
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.
The book opens with a chapter on the history of temple garments. I learned a bunch here, like the fact that garments were originally “progressive and innovative underwear in the nineteenth century” and only later, like post-World War II, became an instrument of modesty enforcement. If I have it right, there weren’t even separate designs for women and men until the 1950s, and the Church hadn’t even fully taken over production of them until a decade or two before. I was also surprised to learn that a Church committee in the 1930s made a recommendation that garments be made sleeveless, which was rejected at the time, only to finally be implemented in just the last few years.


















