Amazingly, after 11 years of living in Utah this still pisses me off
I know, I’m in Utah. I live in the backyard of a church. I knew what I was getting into when I moved here. Blah blah blah.
Still, could somebody explain to me exactly how being a temple worthy Mormon makes you better qualified to develop web sites for the LDS church than a non-temple worthy Mormon, or even a non-Mormon period? Isn’t this what some folks would refer to as discrimination? Isn’t this–oh, I don’t know–a violation of a federal crime or two?
Somebody? Anybody?
A good friend of mine, a photographer, very successful in a smaller market, wanted to break into a nearby, larger urban market. His main problem?
He wasn’t gay.
The fact is that a lot of industries, markets, and regions have social networks that act either as a conduit or obstacle to success. You want to sell into the power industry? Be a Navy man. Want to make it in the Big Apple? It helps to be Jewish.
I have little doubt that being a church member is a definite asset when selling goods and services to the church–why shouldn’t they support people who support them, especially with tithing dollars? There is also inevitably a kind of short hand between church members.
You can overcome these obstacles–joining the church comes to mind
As for violations of federal law? Not likely. The LDS church doesn’t accept federal funding. Be glad they don’t because if your not black, Mexican or a woman, you wouldn’t even be considered if a minority wanted to bid on the job.
Comment by Mick Stockinger — December 7, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
All true… As for why they should support those who support them, being a Utahn I can say with a fair degree of certainty that we’re all supporting LDS church interests directly or indirectly in one way or another, even those of us who are not Mormon and/or do not pay a tithing.
Also, preferential treatment isn’t quite the same as a “don’t bother applying if…” statement. I can understand a preferred candidate possessing credential X or affiliation Y — almost every job description I’ve read lists such things — but in-your-face exclusion based on religion (or level of religion… Note that even non-temple worthy Mormons who pay a tithing are excluded), sexual preference, color, whatever, will never sit well with me.
For what it’s worth, I don’t consider this to be an LDS church issue. It’s a people issue, particularly those who are trying to fill the job. I have no beef with the church itself (not that I have any plans on converting, of course, especially just for job opportunities. It’s easier for me to simply leave Utah).
Comment by erat — December 7, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=483&page=327
In a nutshell: The courts found that religious organizations are exempt from charges of religious discrimination, whether regarding an employee that carries out religious duties or not.
Here comes an extreme example, but bear with me…
If I’m not Catholic can I become a Catholic priest? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. The main reason would be that there are a set of requirements that I’ve had to fulfill in order to join the Catholic priesthood and become a priest. In fact, without the proper training in what the Catholic church would consider necessary for me to become worthy to serve I wouldn’t want to attempt to fulfill such a position.
Now, instead of looking at working at a technology job for the LDS church as just another technology job, look at it from the church’s point of view. The work they are performing, even though it involves technology, is work on things the church considers sacred.
Consider two examples: Family history and membership/financial records.
Family history (or genealogy) is really catching on in the world. People are growing more and more interested in knowing where they come from and who their ancestors were. Those of the LDS faith believe we should do this work (and that this work is growing) because it is our duty to perform specific saving ordinances for those who have gone before us (such as baptism) in their stead. We can only do so if we know who they are. Work on such a project requires a certain understanding of how things work and why things are done the way they are done. Because it is considered a sacred work, there is also a certain level of worthiness that someone should be living up to in order to be such an integral part of it.
The same would go for the other example of membership and financial records. Someone involved in dealing with confidential information such as church members’ private records or the church’s records are also held to a specific standard of worthiness.
Just as any organization, those working on web sites may move around in the organization or may even have access to information that the other groups have. So they must be prepared for such an occasion by requiring the same standards of everyone that works there.
That standard happens to coincide quite well with the standards required to hold a temple recommend.
So, on the one hand, you can see that the courts don’t want to get involved with allegations of religious discrimination when religious organizations are involved. If they did, surely it would open up a very strange pandora’s box of all sorts of conflicting requirements for religious organizations.
On the other hand, while I’m obviously not an official spokesperson for any church, I hope I’ve been able to give a bit of what a church’s perspective might be regarding the work done within their organization (without getting “preachy” or anything
).
Comment by cygnl7 — December 9, 2006 @ 8:47 pm
Although I understand that — as a whole — LDS web sites contain information that can be deemed sacred, and although I understand that the presentation and distribution of that information can also be sacred, cranking up Dreamweaver and entering HTML/CSS/whatever feels like something a non-temple-recommend bearing Mormon could do just as well. I confess to not knowing everything that happens within church offices so perhaps there’s more to it than that. I don’t know.
In my mind, the whole “non-Catholics can’t be Catholic priests” thing and “Mormons w/o temple recommends are not worthy of coding HTML for the LDS church” are very different issues. One is overtly religious, the other is peripherally religious. It’s like saying only confirmed, baptised Catholics are worthy of working at Salvation Army stations. That may be the case, but if so I’ll be very surprised.
I guess I’ll just never understand, huh?
Comment by erat — December 9, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
Yes, I know the example was a bit extreme, but it began to illustrate my point.
Maybe a better analogy would be security clearances. You have to pass certain requirements in order to gain any specific security clearance with the government. Once you have that clearance, you have access to a lot of data that others don’t.
Since someone writing HTML from within the church organization may also have access to private information, they have to have some sort of clearance. The threshold of holding a temple recommend is that clearance. (It’s kind of a lame analogy, but maybe closer to where I was trying to go.)
But I guess that could be said of any organization, like an administrative assistant working at a doctor’s office. They have access to all sorts of personal information. In that case, though, there are laws to protect the information and prosecute if something gets out. But a religious organization doesn’t have HIPAA…
I don’t even know if it comes down to the information itself. It’s probably more of a mutual trust issue. The delineation that is tricky is when it is someone who serves a specifically religious position in the church versus someone in a paid position that deals with religious subjects.
It’s a tricky subject, fo’ shizzle.
Comment by cygnl7 — December 9, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
I guess the only situation I can see requiring a temple recommend is a situation that involves religious secrets, like knowledge of secret temple ceremonies (sealings being an example. I gather only folks who can enter temples know what actually happens during these ceremonies).
Knowing what I know about Freemasons — which I admit is very little — I would think these kinds of secrets are undocumented. Putting them in any kind of web publication, even an internal one, seems unlikely. Freemasons pass along traditions, histories, ceremonies, etc. “mouth to ear” to minimize the risk of losing control over them. I have to guess the LDS church has a similar policy, otherwise their secrets would be all over Wikipedia by now.
All I’m doing is guessing, of course.
Comment by erat — December 10, 2006 @ 10:01 am
Solidarity, Reg. (I don’t have any concise relevant points to offer - but isn’t Monty Python the next best thing?)
I don’t think I’ll ever understand this either, but what the hell do I know?
Comment by Jenny — December 11, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
There’s never a bad time for Monty Python.
Comment by erat — December 11, 2006 @ 8:22 pm