Is a Sifting Coming?

Anybody hearing rumblings that a “sifting” is coming?

Willhewonder, how do you define “sifting”?

The reason I ask is, there is not much in the scriptures or general conference talks about this subject.

This is one General Conference talk, for example.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1971/10/the-sifting?lang=eng

I have not heard anything specific about sifting, but then again I don’t live in the Corridor and things tend to be different out here. My own perception is that we’re currently moving in the opposite direction and are more tolerant of different points of view. I think there are several well known members, including professors at BYU, who are let be but wouldn’t have been 20 or 30 years ago (think the September Six).

Along this line, I came across this article by Jana Riess a few days ago and intended to start a thread but didn’t get around to it. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/07/14/jana-riess-oh-now-i-get-it/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/07/14/jana-riess-oh-now-i-get-it/ Reiss talks about the Nelson changes and then says the following:

On the whole, Nelson’s various changes in the church have succeeded in helping the institution exist more comfortably in the world. Years ago, sociologist Armand Mauss proposed the thesis that Mormon history has swung back and forth between periods of retrenchment (which he called “the angel”) and assimilation (“the beehive”).

In retrenchment phases, we hunker down in our own subculture and focus on what’s unique about our religion — on what can save us from the darkness of the world. In times of assimilation, we engage with the world and see ourselves at home in it. We are more accommodating in tweaking our culture and even our beliefs to continue to be at home in that world. Sometimes these nods to assimilation can be small changes, like two-hour church or relaxing missionaries’ dress codes. Sometimes they are dramatic and affect what we had seen as core doctrines, like when we abandoned the practice of polygamy.

We’re in an assimilation phase, a “we’re not weird” phase. Shedding the term “Mormon” helps us to assimilate ever more comfortably because the word, with its accompanying history, is one of the most distinctive things about us.

I don’t disagree, I have witnessed some of the same things regarding assimilation and retrenchment. It’s hard to be purging members and appear more “normal” to the world. The leadership walks a fine line between appealing to the younger generations (who we are bleeding just like other churches/religions) and keeping the Old Guard from rebelling. My guess would be that if/when Oaks takes the helm (and almost certainly when Bednar does) there will be a retrenchment.

The word sifting brings to my mind the parable of the wheat and the tares.

When the wheat and tares parable comes up I like to look at it as the wheat and tares being my individual traits, not individuals.

Which of my traits are wheat? Which are tares? Sometimes it’s hard or even impossible to tell the difference, so they’ll just have to grow together in this imperfect plane of existence until the Lord’s harvest. Then he can take the best parts of me and we can leave the rest behind.

I prefer that interpretation to the one that has us trying to determine which people are wheat and which people are tares. In one interpretation we’re being judges of ourselves and in the other interpretation we’re being judgmental of others.

The same could be said of sifting. I’d rather sift out aspects of myself that I feel don’t represent what I want to be than to attempt to sift out other people in an effort to feel more belonging among the people that are left over after I’ve done the sifting.

There’s definitely an element that thinks BYU has become too liberal, akin to its secular counterparts. They teach evolution there for Pete’s sake! I know that’s a bit of hyperbole, but there are people who didn’t know that even though it’s been happening for decades, but more so there are people concerned about professors like the example you used. Even though this professor can hold that opinion and still have a temple recommend because that question is not asked, the TR requirement in my opinion will hurt the institution in the long wrong because it means they are not necessarily hiring the best qualified candidate. It was not all that long ago that BYU hired non-member professors on a limited basis as long as they agreed to honor code. (I happen to agree that gender is not eternal BTW – I don’t believe the “intelligences” had gender and I think gender has much more to do with biology than spirituality.)

I believe what you’re hearing is the typical cycle, mostly from the Old Guard. That’s why the church needs us to StayLDS. It goes back to one of my favorite quotes by an apostle who was a little ahead of his time.

The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole.

(Joseph Wirthlin, the whole talk is here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2008/05/concern-for-the-one?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2008/05/concern-for-the-one?lang=eng

A point to consider on whether or not leadership would intentionally purge membership.

Suppose there’s a member that has openly criticized a leader of the church but otherwise has been helpful and contributes wherever they’re called to serve.

How likely would a ward with 300 people attending sacrament meeting be to purge this member? How likely would a branch with 30 people attending sacrament meeting be to purge this member?

I’d hazard a guess that leadership is very concerned with shrinking membership due to attrition. It doesn’t make much sense to me to intentionally begin a purge if that’s the concern. They could unintentionally purge members in that environment but I doubt they have a purposeful goal to shrink membership in any way.

Yes, along the lines of what you’re describing. They may know that people are leaving because of policies and teachings surrounding LGBTQIA issues but that’s less important to them than teaching things that they believe to be true. They take the approach where they believe the problem is that members don’t understand, so they double down and end up driving people further away. They don’t want to lose any members at all, in fact they believe what they’re doing will retain members, but their efforts end up driving people further away.

That compared to an intentional purge where the goal would be to get rid of people with certain beliefs. Like them deciding to give talks on LGBTQIA during general conference with the goal of making members on the fence finally cut bait. I can’t imagine that’s ever the goal.

I think it is a both/and – just like most things.

For example, I am 100% confident they care and are concerned about people leaving – AND they care and are concerned about what they view as truth.

I also believe there is not unanimity at the top concerning some issues – just as been the case always in our religious history. Thus, another both/and.