That’s a direct quote from Alma 4:9, part of this week’s Come Follow Me material, if you’re following along. The first few chapters of Alma, covering about six years, recount a dizzying tale of religious division, political conflict, civil war, and destruction, followed quickly and rather surprisingly by peace (“there were no contentions nor wars in the land of Zarahemla,” 4:1), hardship (“the loss of their flocks and herds, … the loss of their fields of grain,” 4:2), and then, just two years later, sudden prosperity (exceeding riches, fine silks, many flocks and herds, lots of gold and silver, “which they had obtained by their industry,” 4:6). Rather than celebrating this amazing economic recovery, Mormon the editor bemoans the concomitant rise of pride, avarice, and a scornful attitude toward others. In verse 9 we read:
And thus, in the eighth year of the reign of judges, there began to be great contentions among the people of the church; yea, there were envyings, and strife, and malice, and persecutions, and pride …
The typical summary of the conflicts and wars in the Book of Mormon is that the righteous Nephites were always being attacked by wild and unrighteous Lamanites. But a more detailed review shows it was dissension within Nephite society, Nephite civil wars, and “envyings” and strife among the church members themselves that was the source of most of the conflicts. Interesting.
It just so happens the our present-day Church, and us along with it, is heading right into a scenario that will possibly present many stakes and wards with significant and unprecedented contention and conflict. Because when LDS chapels are again open for business, there are going to be three groups of Mormons: (1) those who attend and don’t wear masks; (2) those who attend and do wear masks; and (3) those who choose not to attend at all at the present time. If there has been tension and occasional conflict between maskers and non-maskers (or between regulations requiring masks and those who are determined not to wear them) at your local grocery store or retail outlet, I’m thinking a similar dynamic might rear its ugly head at church.
How it plays out depends in part on what guidelines or requirements local stakes and wards end up issuing. If masks are required, some non-maskers might feel inclined to assert their right to choose otherwise. If masks are optional, maskers might overtly avoid non-maskers. If there is unmasked singing, some maskers might just walk out and go home. The Church-wide guidelines that were issued last week about reopening are very general. The specific guidelines that local units will issue and attempt to follow will have to get down to the details of which meetings are held, what the seating arrangements will be, how the sacrament will be administered, whether there is singing, whether masks are optional or recommended or required, and so forth. These are very tricky decisions for local leaders to make.
The best scenario: Local leaders work hard to make everyone feel welcome and safe, and encourage all to support others to make their own choices in light of their own beliefs and medical or health circumstances. I’m hoping Latter-day Saints rise to the occasion and not give others in their ward a hard time — either giving a masker/non-masker a hard time or judging those who choose to stay away from church for a few more months (until the hoped-for vaccine arrives, perhaps).
The worst scenario: If leaders don’t try to preempt that sort of strife, or even actively stoke it by so strongly endorsing a mask or no-mask position that half the ward feels unwelcome. If there is visible animosity between maskers and non-maskers. If the situation is so muddled or tense that lots of people stay home, not just those who are at risk.
Well, actually the worst scenario would be if a ward becomes a cluster of virus spreading, a few dozen ward members get sick, and two or three people die. That could lead to some very ugly contention and strife. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen.
I have great hope for my own ward and my stake. In the ward, two of the three bishopric members are doctors. I’m pretty sure they appreciate the danger of taking a bold rather than a cautious approach to re-opening. As for the stake, an ER doc who has had recent experience with COVID patients and has had direct communication with colleagues fighting the epidemic in other cities is on the high council. So the stake presidency will get some sound, reliable information to guide their thinking. Not all wards and stakes are so lucky. It’s not clear how much input and guidance Area Authorities or senior leaders are going to send down the line to stake presidents and bishops. There might be a lot of variation in how wards and stakes do their reopening.
Summing up: (1) We have no idea yet what the details of the actual reopening plan at any particular ward or stake are going to be. (2) Lots of potential for strife and bickering among the members who return and attend church. (3) Potential judging of members who choose not to return for a few months. (4) But the opportunity to rise above the tension and anxiety of the moment and support each other, regardless of mask/non-mask or attend/stay-at-home choices. This could be a very tough few months, church-wise. Or it could be our finest hour.
Wheat & Tares 
It could be a huge problem. Lots of never-mask wearers here. And they mock those who do. I’m envious that your leadership has people with science-based training. It’s not that way where I live, even though we have plenty of members who have studied science. They are almost never placed in positions of leadership.
