This past Sunday I was struck by a question in Sunday School. After the teacher had explained that the early Church had been forced to move from place to place until it reached Utah, a man who was baptized a few years ago asked, “Why were church members forced to leave so many places? I mean, the members here are so nice!”

The subsequent discussion was wonderful, as well-informed members pointed out the need for gathering, how gathering can feel like a threat to outsiders, how members often didn’t act as they should — they weren’t always nice.

One example given was the recent situation with orthodox Jewish groups north of New York City in Rockland county. There, according to the speaker, because group members don’t travel on Sunday, they need to gather to central locations. They buy a house, convert it into a synagogue, and then many people move into the neighborhood, sometimes upsetting neighbors because their practices are different, or because the neighbors now feel uncomfortable in their own homes. As I understand it, the groups then ask local governments for specific accommodations to address their needs, which neighbors don’t always agree with — leading to conflict. [The speaker was not suggesting that the Jews or their neighbors were doing anything wrong, just that the actions required by their different belief structures led to the conflict.]

Sound familiar?

Later that day I was working on the “Come Follow Me” lesson for the week starting May 12th, which includes a section titled “The Savior welcomes all who want to worship in His Church.” Unfortunately, the lesson doesn’t go into what it means to be welcoming.

I think the vast majority of Church members will claim that we are very welcoming. We say as much on our buildings: “Visitors Welcome.” But what does that mean in practice? Most of the time our ‘welcoming’ comes with lots of unwritten and unspoken rules or cultural norms we expect visitors to follow. If they don’t follow those rules, without even realizing it we may exclude them — if they smell like cigarettes or alcohol, we may shy away. If they aren’t dressed ‘appropriately’ for church, fewer members will talk with them. If it’s clear that the visitor is new or a non-member, we may give them a pass, at least at first. But continued violations of social norms often mean that those violating the norms are excluded or ignored. Of course, this isn’t because we are LDS—all social groups do this.

One of the ways this has shown up in our ward recently is with clapping after musical performances. Some members recently baptized members frequently clap after musical performances, while long-time members don’t clap, following LDS tradition that we don’t clap in Sacrament Meeting. The result sounds half-hearted, and I don’t think it’s clear how to interpret it. It’s especially difficult when the musical performance is by a recently baptized member, or someone not familiar with LDS tradition—does the half-hearted clapping come across as unwelcoming?

I think much of the problem is simply because the new members are coming from groups and places where clapping is the norm, while more experienced members know what the LDS tradition is.

Of course there are ways around the problems. The Bishop could make an announcement from the pulpit suggesting that it isn’t appropriate to clap in church. Or that could be discussed with individual members one-on-one. The problem could simply be ignored, and everyone would eventually accept the norm of not clapping, or a new norm of clapping would develop. If many members expressed appreciation to those who performed after the meeting, then maybe the lack of clapping would have less of an effect.

I’m NOT suggesting that any one way of approaching this problem is correct. Instead, I want to present it as an example of how minor things, like clapping, can lead to conflict, hurt feelings, and people not feeling welcome in our buildings.

And, it’s not just our buildings. It’s our country.

The struggle to be welcoming is complicated by the encroaching ideas and cultural norms of where we live. Here in the U.S., an uncomfortably large portion of the country is hell-bent on excluding immigrants, and the government they elected has taken those desires and turned them into active persecution and hate.

And a rather large portion of Church members defends these actions, claiming that immigrants ‘just need to follow the law’.  What laws are we talking about here? Are they the complicated regulations and procedures and artificial quotas that delay those who want to come for years and decades? Are they the laws that are more like the norms against clapping than they are like any gospel principles?

When are our laws designed to control and support our lives, and when are they purposely meant to make life more difficult? When are they meant to discourage, to be less welcoming?

Let me end by adding a few questions:

Is it possible to still be welcoming when laws are meant to discourage people?

Can you agree with government policies about excluding immigrants and still be ‘welcoming’?

Will the underlying attitudes behind the politics seep into how we act locally?

Can you follow the gospel and not be welcoming?

I don’t know what the answers are to all of this. Since I am troubled by the fact that so many members of the Church are supporting the government’s actions against immigrants, I would like us to explore this more. Given that we, the LDS people were once not welcomed by much of the country we called home, can we really fail to be welcoming to those from other countries?

And, perhaps as important as the political issues, are the details of how our wards and branches function really welcoming? Do we insist that those we welcome act like we do?