on being a member
What's got me blogging is this article in the New York Times about Kate Kelly and John P. Dehlin who are "members" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have been in the press recently due to their highly-visible criticisms of the church. These apostates' issues are over topics such as women holding the priesthood and gay marriage (among other things), but that's not what I want to talk about.
I want to talk about what it means to be a member.
I am a member of many groups. I am a member of the United States of America (i.e. a citizen of my country of origin) and a member of the United States Air Force. I am a member of the Boy Scouts of America and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am a member of the International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium (ISC)²®,These are only a few of the groups I belong to.
With few exceptions, each of these organizations have a few core things in common:
The links I posted above direct you to places that discuss what you must do or be to become members of these organizations. When you meet the requirements, you can join. After joining, your membership is not permanent--it can be revoked or relinquished. Occasionally the arrangement and prerequisites change, but in general they tend to remain the same over time. This fact is an important part of the organization's identity. The rules about what it means to be a member is a big part of what defines the organization. Changes come from within, but too rapid or severe of change could cause the organization to lose its identity entirely. Sometimes organizations become deliberately more exclusive because while it limits numbers it improves other things such as loyalty and status.
Being American means I was born in America or followed the naturalization process. Being a CISSP means I passed a (very difficult) exam verifying my knowledge of information technology security standards and participate in annual continuing education. Being an Airman means I met lots of rules about education, criminal history, security clearance worthiness, and physical fitness; and continue to improve and meet standards of conduct. Being a Mormon means I was baptized and continue to meet certain standards of worthiness. But make no mistake, I could be kicked out or quit every single one of these organizations.
The ability of an organization to revoke membership is an important part of vital organizations. Bad members can be detrimental, cancerous, and sometimes fatal to an organization. We have lots of names for these kinds of people: traitors, apostates, rogues, moles, spies, turncoats, betrayer, deserter, rebel, and heretic. Being in the military is a little different and you can't generally just quit, but for the most part if a member wants to leave, they can. Things get messy, however, when the member wants to start a mutiny. They don't like the identity of the organization and try to usurp power from within. In the military this is called sedition and is punishable by death. The government of the United States of America is characteristically tolerant of dissent and generally resistance and dissent can be carried out peacefully under the protection of the constitution, but some crimes are too great and can result in criminal penalties.
Non-governmental entities such as churches, the Boy Scouts, and technological societies have the same maximum penalty: excommunication.
Which brings me back to the New York Times weighing in on Kate Kelly and John Dehlin. These two are rebels. The Times thinks they're pointing out hypocrisy when they see the church taking action against these rogue members: "The move is a sudden change of course for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had been working to project an image of greater diversity and openness."
I wonder how the Times would react to members on their staff staging public protests against management, starting websites and petitions against their leaders, ignoring repeated pleas for arbitration, and seeking publicity for every action. My guess is that they'd fire them.
I don't think this is a sudden change of course at all. The church has given Brother Dehlin and Sister Kelly every opportunity to rejoin the fold. Their official and uncharacteristically public plea to Sister Kelly was OVER A YEAR AGO!
Nothing intolerant going on here--just a healthy organization undergoing a necessary purge of members who are cancerous and who will not respond to internal attempts to correct their behavior that is contrary to the organization. They can continue their crusade from outside the organization where they cannot continue the charade of being a member in good standing. Their actions have shown that they are not for quite some time.
"And...whosoever did belong to the church that did not repent of their wickedness and humble themselves before God—I mean those who were lifted up in the pride of their hearts—the same were rejected, and their names were blotted out, that their names were not numbered among those of the righteous."
Alma 6:2-3
I want to talk about what it means to be a member.
I am a member of many groups. I am a member of the United States of America (i.e. a citizen of my country of origin) and a member of the United States Air Force. I am a member of the Boy Scouts of America and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am a member of the International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium (ISC)²®,These are only a few of the groups I belong to.
With few exceptions, each of these organizations have a few core things in common:
- In order to be considered a member there are prerequisites
- Generally these organizations desire more members
- Members must show they are willing to conform to certain guidelines after joining
- There is an implicit and often explicit arrangement between members and organizations that if violated by members will put their membership in jeopardy
- Each organization has some degree of power over members to exact discipline against them if they violate the arrangement
- The membership arrangement is mutually beneficial, members receive: camaraderie, support, community, protection, status, benefits, advancement, and more; and the organization receives: loyalty, physical presence, votes, dues, funds, knowledge, status, power, and more
The links I posted above direct you to places that discuss what you must do or be to become members of these organizations. When you meet the requirements, you can join. After joining, your membership is not permanent--it can be revoked or relinquished. Occasionally the arrangement and prerequisites change, but in general they tend to remain the same over time. This fact is an important part of the organization's identity. The rules about what it means to be a member is a big part of what defines the organization. Changes come from within, but too rapid or severe of change could cause the organization to lose its identity entirely. Sometimes organizations become deliberately more exclusive because while it limits numbers it improves other things such as loyalty and status.