My guess is there will be little strife in general because most active members will go along with whatever we are told to do. That’s the culture.
side note: I’ve been told that our Sandy, Utah ward will meet every week in two sessions. So half the ward meets in session 1, half in session 2. Meanwhile my friend’s Sandy, Utah ward down the road has a different schedule: the entire ward meets every other week. By “entire ward” I mean all those left after they eliminate the old, sick, etc.
My Ward also has several members in the medical profession (the Bishop is DDS) and I’m sure their input will be sought. For issues of singing, I hope I can provide input as well.
One quality of our attendance that will certainly be in short supply will be trustworthiness. No one will have all of their criteria for a “safe” service met. We don’t need to walk in the doors looking for trouble.
Though we have some good leadership in my ward (including a few scientists and medical professionals) there is a vocal minority of folks with fundamentalist leanings, who will likely refuse to wear masks and seize upon the moment as a sifting of the wheat from the tares, wherein the faithful (them) will be eternally rewarded while the careful ones who stay home (me, probably) will fall away into wickedness. For the past several years, they have jumped to this narrative every time the Church gets bad press. I don’t see any reason why they wouldn’t do the same now. One of the upsides of church at home is that I don’t have to deal with people like that anymore, and I can effectively shield my family from their false doctrine. They also happen to be the same people that are averse to social media and technology, so they have been absent from our ward’s attempts at online community (Zoom meetings, Facebook pages, etc.).
Jack Hughes: way to bring “wheat and tares” into your post. The editors will appreciate that.
When someone chooses not to wear a mask because of “freedom,” the freedom being claimed is the freedom to infect others. Thus that person is proclaiming his disregard and disdain for others. My suggestion is that those who claim that “freedom” meet with other like-minded individuals, preferably sitting side-by-side after shaking hands.
In our ward the EQ did something wise. It subdivided the ward geographically. Five or six little districts within our ward boundary.
So far, it seems this will help to decentralize or cycle ward work and resources (like building use). It saves the time and cost of driving across town to fulfill assignments. It seems to encourage us to really account for one another (in our little sub-ward district-thing).
On the other hand, the economic disparity between districts within the ward, city of rich and city of poor—is glaring. Gated communities and public housing. By political standards, it may be a recipe for contention and conflict.
Anybody know if this was a from-the-top-down policy/program?
I live in a small community that is predominately LDS. I can gauge how mask wearing will go over in church by how well it goes over in the community. I will say a conservative estimate that 65% of the LDS members will chafe at the request to wear a mask for meetings. You would see a higher percentage of customers wearing a mask in the liquor store than the grocery store. Not even the elderly are consistently putting on a mask when they are in public. I don’t know if they don’t believe they will get sick (we have a very low positive rate in our county) or if they just don’t care. But I think they just want to “go back to normal” and here, normal is not wearing a mask and is not social distancing.
I’ll wait and see how it all shakes out. I hope for all our sake we are naturally “safer” in our little community, because we sure aren’t being proactively safe.
I have seen people outdoors without a mask, and believe it or not, they may well be complying with CDC guidelines. CDC guidelines for the U.S. do not call for a mask whenever out of the home; rather, they call for a mask when social distancing is difficult.
I hope the vulnerable will protect themselves. I hope everyone will be considerate of others. I can’t predict how things will play out in my ward, but they seem like nice people generally so I am hopeful that things go well. My state has not allowed religious gatherings to resume.
I’m in northern Utah county. In a couple of weeks, our stake will allow one ward to be the pilot ward in making sure things run smoothly and in seeing what bugs (no pun intended) need to be worked out. They’ll do this for a couple of weeks, then start phasing in the rest of the Stake.
Regardless of how I feel about mask or no mask, I’ll do whatever the stake requires and whatever makes the majority of worshipers the most comfortable. Hopefully those two things align.
The church should also be thinking about non-member visitors, and making them feel welcome and safe. Not sure how much that is on people’s minds these days.
This is how cautious Bishops can win over the “never-maskers” Just say, “Of course we would not wear masks if it were just us, but we want to be good missionaries to the Gentiles who come to our services who don’t know the truth about masks because they are blinded by the world. So let’s make them feel comfortable at first by wearing masks, and then and teach them the truth about masks over time.” Trust me, it will work.
Thanks Dave B. Very thought provoking post.
Our stake president and Bishop have been radio silent. Literally have not heard a word from them in several weeks. I hope that’s a sign that they are in deep discussions and not that they are deer in the headlights with all of this.
I do not think it is simply a case of Mormons with fundamentalist or right-wing leanings being “mask resisters,” despite the deranged theories floating around on Facebook. There is a famous (or notorious) contrarian American tendency of, “if you try to tell me what to do, I will do the opposite.”
