My husband and I always looked at ward members using a different scale:
A – totally active, trying to do everything right, could easily be any calling you throw their way inc. bishop, stake presidency, RS pres, etc.
B – totally active, good people, would be willing to do most any calling but you probably wouldn’t give them the biggies for whatever reason
C – may be active or less active, but they are there; may or may not accept a calling, depending on the calling and whether they want it
D – less active and willing than C, may not be currently able to accept callings due to disfellowship or excommunication, etc.

This discussion usually comes up when there’s a local leadership shakeup and we try to figure out where the chips are going to fall. We speculate if so-and-so might be the next whatever-big-calling, and then we’ll determine if they are either A or B. If B, probably not the big callings, but maybe the next tier. Personally, I love being B. Sometimes someone we thought was a B gets an A calling, and we are surprised.

I agree that there is a value in the observable. After all, it really is all we have that is objective. (“By their fruits . . .”) We just have to be aware of ALL that is observable and not get blinded by seeing certain things we want to see. There also is “a value” to feelings and impressions that are much less observable and objective.

The balance is what’s difficult, especially when dealing with people who are willing to project who they are not. This thread alone illustrates that quite well. We want to give people the benefit of the doubt and not judge too quickly or harshly, but there really are some “jerks” out there.

The problem is that Mark Hofmann exhibited exactly the behaviors that we assume demonstrate foundations. That’s how he hoodwinked everybody, from his ward members to historians to the First Presidency. John C. Bennett did the same in Nauvoo. History shows us that these markers are unreliable.

Or is history not to be trusted?

high value on external things and less emphasis on internal things that can’t be observed. There is a value on behaviors that demonstrate foundations that can not otherwise be observed. That happens across cultures and groups.

Here’s my take. I’ll defend the Bishop here for a moment, not the method, but the motive. It is a proper question to ask a college student whether he is still active and attending church now that he is away at school. As many of you know, we lose a great many of our young people during this time in their lives. I know that from personal experience.

I just would have done so privately and in a slightly different way. But I will give the Bishop a kudo for concern.

On the other hand if you knew what went on at CU Boulder, you be concerned too!!!!

If the rule is unwritten, it’s not a rule. On my mission, we were taught by our leaders that a goal not written is only a wish. It’s a very similar thing. The white shirt rule is clearly policy, not doctrine. You know, like the blacks holding the priesthood thing, being less valiant in the preexistence, etc.

I am chased away by the members in my own ward, and I am chased away here as well. Just as I do there, I will walk away here with my head up, because I know I have done what I can to love God. I have no ill will to any of you.