Being American means I was born in America or followed the naturalization process. Being a CISSP means I passed a (very difficult) exam verifying my knowledge of information technology security standards and participate in annual continuing education. Being an Airman means I met lots of rules about education, criminal history, security clearance worthiness, and physical fitness; and continue to improve and meet standards of conduct. Being a Mormon means I was baptized and continue to meet certain standards of worthiness. But make no mistake, I could be kicked out or quit every single one of these organizations.
The ability of an organization to revoke membership is an important part of vital organizations. Bad members can be detrimental, cancerous, and sometimes fatal to an organization. We have lots of names for these kinds of people: traitors, apostates, rogues, moles, spies, turncoats, betrayer, deserter, rebel, and heretic. Being in the military is a little different and you can't generally just quit, but for the most part if a member wants to leave, they can. Things get messy, however, when the member wants to start a mutiny. They don't like the identity of the organization and try to usurp power from within. In the military this is called sedition and is punishable by death. The government of the United States of America is characteristically tolerant of dissent and generally resistance and dissent can be carried out peacefully under the protection of the constitution, but some crimes are too great and can result in criminal penalties.
Non-governmental entities such as churches, the Boy Scouts, and technological societies have the same maximum penalty: excommunication.
Which brings me back to the New York Times weighing in on Kate Kelly and John Dehlin. These two are rebels. The Times thinks they're pointing out hypocrisy when they see the church taking action against these rogue members: "The move is a sudden change of course for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had been working to project an image of greater diversity and openness."
I wonder how the Times would react to members on their staff staging public protests against management, starting websites and petitions against their leaders, ignoring repeated pleas for arbitration, and seeking publicity for every action. My guess is that they'd fire them.
I don't think this is a sudden change of course at all. The church has given Brother Dehlin and Sister Kelly every opportunity to rejoin the fold. Their official and uncharacteristically public plea to Sister Kelly was OVER A YEAR AGO!
Nothing intolerant going on here--just a healthy organization undergoing a necessary purge of members who are cancerous and who will not respond to internal attempts to correct their behavior that is contrary to the organization. They can continue their crusade from outside the organization where they cannot continue the charade of being a member in good standing. Their actions have shown that they are not for quite some time.
That's what healthy organizations do. They accept those who are willing to belong and reject those who do not. And the greatest thing about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that there are absolutely no limits on numbers of members. All men everywhere are invited to join.
"Whosoever did not belong to the church who repented of their sins [and] were baptized unto repentance...were received into the church.
"And...whosoever did belong to the church that did not repent of their wickedness and humble themselves before God—I mean those who were lifted up in the pride of their hearts—the same were rejected, and their names were blotted out, that their names were not numbered among those of the righteous."
Alma 6:2-3
posted by Ben at 05:41
4 Comments:
Well said Ben. I love it when people are much more eloquent than I am but exactly match my feelings.
My wife, Alicia said this on Facebook and I wanted to post it here as well:
"The church does not discourage questions or input from its members. The difference in the case of these two individuals is twofold. First of all, they are dissenting against established doctrine. Initially they had questions but instead of seeking answers, they want to change the answers. That in and of itself would not really be problematic except that they have organized groups to pressure the church to change doctrine. They have essentially placed themselves outside the belief system of the church. And then from an assumed position of authority, that of an approved member in good standing, they seek to influence others to do and believe the same. Anyone is of course free to try to influence members of the church, but not from a position of false authority. If the church excommunicates them, they are taking away any validity gained by alleging membership."
Very well done. You make a terrific case that should be easily understood by anyone with an open and inquiring mind. Unfortunately, extremism tends to close minds to even readily apparent realities. It is nice to hear a calm and logical argument on a very passionate issue. Thank you.
I also wanted to add this Op Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune entitled "Changing the church: How Ordain Women gets it wrong".
Here's a short excerpt:
"'Sustain' need not mean 'always agree with,' but to my mind, surely it means not creating a publicity-seeking organization in direct opposition to the church’s position, inviting members to openly oppose both the church’s policies and its reasonable requests."
Post a Comment
<< Home