Reform Judaism might be a helpful model, both in its broad-based approach to engaging the question of just who is (or qualifies as) a Jew, and also in terms of its open and tolerant engagement with “gentile” populations. Reform conceptions of Jewishness are fluid enough to encompass all of the more orthodox forms, and to embrace those whose genetic or historic connection to Judaism is tenuous or non-existent.

Of course, the question who is a Jew is still contested within and without the various movements of Judaism to this moment, but one way to cut the Gordian knot (is it a tribe? is it a religion? both?) is to refer to a concept of peoplehood rather than a genetic or (prescriptive) orthodoxy. To be a Jew on this model is to be in a certain relationship with the Jewish people.

If one views Jewishness as a series of concentric circles with Reform Jews in the outermost and the most orthodox groups occupying the centermost ring, one would, in moving inward, pass from circles of greater to lesser inclusiveness. At the center, one would encounter the belief that although certain constituents of the outer rings might be Jewish by birth, those more tenuously associated–even those living as Jews trans-generationally–have no part in the Jewish people.

I don’t think this is uncommon when a group asserts a claim to orthodoxy or to central authority. And any movement toward power-sharing is unlikely to come from the “center” outward. In other words. more inclusive groups may be generous in including more exclusive groups in their constructed peoplehoods; exclusive groups correctly feel that by extending membership privileges more broadly they dilute their criteria for peoplehood and their very claim to exclusivity (and perhaps its corollary of authority).

In a Mormon context, it is easy to find correspondence between calls for broader inclusiveness and a continual scriptural injunction to love one another and to work for the establishment of Zion. What is not easy is for a socially privileged group–in the event, a highly centralized religious authority–to dilute its own power (skeptically conceived) or to dilute its message (more charitably understood).

I agree with Ms. Shipps that we should be generous in acquiescing even to socially subordinated groups’ self-identifying as Mormons. The fear, I suppose, is that outsiders might conflate members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with other Restoration Movement churches and groups; an eventuality that might at best be uncomfortable at times, and (at a charitably conceived) worst might complicate efforts at proselytization.

Of course, as Ms. Shipps points out, such distinctions may be painted with too fine a brush for the general public, anyway. And in strenuous efforts to bar certain historically related groups from the ‘Mormon’ designation, we are acting as do many who would stand in the way of Mormons who clamor for broader acceptance of their claim to the ‘Christian’ label.

Once in Nauvoo I stopped in at a local bookshop to purchase some writings of Joseph Smith III. The clerk was welcoming and happy to oblige my requests for information as to how the other groups in what I might have called the Mormon Movement, but which she more properly referred to as the Restoration Movement, got along in the town, and how they viewed the construction of a new LDS temple. The views varied, as represented by the clerk, but what struck me was that many of the groups seemed to self-identify with the broader Mormon movement and with other Mormon-oriented groups in ways that seemed to put (popular) LDS religious outreach to shame.

In terms of outreach, if we see ourselves as occupying an inclusive position in a broad, outer ring of Mormon peoplehood, a ring with permeable margins, we will unilaterally include within our conception of Mormonness those in inner circles who would certainly exclude us or some of our associates. But just as orthodox Judaism’s rejection of Reform conversions has little effect on an individual Reform convert’s entry into that (Reform) circle of Jewish peoplehood, however, and just as certain Evangelical efforts to exclude Mormons (or Jehovah’s Witnesses or…) from Christianity is powerless to affect an individual Mormon’s self-conception as a member of the body of Christ, so too official exclusion at any level is essentially powerless to reject the membership of an individual in the community of a more inclusive circle…PROVIDED there exists a welcoming community with which the individual can form a meaningful connection.

In other words, self-identity alone isn’t enough; there cannot be Mormons without Mormondom. But if there is an inclusive community that values and generates connections to other facets of the Mormon experience and to officially or self-exiled members, the broader peoplehood that results won’t be measurably affected by dicta emanating from more inward and exclusive circles.

I think efforts like this blog post can only help. And I, for one, am glad to self-associate with a broader understanding of what it means to be Mormon as opposed to (or alongside) the clerical distinction of being an active member in good standing
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the Community of Christ or whatever group or movement.

Porter (#19): I’m sympathetic to your comments. I realized a short while back that the things that get under my skin about Wasatch Front Mormon culture are the same things that get under my skin in society in general – things that happen to be prevalent in the inner-mountain west where I grew up. Likewise, the things I like about Mormons in the diaspora are often cultural elements that flourish outside of the inner-mountain west. There are certain things that do (and when they don’t, should) remain the same with Mormons no matter where they are, but we certainly have to acknowledge that we’re human and deeply influenced by local culture. This recognition makes it easier for me to love and fellowship with the saints no matter where we are. Likewise, and I think more importantly, it allows me to naturally maintain various distinctions with my neighbors, without focusing or dwelling on them, without being self-conscious about it. Consequently, I feel less alienated and no desire to BE alienated. Which I think is a much healthier way to be.

By the way, if anyone’s still reading this, Ardis just posted some stories of Brigham Young that I think illustrate well the non-alienat(ed)/(ing) peoplehood I’m urging:
http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2009/08/19/random-reasons-why-i-like-brigham-young-two/

Owen (#11) – couldn’t disagree with you more. Be thankful I threw you the bone of a few bolded sentences and a slogan.

Christopher (#12) – despite your provocative imperative, I’m afraid I can’t quite place you well enough with what you’ve given me to follow through. But a few points: reading your charitably (not interpreting it as condescending or patronizing) I can sign on to your “worthy” goal. It’s interesting that proclaiming yourself a Jack Mormon and still reading and commenting on the post you seem to be an illustration of what Bushman’s talking about above. After reviewing your loyalties, I hope we’ll still have you among us.

Warno (#14) – I hope I did my hometeaching and joined you at building cleanup the month you were looking! And if not, I hope my post influences you enough to keep me as part of your tribe.

Of course, James, if you want Zion you need to come back to Alexandria!