understand about religion (using, for example, the Why Strict Religions are Strong study which I know you are familiar with) is that health, thriving religions are actually based on ‘exclusion’ not ‘inclusion.’ This is how they solve the free rider problem.
Worse yet for the above theses, studies on “Lay Liberalism’ go further than that and even help us understand why people don’t bother to go to church (even if they approve and think they should!) once they no longer believe in the ‘exclusionary’ claims are no longer believed. For example, even in dying religions, those attending are primarily the ones that still believe in the exclusionary truth claims — for example, the sole predicting question for church attendance was NOT believe in God — this predicted nothing — but belief that only through Jesus Christ can you be saved. It is *always* the exclusionary claims that define and energize every religion out there (according to our best scientific theories anyhow) and really John H and others are just plain wrong in their thinking.
It *is* possible to make changes and thereby expand ‘inclusiveness’ in certain ways (and you pick one that works), but there are known rules for how and when they work. To be blunt, your post above carefully picked out one of the, frankly, few examples where you happen to be correct. You then, in my opinion, falsely generalize without really paying enough attention to how often you’ve also probably seen ‘inclusiveness’ being used as a weapon for change on literally everything that matters in the LDS Church. How often have you thought to speak up and say ‘You know, I agree with you, but let’s be honest, that change won’t work in real life.’ I’m sure you’ve done it sometimes (I’ve seen you!) but it’s not typical of these sorts of conversations for a variety of reasons.
So in fact Alison is correct overall but you are correct in this one specific case (there are undoubtedly others as well). Of course Alison’s statement could never have been true in every case (it was far too general for that) and I don’t read it that way, but she truly does understand this issue deeper than you do. Which makes perfect sense seeing as she is the one that might lose something due to a change where you really won’t lose no matter what. It’s not that she is smarter than you, it’s that she has more incentive to really think it through more deeply than you. So that is what we should have expected.
I’d have loved to have stayed at Mormon Matters had really the conversation been tempered to really get serious about making changes in the LDS Church in a helpful rather than harmful way. But, alas.
Bruce,
Thanks for commenting (you’re right; this is quite the vintage post, haha).
There are two things from your comment that I personally am still thinking on…
I agree that even if for one person, there may only be one issue raised for the inclusivity argument, but that there are a diverse range of people who each have one different issue, and folks in favor of inclusion aren’t usually going to be the ones who will make the argument against excluding something on another front (although I think this does happen when it comes to perceived slippery slopes that would hurt one’s targeted cause.)
That being said, I’m intrigued that here you say “that to people who are aligned with the current teachings of the Church, there is no way at all to separate one from the other.” Yet, later in your comment, you say:
At best, if there are known rules for how and when expansion works, then shouldn’t it be possible to separate causes from one another? Or is your point really that all the causes du jour cannot be separated because they are all bad causes?
To me, one thing that strikes me in “Why Strict Churches Are Strong” is that Iannaccone does evaluate differences in what can be relaxed and what can’t be while maintaining distinctiveness. In talking about how Catholics are the “worst of both worlds”, he notes that what Catholics gave up was “distinctiveness in the areas of liturgy, theology and lifestyle”, while maintaining the “demands that the members and clergy are least willing to accept:” Obviously, there can be discussion over which is which, but it opens the possibility for discussing the differences in categories.
Do people go to the LDS church because it places men institutionally higher than men (regardless of what the rhetoric says)? Like, I dunno. I hope not. Do people join and participate in Mormonism because it enshrines heteronormativity as divinity? Maybe? (I’m guessing there are more “yes” answers here). And so, I would simply hope that one’s Mormonism is not so defined by *these* strictures that modifying them would be a deal breaker.