One of my sisters who has taught freshperson writing classes for years says that over that time, she’s come to write her syllabus more strictly and then soften it as the need arises rather than trying to go the other way. She says it’s clearly just easier for the students if any shifts are toward more leniency rather than more severity, even if her policies start out more lenient in the latter situation. Along similar lines, I was thinking about how maybe Church policy changes might be easier in one direction than another. In other words, they’re more resistant to change, or stickier, when moving in one direction than another. Or more generally, some particular policies might be stickier than others, regardless of the direction of movement, or maybe policies in a particular area (e.g., Word of Wisdom) might be more or less sticky. (Note that I’m borrowing the language of policy stickiness from the idea of wage and price stickiness in economics, where either can stay at a nominal level more than you’d expect even as its real value changes. The reasons for wage and price stickiness seem pretty different from the reasons for Church policy stickiness, so I don’t think it’s a good analogy, but I like the term.)
We just saw an example of this kind of stickiness and non-stickiness (slipperiness?) this last Sunday, when the Church’s Sunday meetings moved back to having three periods, but rather than going back to the old three-hour block that we had from 1980 to 2018, now shortens them to fit into the two-hour block we’ve had since 2019. I think this was an interesting test case because one aspect of the Nelson-era policy—the number of meetings—was changed, while another—the meeting block length—was retained. I find the stickiness of the meeting block length particularly intriguing, because I wonder if President Oaks would have preferred to go back to a three-meeting/three-hour block like we had before, but decided that shortening the block was easier than lengthening it, that is, the meeting block length was stickier in one direction than the other.
You can anticipate my question, then: Which policy changes that past Church presidents have implemented or future Church presidents might implement might be sticky? And which might be slippery? I’m especially interested in this question because the Church might have a mix of gentler and harsher presidents in the next few decades. I’m hoping that maybe some of the gentler ones might implement some kinder policies that later presidents, regardless of how harsh they might want to be, would find it difficult to undo.
Word of Wisdom: A substantial fraction of Mormons are drinking coffee, it seems like far more than when I was young. What if a future Church president said he’d had a revelation, and coffee was now okay by the Word of Wisdom? I suspect, with some momentum already in that direction, that such a change would be pretty sticky and hard for a later president to undo without alienating a large fraction of Church members.
Tithing: I’ve written multiple times about how I think it’s an embarrassment that the Church has amassed such vast wealth with no apparent plan for using its money to do good or for backing off at all on requiring Church members to continue to tithe at what for many members is a ruinous rate. What if a future Church president decided that we could still have the blessings of tithing without requiring ten percent of members’ income? What if he kept the ten percent rule, but said explicitly that families, like businesses, have revenue and costs, and they should only tithe on the difference between these? Or what if he followed the often-discussed 1907 Joseph F. Smith statement that
we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God
and just said the Church had reached this point and it would no longer require tithing? Maybe they could still allow people to give donations if they wanted, but tithing would no longer be required for a temple recommend, and there would no longer be tithing settlement. Like with my sister finding it easier to loosen rules than tighten them, I’d guess that later Church presidents would find it very difficult to tighten back up, and say no, actually, God still needs ten percent of your wages.
Scriptures: What if a future Church president took President Oaks’s openness to different Bible translations and said we’re going to have modern versions of all our scriptures? I feel like if we had a 21st-century Book of Mormon that dropped all the “it came to pass” phrases, among lots of other changes, it would be a very difficult sell for a future more fundamentalist Church president to say that we’re going back to the KJV and the original Book of Mormon. Members of today already often find the KJV a verbal thicket. What might people say after a few decades of reading something much clearer, if prodded to go back?
Sabbath Day observance: This is just my anecdotal experience, but I feel like Mormons in my circle are far more lax about Sunday activities than we were back in the 1980s and 1990s. For example, watching sports on Sunday was definitely seen as bad when I was young, even if some people did it. But now, I feel like everyone at Church expect the most extreme more-pious-than-thou openly talks about watching the Super Bowl at least. This is in spite of the Church’s push back in 2015 for stricter Sabbath observance. I wonder if this is another situation where it’s easier to loosen rules than to tighten them.
Priesthood/temple ban: Even with the rise of Trump and the increase in unapologetic racism in the US, I feel like it would have to go quite a bit further before reinstituting the priesthood/temple ban would be at all imaginable for even the most racist of Church presidents. For just one reason, the Church’s growth in Africa, one place where it actually does seem to be growing, would come to an abrupt halt.
Ordaining women: I know it’s a long shot, but a guy can hope! If this happened, I think in a pretty short time, it would be unimaginable for even the most misogynistic Church president to roll it back.
I guess my examples all fit the same template: I suspect relaxing rules, expanding access, reducing fundamentalism, are easier than tightening rules, restricting access, and increasing fundamentalism. But reactionary shifts happen too. The Mormon Reformation happened. Correlation happened, and is happening. As a heretical Mormon, I’m sure I underestimate the possibility of a Church president saying “we’re going back to basics” and embracing sexism, racism, scriptural literalism, and anti-intellectualism like past fundamentalists have.
There are lots of other policy changes that I think might end up being slipperier. For example, Russell M. Nelson’s distaste for the term “Mormon” that he foisted on the whole Church will probably be deemphasized and finally ignored, and by the 2030s, young Mormons will happily say “It was always okay to call us Mormons. If you ever heard someone say it was a slur, that sounds like a you problem.”
I’d love to hear what possible policy changes the Church might make that you think could be more or less sticky.