Beyond that, because it is a preference test, people tend to exhibit those traits, generally, on an either/or basis. It is as if I am offered a choice between ice cream or cabbage. I will almost always choose ice cream. I am sure there are people who will almost always choose cabbage.

You are very dismissive of the MB personality profile. As one who has used this tool for a long time to help me understand personality and differences, I can definitely assure you that it is helpful and, for most normal people, accurate. What people misunderstand about this tool is that it is somehow predictive. It is not, it is just a test of preference, and for the 70% or 80% of the population which are “average”.

At one point in my career I did statistical modeling. The basis of statistical modeling is that there are only 3 or 4 variables which contribute to most, 80% or 90%, of the variability of the system. We were modeling a very complex manufacturing process. MB analysis basically does this with personality: most of the variability of us, as individuals, can be captured by just four variables, in this case the MB type indicators.

In the early 90’s I presented at the Sunstone Symposium in Washington, DC on this subject. I had many of my Church friends take the MB type indicator as they perceived the Church, and I reported on the outcome. Hands down, the Church came out STJ. There was a little uncertainty about whether it was I or E. For me this was a great comfort because my MB type is the exact opposite, NFP, which explained much of my discomfort level in the Church.

Just because the professionals cannot use the MB type indicator for diagnosis and treatment does not take away its power to explain social relationships. For example my spouse is a strong Introvert and I am a violent Extrovert, all other things the same. We get along fabulously except when the I/E axis is involved, It has helped us a lot to understand these things.

So, personally, I find the MB types, NF, NT, SF, and ST to be strong indicators of religious needs and requirements, substantially more than your dichotomy of two. But even if you take the two types, N and S, these generally map into your Liahonas and your Iron-Rodders.

It’s true people use pharisee as a kind of label, but I think that’s a bit different from a taxonomy. Especially today.

Larry, I really don’t like the active vs inactive distinction although I use it more than I should. For one there’s people who come to church but don’t believe and don’t keep the commandments and people who don’t go to church as much who do keep most of the commandments and believe.

Those who accept or reject callings I’m more willing to go to, although even there I’ll cut some people a break. Say if they have special needs kids or are pregnant and get asked to take on a big calling. Someone we know had major cancer surgery and just a month or two later was asked to be a handcart leader. She accepted it but I think it should never have been offered and she should have refused for her own health.

So maybe it’s not a dichotomy but the categories those who accept callings they could do, those who reject callings they could do, and those who accept callings they should know they can’t do.

D and C 58 regarding having permission from God to act creatively on inspiration, and grudgingly only doing what leaders tell you to being a path to damnation, and D and C 121, are very powerful anti- Pharisee scriptures which hold the key to getting this right and solving a lot of our problems with pharisaical reactionary traditionalist control freaks in
my opinion. We got taught that in Seminary as teenagers – the answers have been there all along and it is so sad how few have really understood or tried to lead in the Church following those liberating and empowering principles.

That is truth is not the only important thing when we communicate. We also have to worry about the effects of what we say. In that regard Pres. Packer was undoubtedly ahead of the curve relative to what both side of the political aisle now say.

As for Lacan, I fear he bought into Freud just a little too much. And of course even Freud noticed that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes saying cut it out just means cutting it out.

Amen

From one perspective this means almost all of us are well served. On the other hand, it also means that under the reality of the constraints of time and common sense, some exceptions are neglected and will never become a consideration of the mainstream curriculum. We will always gather separately as men and women in Relief Society and Priesthood meetings. I have confidence that there will never ever be a exceptional class in the Church designated for hermaphrodites.

I’ve ranted on Fowler a lot – probably too much in the past – so I’ll restrain myself. I do think it’s even worse than the categories I’ve mentioned in that it almost always ends up privileging the higher levels as the correct and enlightened ones. (Which of course always end up rejecting religious truths as actual events)

But I think these things can be useful, as I mentioned, if used cautiously and acknowledging their flaws. I just find I usually encounter them with people using them as a way to subtly indicate their position in them is best.