Despite Mormon tendencies to default to obey Church leaders—who ARE urging us to follow prescribed precautions—there is another, equally strong Mormon tendency to distrust government. This has to do not so much with conservatism, as with extremely long memories and grudges about government hostility toward Mormons, on polygamy and other issues.
Another thing: look how long it took us as a society to accept seat-belts in cars. In the early 1980s, I was viewed as a crank (by other people, and my wife, too!) because I insisted on wearing seat belts and having car seats for toddlers.
Accepting face masks faces the same kind of hurdles. Thus is just ornery hunan nature. One of my favorite books is “The Cry and the Covenant,” a historical novel about the man who found the cure for childbed fever—simple hand-washing by doctors. The medical profession fought him tooth and nail for decades.
We haven’t made as much progress as we would like to think.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Let me reiterate one sentence from my post: “These are very tricky decisions for local leaders to make.” They’re not getting much help from above in terms of detailed recommendations. “Science-based leadership” is not a Mormon concept, I’m afraid. Any specific choices will generate some pushback from some ward members, along with possibly some Monday morning quarterbacking from higher ups. Bishops will face some tough challenges the next few months.
Jack Hughes and joshua h: Wheat and tares, I like it. We should always remember that in the parable God defers the tricky business of separating the wheat from the tares to the Final Judgment. Most church members read the parable and think they are immediately deputized to begin the judgment process.
Travis, the mini-wards or subwards idea is interesting. I’m thinking over 40 and under 40 is another way to parse the ward. I suppose A-J and K-Z works too, although that is so boring. Or maybe this: Attend church during the month of your birthday.
ji says, “I hope the vulnerable will protect themselves.” Yes that seems like it should get more direct expression from the leadership, to counter the standard Mormon determination to attend church come hell or high water.
Phil, I think you’re onto something. “Wear a mask to set a good example for the children” is another clever approach. Or how about this: “When you don’t wear a mask, it’s a victory for Satan.”
I’m hoping our stake will be conservative—erring on the side of caution. I know we have an ER Dr. serving on the Stk High Council and a PA who works for a pulmonologist in the Stk Presidency, so hopefully their recommendations will influence decisions.
I can imagine some high risk people will attend no matter the circumstances.
I was at the grocery store yesterday. At the entrance there was a sign-“masks mandatory.”
But of course it wasn’t enforced. About 1/3 of the shoppers didn’t have masks and some of them didn’t even try to socially distance from others. And most of them were above 50-60 yrs old.
Foolish, foolish people.
Strongly w/ the Maskites; as for the Antimaskites, well …
I’m sure I’m not alone here in that I live outside D.C., miles from NIH and NIST and our stake presidency includes at least one very high ranking NIH official, and NIH, NIST and other federal entities like DHHS probably employ a good half of our stake. We are chock full of scientists in every ward. To try to draw a parallel, I’m loathe to wear my garments and I’m in the minority of the minority. I’ve been trying to get an anti garment movement (at least along women. Men seem to like wearing long underpants and undershirts anyway) going for years and I’ve gotten nowhere. I’m having trouble believing a large population of people who adhere to a guideline involving their underwear with strict observance will chafe much at a guideline to wear a face mask, especially if they put it in the handbook/ add to the TR questions. I sure hope I can disguise myself well enough not to be recognized here. 🙂
We got a survey asking if we would attend a short meeting if social distancing measures are in place. They emphasized that we are free to stay home and sacrament will continue to be authorized but they want to get a count to know how many meetings to schedule.
There was no opportunity for feedback and they weren’t specific about what social distancing measures would take place so I responded asking about singing, masks, sacrament.
I don’t feel strongly one way or another about masks. If asked to wear I wear. But I do think that to avoid division they should just require it so no one can judge who does and doesn’t wear.
My stake in Utah has assigned tye building to one ward per Sunday and the wards can have as many meetings as needed. Our bishop sent a survey first encouraging people to stay home if they have concerns/risk factors and then asking if you will attend (yes, no, maybe) and rank 3 time preferences so you can be assigned a time. We are not ready to attend yet, but I did suggest they consider having 1 of the 3 times “mask required ” so attendees could judge the risk according to their needs. Not sure if it will happen as masks have become such a political issue here.
If a ward will do three meetings on a single Sunday, making one of them all-masks seems reasonable.
At present Utah is doing about 2750 testa a day and one in 8 is coming back positive 343 new cases. This is incredibly high to be going back.
Let me know when RMN is seen at a church meeting?